The Joseph Smith Translation

[Storm Rider]

@Robert: So you talk about modern (in Joseph's day) revisions of the scriptures to justify any similarity to what Joseph Smith added? That isn't the meaning of the OP's question as I took it. Ancient texts do not jive with Joseph Smith's editing. You might find "a scrap" that happens to be similar. But I used that phrase to make the point that searching the oldest texts (which are, save the DSS, centuries past the times they are talking about) will not produce any correlation between the "inspired version's" changes and the original texts....

Given that we do not have any of the original texts and those that we do have have proven to have been changed considerably, how can you say there is no correclation? That is an opinion without any basis in reality.

[mfbukowski]

When one enrolls in an university to study religion as a major, one just may come out an atheist.

I did, but I got better.

[Xander]

We appreciate your opinion on the matter. We just disagree.

It isn't an opinion alone. It is a fact. I'm left beside myself here. Everyone in this thread has tried to neutralize this problem in various ways. They either insist Smith was right about this and scholars are all wrong, or they insist he never used that verse for this purpose at all and tried to spin the sermon in ways no longer recognizable.

Either way the responses are stunning, as it illustrates the futility of trying to reason with minds than have already been made up. No amount of evidence seems to suffice. I'm confident that I could show this sermon to 100 people and none of them would support your arguments, because they'd have no reason to even entertain them. The only reason to develop these arguments seems to be apologetic, for the sole purpose of giving Joseph Smith room to wriggle out of the corner he painted himself into. That's it. None of them are natural conclusions based on the evidence. It is really that obvious that he said Rev 1:6 teaches there is a heavenly Grandfather. I guess if I provided an authenticated affidavit proving Joseph Smith believed Rev 1:6 taught this doctrine, you'd probably tell me Satan has power to manipulate affidavits, or maybe the guy authenticating it was an anti-Mormon, or maybe Joseph Smith was drugged at the time he signed it. I mean at what point does the endless list of technical "possibilities" take the back seat to probability or even plausibility?

So, this is pointless trying to argue. I was just saying this was one of the reasons I decided Joseph Smith was not a true Prophet, after more than a decade of intense apologetic activity. But it is certainly not the only reason. It is just one of many.

[cdowis]

It isn't an opinion alone. It is a fact. I'm left beside myself here. Everyone in this thread has tried to neutralize this problem in various ways. They either insist Smith was right about this and scholars are all wrong, or they insist he never used that verse for this purpose at all and tried to spin the sermon in ways no longer recognizable.

Either way the responses are stunning, as it illustrates the futility of trying to reason with minds than have already been made up.

It would be helpful to give us a summary. I have not been able to follow your logic here.

[Questing Beast]

Given that we do not have any of the original texts and those that we do have have proven to have been changed considerably, how can you say there is no correclation? That is an opinion without any basis in reality.

This line of argument opens any and all biblical revisionism as valid. "We have the Divine Word on the subject, and He says that the Bible is supposed to say THIS."

If we go that direction, there is no advantage whatsoever in referring to ancient texts even if they do surface. There is no reason to refer to ancient anything, if "God" is going to inspire interpolations. This is what makes Mormonism invalid to orthodox believers. Ironically, it's the first-order claim to authority for Mormonism: that God speaks today, and that what he says today overrules any and all previous epochs and the scriptures that came from them. So Joseph Smith could have entirely rewritten the Bible, leaving mere vestiges of its original text as it has come down to us, and to Mormons that would all be good: he was a prophet so anything he wrote or said is bona fide "word of God". Furthermore, as it is the ONLY authority, it makes itself exclusive, invalidating any and all contradictory versions and interpretations of the Judeo-Christian scriptures; not to mention all other religions....

[Rivers]

I grew up in the church being taught that the Joseph Smith translation is a restoration of what was originally on the bible texts. All these other definitions of translation are quite new to me.

[LeSellers]

I grew up in the church being taught that the Joseph Smith translation is a restoration of what was originally on the bible texts. All these other definitions of translation are quite new to me.

What you were taught is true in the sense that "what was originally on the bible [sic] texts" was what God has inspired His prophets to write down. What has happened over the millennia is that many of those things were lost, either by the original writers (who didn't or couldn't understand them as they really were), or by the concepts' being lost to men who imposed different meanings on the words which were still there, or what He told one prophet was lost entirely, and, using only the Bible as we have it today, Joseph restored those ideas by inserting them, even though the writer he was "correcting" was not the one whose ideas were then gone.

Purely hypothetically, let's say prophet Z (for, say, "Zenos") made a powerful prophecy about Christ. Joseph didn't have his book, its having been lost, but the prophecy needed to be restored. Joseph may then have inserted it into the book of Micah, as if Micah had written it. That is not, strictly speaking, what happened. But it was the best Joseph could do given the limitations of the text he had to work with and the narrow-mindedness of the culutre he had to work within. The goal was reached, preserving the prophecy, although not exactly the way it was 3,000 years ago when Zenos saw his vision.

It was hard enough to bring the Book of Mormon to the world. To have added new books to the Bible (Zenos, Zenoch, and who knows which others) would have been an even bigger blasphemy to the bibliolaters of the early XIX.

We do, however, have most (all?) of the concepts missing from the Bible. Joseph's restoration work was not limited to rectifying the Bible, he also produced the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If there is anything still "missing" in the Bible text, as given in the JST, it is in the Doctrine and Covenants.

We sometimes think of the Standard works as four (or five) separate books. They are not. It is only for convenience that were have them organized like that, but, in fact, they are all one thing: the word of God as He revealed it to His servants over the centuries since Adam kept his Book of Remembrance. What He told any prophet was not important because it was to the specific man, but it was important because it was His word and will. If another prophet got the credit for it in the JST, it is totally insignificant.

Lehi

[Xander]

Sermon by the Prophet Joseph Smith

Meeting in the Grove, east of the Temple, June 16, 1844.

Prayer by Bishop Newel K. Whitney.

Choir sang, "Mortals Awake."

President Joseph Smith read the 3rd chapter of Revelation, and took for his text 1st chapter, 6th verse—"And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father: to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

It is altogether correct in the translation. Now, you know that of late some malicious and corrupt men have sprung up and apostatized from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and they declare that the Prophet believes in a plurality of Gods, and, lo and behold! we have discovered a very great secret, they cry—"The Prophet says there are many Gods, and this proves that he has fallen."

It has been my intention for a long time to take up this subject and lay it clearly before the people, and show what my faith is in relation to this interesting matter. I have contemplated the saying of Jesus (Luke 17th chapter, 26th verse)—"And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man." And if it does rain, I'll preach this doctrine, for the truth shall be preached.

I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years.

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it!

Our text says "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." The Apostles have discovered that there were Gods above, for Paul says God was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am bold to declare I have taught all the strong doctrines publicly, and always teach stronger doctrines in public than in private.[comment: It is my argument that the Prophet was saying there is a God above the Father of Jesus, meaning a Grandfather God. This would qualify as a "strong" doctrine.]

John was one of the men, and apostles declare they were made kings and priests unto God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It reads just so in the Revelation. Hence, the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. It is all over the face of the Bible. It stands beyond the power of controversy. A wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein.

Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many. I want to set it forth in a plain and simple manner; but to us there is but one God—that is pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all. But if Joseph Smith says there are Gods many and Lords many, they cry, "Away with him! Crucify him! crucify him!"

Mankind verily say that the scriptures are with them. Search the scriptures, for they testify of things that these apostates would gravely pronounce blasphemy. Paul, if Joseph Smith is a blasphemer. you are. I say there are Gods many and Lords many, but to us only one, and we are to be in subjection to that one, and no man can limit the bounds or the eternal existence of eternal time. Hath he beheld the eternal world, and is he authorized to say that there is only one God? He makes himself a fool if he thinks or says so, and there is an end of his career or progress in knowledge. He cannot obtain all knowledge, for he has sealed up the gate to it.

Some say I do not interpret the scripture the same as they do. They say it means the heathen's gods. Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many; and that makes a plurality of Gods. in spite of the whims of all men. Without a revelation, I am not going to give them the knowledge of the God of heaven. You know and I testify that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods. I have it from God, and get over it if you can. I have a witness of the Holy Ghost, and a testimony that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in the text. I will show from the Hebrew Bible that I am correct, and the first word shows a plurality of Gods; and I want the apostates and learned men to come here and prove to the contrary, if they can. An unlearned boy must give you a little Hebrew. Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits, rendered by King James' translators, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." I want to analyze the word Berosheit. Rosh, the head; Sheit, a grammatical termination, The Baith was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since added by an old Jew. Baurau signifies to bring forth; Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, "In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods," or, as others have translated it, "The head of the Gods called the Gods together." I want to show a little learning as well as other fools—

A little learning is a dangerous thing.

Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring,

There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

And drinking largely sobers us up again.

All this confusion among professed translators is for want of drinking another draught.

The head God organized the heavens and the earth. I defy all the world to refute me. In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. Now the learned priests and the people rage, and the heathen imagine a vain thing. If we pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads, "Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aashamayeen vehau auraits"—"The head one of the Gods said. Let us make a man in our own image." I once asked a learned Jew, "If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?" He replied, "That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible." He acknowledged I was right. I came here to investigate these things precisely as I believe them. Hear and judge for yourselves; and if you go away satisfied, well and good.

In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through—Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods. All I want is to get the simple, naked truth, and the whole truth.

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. "Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me." "Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are." All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster. I want to read the text to you myself—"I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one." The Greek shows that it should be agreed. "Father, I pray for them which Thou hast given me out of the world, and not for those alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be agreed, as Thou, Father, art with me, and I with Thee, that they also may be agreed with us," and all come to dwell in unity, and in all the glory and everlasting burnings of the Gods; and then we shall see as we are seen, and be as our God and He as His Father. I want to reason a little on this subject. I learned it by translating the papyrus which is now in my house. I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven. "In order to do that," said he, "suppose we have two facts: that supposes another fact may exist—two men on the earth, one wiser than the other, would logically show that another who is wiser than the wisest may exist. Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them."

If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.

I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before. He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys, &c. I know it is good reasoning.

I have reason to think that the Church is being purged. I saw Satan fall from heaven, and the way they ran was a caution. All these are wonders and marvels in our eyes in these last days. So long as men are under the law of God, they have no fears—they do not scare themselves.

I want to stick to my text, to show that when men open their lips against these truths they do not injure me, but injure themselves. To the law and to the testimony, for these principles are poured out all over the scriptures. When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.

They found fault with Jesus Christ because He said He was the Son of God, and made Himself equal with God. They say of me, like they did of the apostles of old, that I must be put down. What did Jesus say? "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are Gods? If He called them Gods unto whom the word of God came, and the scriptures cannot be broken, say ye of Him whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God?" It was through Him that they drank of the spiritual rock. Of course He would take the honor to Himself. Jesus, if they were called Gods unto whom the word of God came, why should it be thought blasphemy that I should say I am the son of God?

Oh, poor, blind apostates! did you never think of this before? These are the quotations that the apostates take from the scriptures. They swear that they believe the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants and then you will get from them filth, slander, and bogus-makers plenty. One of the apostate Church official members prophesied that Joseph would never preach any more, and yet I am now preaching.

Go and read the vision in the Book of Covenants. There is clearly illustrated glory upon glory—one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and a glory of the stars; and as one star differeth from another star in glory, even so do they of the telestial world differ in glory, and every man who reigns in celestial glory is a God to his dominions. By the apostates admitting the testimony of the Doctrine and Covenants, they damn themselves. Paul, what do you say? They impeached Paul and all went and left him. Paul had seven churches, and they drove him off from among them; and yet they cannot do it by me. I rejoice in that. My testimony is good.

Paul says, "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. So is also the resurrection of the dead." They who obtain a glorious resurrection from the dead, are exalted far above principalities, powers, thrones, dominions and angels, and are expressly declared to be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ, all having eternal power.

The scriptures are a mixture of very strange doctrines to the Christian world, who are blindly led by the blind. I will refer to another scripture. "Now," says God, when He visited Moses in the bush, (Moses was a stammering sort of a boy like me) God said, "Thou shalt be a God unto the children of Israel." God said, "Thou shalt be a God unto Aaron, and he shall be thy spokesman." I believe those Gods that God reveals as Gods to be sons of God, and all can cry, "Abba, Father!" Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods, even from before the foundation of the world, and are the only Gods I have a reverence for.

John said he was a king. "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the kings of the earth. Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God, and His Father; to him be glory and dominion forever and ever Amen." Oh, Thou God who art King of kings and Lord of lords, the sectarian world, by their actions, declare, "We cannot believe Thee."

The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said. Here is a principle of logic that most men have no more sense than to adopt. I will illustrate it by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing come out of it! The character of the old churches have always been slandered by all apostates since the world began.

I testify again, as the Lord lives, God never will acknowledge any traitors or apostates. Any man who will betray the Catholics will betray you; and if he will betray me, he will betray you. All men are liars who say they are of the true Church without the revelations of Jesus Christ and the Priesthood of Melchisedek, which is after the order of the Son of God.

It is in the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood; but when men come out and build upon other men's foundations, they do it on their own responsibility, without: authority from God; and when the floods come and the winds blow, their foundations will be found to be sand, and their whole fabric will crumble to dust.

Did I build on any other man's foundation? I have got all the truth which the Christian world possessed, and an independent revelation in the bargain, and God will bear me off triumphant. I will drop this subject. I wish I could speak for three or four hours; but it is not expedient on account of the rain: I would still go on, and show you proof upon proofs; all the Bible is equal in support of this doctrine, one part as another.

Joseph Smith was teaching several things here. Plurality of Gods, theosis and the hierarchy of Gods, all three being related of course. The purpose of this sermon was to address the wave of apostasy that the Church was experiencing at the time. People were leaving the Church because they felt Joseph Smith was teaching false doctrines, making him a false prophet. Joseph Smith's intentions were to prove to everyone that he hasn't taught anything that cannot be found in the Bible already. Thus, his doctrine for a Grandfather God in heaven, he claimed to derive from Revelation 1:6.

Apologists here have responded by claiming Joseph Smith never said this doctrine was biblical, nor did he provide any specific verse from John the Revelator to make that argument. They also say that Joseph Smith probably said John the Revelator "discovered this" because for some inexplicable reason, God told Joseph Smith what John discovered, although John never documented this doctrine in the Bible. To me, this flies in the face of the entire purpose of the sermon, which was to show he wasn't teaching unbiblical doctrines.

Incidentally, Rev 3, which was read out-loud before the sermon, does nothing to contextualize this in a different manner. It was probably read because of all the "he that hath an ear let him hear" and "if you're warm I'll spew you out" scriptures that this short chapter contains. This was chosen because it was addressing apostates in the crowd.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Xander

[Loran Blood]

That's simply false.

Jesus told us that one specific "Elias" was John the Baptist. At least, that's what the Apostles understood, and what is recorded in scripture.

Lehi

Quite obviously. An "Elias" is a forerunner, and as such a name title specifying a particular spiritual task, could be applied to numerous characters in gospel history.

[Loran Blood]

Actually, you make an excellent point. When Joseph Smith produced the JST, he still believed that God the Father was the Supreme Being without qualification.

This is unintelligible in an LDS theological sense. The existence of infinite gods other than the Father and Jesus Christ in no way alter the designation of the Father and Son as "supreme" or as "supreme beings without qualification." There is no qualification to the personal attributes and chacteristics of either God, the Father, or his Son, Jesus Christ, in LDS theology.

A better digestion of LDS doctrine is in order here.

[Loran Blood]

On the basis of a clear misreading of the Bible, Joseph Smith attacked the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity as making God into "a giant or a monster."

At best - at the very, very best, the doctrine of the Trinity dates from not much before the early 3rd Century and was derived in toto from neo-Platonic concepts of the absolute otherness of matter and "spirit", its mind/body dichotomy, and allied ideas that would have crossed the eyes of the early Christians and the Apostles themselves, who made no such claims in the NT scriptural texts. The sheer logical and conceptual disorientation one encounters when attempting a cogent analysis of just what the doctrine of the Trinity implies (logical contradiction within logical contradiction within logical contradiction, as one ranges through the NT looking at what Jesus actually did, said, and what he taught regarding his relationship to the Father) is enough to test the intellectual patience of anyone seeking to "know God" as we are counseled to do.

This is the same sermon in which Joseph Smith, attempting to display his knowledge of Hebrew ("I will show from the Hebrew Bible that I am correct.... An unlearned boy must give you a little Hebrew"), argued that Genesis 1:1 referred to a plurality of Gods because elohim is a plural form. The whole sermon, unfortunately, shows that Joseph Smith's understanding of Hebrew was inadequate.

Yes...it is plural, rendered quite nicely as "gods" or "the gods."

Edited June 28, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

Just inconsistent with Evangelical theology.

And especially with its late 20th century, early 21st century "reformed" Walter Martinesque form that underlies the entire counter-cult movement within evangelical Protestantism.

[mfbukowski]

Sermon by the Prophet Joseph Smith

Meeting in the Grove, east of the Temple, June 16, 1844.

A source might be a nice touch.

[Loran Blood]

I'm talking about virtually every Bible scholar on the planet.

Warning! Warning! Warning Will Robinson!

Kevin has a long history in the freewheeling us of the argument from authority to prop up virtually every position he takes, on any subject, that he otherwise cannot rationally support with critical argument. It is a recurrent theme and used with abandon.

A CFR requiring Kevin to explain how and when he's had the time to consult the writings of every Bible scholar on the planet would be interesting, but obviously futile.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Warning! Warning! Warning Will Robinson!

Kevin has a long history in the freewheeling us of the argument from authority to prop up virtually every position he takes, on any subject, that he otherwise cannot rationally support with critical argument. It is a recurrent theme and used with abandon.

You noticed this too?

[Xander]

Kevin has a long history in the freewheeling us of the argument from authority to prop up virtually every position he takes, on any subject, that he otherwise cannot rationally support with critical argument. It is a recurrent theme and used with abandon.

A CFR requiring Kevin to explain how and when he's had the time to consult the writings of every Bible scholar on the planet would be interesting, but obviously futile.

I do this not only because it is true, but because it provides you guys with a chance at an easy home run. All you have to do is provide a single Bible scholar who argues otherwise, and I'm refuted.

But we both know that what I say is true. There is nothing wrong in saying there is no Bible scholar on the planet who believes Rev 1:6 refers to a Grandfather God, just as there is nothing wrong in saying no Astronomer on the planet believes the moon is made of cheese. Quibbling over technicalities by saying I haven't spoken with every Bible scholar on the planet, therefore I couldn't possibly know this to be true, is just silly.

And yes, I have an appreciation for authority which you apparently lack. Why would I expect anyone to take my word for anything on a subject for which I'm not an authority? When debating matters of economics, I frequently cite economists that hail from both sides. When debating history, you'll frequently see me citing historians. Cosmology, cosmologists. Egyptology, egyptologists. The Old Testament, Hebrew scholars. The New Testament, Greek scholars, and etc.

So does this mean you and Mola agree that Joseph Smith used Rev 1:6 in such a way? And you believe he is right and scholars are wrong?

Edited June 29, 2011 by Xander

[Calm]

A source might be a nice touch.

mf, here is one here:

http://emp.byui.edu/...n_the_grove.htm

This one includes the prayer and choir mention.

http://byustudies.byu.edu/hc/6/24.html

Appears to have some variations:

http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/joseph-smiths-sermon-in-the-grove/

There are many sites including quite a few anti-sites that post this this stuff so I don't know where Xander got his specifically.

Other potentially useful resource: King Follett Discourse...

http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm

A good EoM summary: http://eom.byu.edu/i...llett_Discourse

Edited June 29, 2011 by calmoriah

[TAO]

*Stuff*

You missed my post =/. Please answer =). Thanks.

Edited June 29, 2011 by TAO

[cdowis]

At best - at the very, very best, the doctrine of the Trinity dates from not much before the early 3rd Century

Please be careful with your terms.

LDS accepts the concept of the Trinity (the Godhead of three personages), but rejects the doctrine of homoousia (one substance). We accept the doctrine as taught by Christ in John 17:19-21, but reject the Constantine doctrine of the Council of Nicea.

It is the careless use of terms that causes unnecessary misunderstandings. It is not three deities, but one substance that we reject.

[Xander]

blem with your argument is that it is reading too much into what he said. You are taking 'John knows X' and transforming it into 'John knows X is stated in this verse'

This is what we call an appropriate use of context.

n transforming that into 'Joseph taught that'.

Again, this is an appropriate use of context.

That isn't correct though. No, as I said, implications are not the same things as meanings of the verses.

You haven't established an implication. Joseph Smith was teaching from the scriptures alone.

I am not referring to Revelations. I am referring to the verses of the Sermon itself.

OK, then you mean paragraphs, not verses. The sermon wasn't divided up into verses.

Verse 1, where Rev 1:6 is stated is tied in with verse 5, which shows it's meaning.

This is the problem with yoru argument. You want to limit Rev 1:6 to only paragraph five when it fact it pertains to the entire sermon. It was the only scripture quoted more than once and it appears at the beginning, the middle and the end of the sermon. That's three times!

Verse 15 says that John knew this, but it does not say it is from Rev 1:6

The context tells us that it is.

and it clearly says in verse 5 that it is not the meaning.

Wrong. And this is the second time you have asserted this even after I responded and explained why it is wrong. All you have done here is reassrt the same erroneous statement. Paragraph five doesn't negate this reading whatsoever. You keep saying "God" is God the Father as if this somehow refutes the argument. It doesn't, because the lynchpin to my argument isn't with the word "God" but rather with "His Father."

Paragraph 15 says quite clearly:

My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now you want us to believe that Joseph Smith was simply saying God the was Father to Jesus Christ. Not that there was a "God above the Father." This is easily refuted by the context, particularly the next sentence which says: "I am bold to declare I have taught all the strong doctrines publicly, and always teach stronger doctrines in public than in private."

Now tell me, what is so "bold" about teaching a universally accepted doctrine among Christians? In what corner of the universe is this a "stronger doctrine"? Remember, according to your view, all he was saying here is that Jesus has a Father. Well, duh!

Further, you miss the context of the sermon's purpose, which was to prove to the apostates he wasn't teaching things not explicitly found in the Bible. The apostates were overwhelming Christian, so to suggest he had a problem with disaffected Mormons who had a difficult time believing Jesus has a Father in heaven, is just silly. They had a problem with this notion that God the Father wasn't the highest God in existence.

But he does not say the verse means such. He says it implies such.

Wrong. As I said before, the only thing he said the scriptures implied was that a great grandfather in heaven existed. Towards the end of the sermon he makes this clear: "If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also." Only a Great-GrandFather is "supposed" while the Grandfather in heaven is explicitly taught.

Again my friend, though, you are putting words into Joseph's mouth by saying he means the verses mean that. Again, implications versus meaning. When a girl (if you are a guy) says 'Thank You', it's meaning is little but it can mean a whole lot more. That is where you are not getting things right.

Wrong, for all the reasons mentioned above.

Again, you are not getting my point. I am not arguing that Joseph didn't teach the pluarlity of Gods. I am saying that he did not say the verse meant that. I am saying that the verse implies such, but it is not what was being referred to in the verse.

So to be clear, despite the fact that Joseph Smith gave this sermon for the purpose of proving his teachings were biblical. And despite the fact that Joseph Smith cited scriptures throughout, and kept drawing everyone's attention to the fact that he is sticking to the scriptures. And despite the fact that Rev 1:6 is ambiguous enough to be understood to teach precisely the doctrine Joseph Smith said John the Revelator knew.... you're telling us that Joseph Smith suddenly decided to break method and derail from teaching explicitly from teh scriptures? Again, you'd get an F in any basic college course if you did a report on this sermon and neglected the context in this way. Your problem is you're dissecting every little word and missing the forrest because of the trees.

No my friend, you are misreading it yet again. He says that because of other scriptures that are listed. Not Revelations 1:6.

You'll have to do better than reassert the same accusation that I'm misreading. You actually need to demonstrate why you think I'm misreading it. For you to say he said this because of "other scriptures that are listed" makes absolutely no sense, because there are no other scriptures "listed" in that context. He explicilty referred to John teh Revelator, and the only scripture by John the Revelator that is cited in that sermon is Rev 1:6, no less than three times. But to you, this means nothing?

Again, if you want to see what Joseph thought the literal meaning of the verse is, read the JST, it refers to Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.

Again, I addressed this. You cannot use the JST which was produced twelve years earlier. All this proves is that Joseph Smith changed his mind through the years as he needed to start justifying his "stronger" doctrine of plurality of gods.

No, you are wrong - I am saying that he did not say the verse meant that. He said it implied that. It is related to this verse - but it isn't related in the way you think it is quite.

You cannot have it both ways. The excerpt ...

If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way.

... either refers to Rev 1:6 or it doesn't. If it does, then it most certainly says God the Father has a Father. If it doesn't refer to Rev 1:6 then you cannot argue that Joseph Smith believed Rev 1:6 "implied" anything in the follow up sentence. And no, Joseph Smith never "said it is related to this verse." Not once did he say this.

In summary, the full strength of my argument comes from the faacts that:

1. Joseph Smith's purpose for this sermon was to prove to the Apostates that he was not teaching anything that wasn't explicitly biblical.

2. Joseph Smith claimed this verse represented a "stronger doctrine" that he would always teach in public.

No one here has even come close to addressing these points.

I appreciate your friendly tone.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Xander

[TAO]

This is what we call an appropriate use of context.

No, my friend, you are assuming.

Again, this is an appropriate use of context.

Again my friend, you are assuming.

You see, I realize that the verse is related to it, but context actually points the opposite way that you think it does.

There was a big fight on the other board about this in fact - not this issue - but about the difference between implication, and meaning.

DCP stated figures for Mormon Scholars Testify, and said 'Well, it is looking good, we are getting X testimonies/month'. This implies that at the end of 2 years, he should have 24*X testimonies. However, he did not state that. But the people on the other board, said he did, and held him to something he did not say.

Thus, I am asking you to not hold Joseph Smith to what he did not say. Again, I ask you to look in the JST, to see that yes, Joseph did think that it was Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. Thus, unless Joseph contradicted himself (which I do not believe to be the case), that leaves Heavenly Grandfather to be an implication of the verse, not the meaning. You may believe that Joseph contradicted himself, but I do not think that at all.

You haven't established an implication.

I just did. I pointed out that Joseph said that John knew it. You 'jumped the gun', so to say, and said he knew it because of that verse. However, Joseph does not say that. He implies that. There is a difference. And because he implies it, it means that he is not saying the verse means what you think it does. He is saying it implies it.

Joseph Smith was teaching from the scriptures alone.

CFR. You know the exact mind of Joseph Smith? I think he was teaching off of revelation, as well.

This is the problem with yoru argument. You want to limit Rev 1:6 to only paragraph five when it fact it pertains to the entire sermon.

CFR that this is what Joseph intended. It doesn't help you when you make unsupported arguments. You are reading into the text, which can be good, but can also be erroneous. I am saying something much safer. In the least, Joseph was implying it. So my statement is much safer to make.

It was the only scripture quoted more than once and it appears at the beginning, the middle and the end of the sermon. That's three times!

So what? Again, you assume it is all coming from the scriptures, and none from Father in Heaven. You are limiting your options, my friend.

...continued in next post...

Edited June 30, 2011 by TAO

[TAO]

...continuation from previous post...

The context tells us that it is.

I disagree with your context.

Wrong. And this is the second time you have asserted this even after I responded and explained why it is wrong. All you have done here is reassrt the same erroneous statement. Paragraph five doesn't negate this reading whatsoever. You keep saying "God" is God the Father as if this somehow refutes the argument. It doesn't, because the lynchpin to my argument isn't with the word "God" but rather with "His Father."

Well apparently you didn't explain well enough. I showed you that Joseph never says it directly means that verse. You assumed that. You assume that because you cannot see any more options. I can though. You needn't limit God to only speaking through the scriptures. Didn't you know that Joseph learned some things about John that are contained solely in the D&C? Quite a few things, I think.

Now tell me, what is so "bold" about teaching a universally accepted doctrine among Christians? In what corner of the universe is this a "stronger doctrine"? Remember, according to your view, all he was saying here is that Jesus has a Father. Well, duh!

Plurality of God was not a concept universally excepted by Chrsitians. But the verse Joseph references supports plurality of Gods, even if it DOESN'T imply God the Grandfather. It already supports plurality of Gods as is. You are trying to take it a step further, by saying this is what Joseph is saying, but I disagree with you; Joseph never said that.

Further, you miss the context of the sermon's purpose, which was to prove to the apostates he wasn't teaching things not explicitly found in the Bible.

He does that with other verses too. Notice the 'head of the gods' verse? Perhaps that is where he got 'God the Grandfather' from, and then through revelation discovered that John knew it also. You don't realize that there are many other possibilities, some with more or less likeliness than what you posted.

I use the JST to show you that your interpretation of what he said is wrong.

The apostates were overwhelming Christian, so to suggest he had a problem with disaffected Mormons who had a difficult time believing Jesus has a Father in heaven, is just silly. They had a problem with this notion that God the Father wasn't the highest God in existence.

Nope, try again. They had a problem with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ being considered separate Gods. That was what they had a problem with. God the Grandfather was even more heretical, of course, but again, you are assuming Joseph is saying the verse means that. Again, meaning is different than implication.

Wrong. As I said before, the only thing he said the scriptures implied was that a great grandfather in heaven existed.

Yay, you finally got what I meant. Implied. Not meant. There's a difference.

Towards the end of the sermon he makes this clear: "If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also." Only a Great-GrandFather is "supposed" while the Grandfather in heaven is explicitly taught.

And I pointed out, either further revelation, or, implication rather than meaning.

So to be clear, despite the fact that Joseph Smith gave this sermon for the purpose of proving his teachings were biblical. And despite the fact that Joseph Smith cited scriptures throughout, and kept drawing everyone's attention to the fact that he is sticking to the scriptures. And despite the fact that Rev 1:6 is ambiguous enough to be understood to teach precisely the doctrine Joseph Smith said John the Revelator knew.... you're telling us that Joseph Smith suddenly decided to break method and derail from teaching explicitly from teh scriptures? Again, you'd get an F in any basic college course if you did a report on this sermon and neglected the context in this way. Your problem is you're dissecting every little word and missing the forrest because of the trees.

Have you read the D&C? It's not completely from scriptures. This church is founded on revelation.

Of course I'd get an F in college classes, they like the empirical method. My brain uses a psychological method, which is different, and is based on, you guessed it, context. And I think you are reading too much into it.

You'll have to do better than reassert the same accusation that I'm misreading.

Why so? I'm not trying to change your opinion. Just saying why I disagree with you.

You actually need to demonstrate why you think I'm misreading it.

1. The JST

2. The large gap in between where he sites the actual scripture and where he sites the verse you base your interpretation on

3. The large amount of other scriptures in that gap, which are used to connect ideas that couldn't otherwise be supported

4. The existence of revelation

So far, that is what I see wrong. Again, I'm not saying that he didn't imply that the verse meant that. I think he did. But I think he didn't do such solely using that verse, and he certainly didn't say the verse meant that. He read into the verse, much like you are reading into his verse, and saw something higher. The thing is, I see he got his reasoning from other scriptures as well. In addition, the JST contradicts what you say. These things make me thing that Joseph was seeing the verses implications, it's higher level, the things that aren't said, but can be assumed accurately that John knew. And with revelation, that turns from being an assumption, to being a reality - Joseph could discover if God showed him such, that John saw that, and that he implied it into the verse, though he was talking about something else.

For you to say he said this because of "other scriptures that are listed" makes absolutely no sense, because there are no other scriptures "listed" in that context. He explicilty referred to John teh Revelator, and the only scripture by John the Revelator that is cited in that sermon is Rev 1:6, no less than three times. But to you, this means nothing?

1: Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many

2: "In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods" / "The head of the Gods called the Gods together"

3: "Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me."

4: "Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are."

5: "I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one."

6: "Father, I pray for them which Thou hast given me out of the world, and not for those alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be agreed, as Thou, Father, art with me, and I with Thee, that they also may be agreed with us,"

7: "In order to do that," said he, "suppose we have two facts: that supposes another fact may exist—two men on the earth, one wiser than the other, would logically show that another who is wiser than the wisest may exist. Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them."

That is seven verses in addition to draw the premise from. No, none of those are from John, but those are additional verses in which support the notion that Joseph didn't base God the Father's Father solely on that verse in Revelations. For this reason, I think it is reasonable to assume that Joseph read into it, saw that it implied such, but did not say it meant such.

Again, I addressed this. You cannot use the JST which was produced twelve years earlier.

CFR.

All this proves is that Joseph Smith changed his mind through the years as he needed to start justifying his "stronger" doctrine of plurality of gods.

Except that I don't believe he changed his mind. Also, I'm not sure, but if I remember correctly, the JST kept getting edited until Joseph's death. So you would need to find when exactly that specific verse was done.

You cannot have it both ways. The excerpt ...

... either refers to Rev 1:6 or it doesn't. If it does, then it most certainly says God the Father has a Father. If it doesn't refer to Rev 1:6 then you cannot argue that Joseph Smith believed Rev 1:6 "implied" anything in the follow up sentence. And no, Joseph Smith never "said it is related to this verse." Not once did he say this.

In summary, the full strength of my argument comes from the faacts that:

1. Joseph Smith's purpose for this sermon was to prove to the Apostates that he was not teaching anything that wasn't explicitly biblical.

2. Joseph Smith claimed this verse represented a "stronger doctrine" that he would always teach in public.

No one here has even come close to addressing these points.

Again, my friend, you see no difference in implication and meaning. When you are bullied, it means the person probably doesn't like you, and implies future bullying. There is a difference between implication and meaning that you need to understand. Being Autistic, I have had to learn about the 'hidden reasons' people do things. An implication is a much weaker thing then a meaning. A meaning is conscious, and intense. An implication can be either, and is subtle. There is a difference, my friend, and it matters imo, sorta.

I appreciate your friendly tone.

No prob =). Friendly tones are always better =).

Edited June 30, 2011 by TAO

[kolipoki09]

This is the second time I've had to correct you on this. I never said Bokovoy "denied Joseph Smith's teaching that God Himself had a Father." I said Bokovoy denied that Rev 1:6 was trying to convey that message. Whether he believes Joseph Smith accepted that doctrine is beside the point. I had an exchange with him on this subject a few years ago on a forum I won't be able to link here.

I did a little digging, and here's what Bokovoy said in the 2007 debate with Kevin concerning Rev. 1:6:

Concerning Revelation 1:6,

First of all, we need to accept the fact that we don’t know precisely what Joseph Smith actually said. The quote that you are citing derives from the History of the Church, which takes its notes from the Thomas Bullock Report which states that the KJV of Revelation 1:6 “is altogr. Correct in the translatn.” Whether Joseph Smith actually said the literal words “it is altogr. Correct in the translatn,” I don’t know.

The McIntire Minute Book simply reports the minutes of the Prophet’s sermon as “Joseph Smiths Last public Discorce on Doctrine he commenced by Reading Rev. 1st Ch 6 verse—‘And hath made us Kings & priests unto God & his father & He then preceded to show the plurality of Gods…” (see Words of Joseph Smith, 383).

If Joseph did use the term “translation,” we know that that he often employed the expression to mean in good 19th century vernacular “transmitted.”

I’m a Semiticist, which means though I dabble in Greek, I freely admit that I’m totally unqualified to present a technical grammatical analysis either for or against the King James translation, Jesus “hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father” (Rev. 1:6).

Still, the Greek phrase is the expression theo “God” followed by the coordinating conjunction kai meaning “and,” followed by pater, a dative masculine singular noun meaning “father,” followed by the 3rd person masculine singular pronoun autos. You can find a similar Greek construction in Matthew 2:22 which is translated in the KJV as Herod "his father."

So the King James does in fact provide a very literal translation of the phrase as “God and his Father.” Hence, I’m not convinced that the KJV is an incorrect translation, even though I certainly acknowledge that more recent renderings typically produce something equivalent to J. Massyngberde Ford’s Anchor Bible translation, “God even his Father” (376).

So if Thomas Bullock was correct and Joseph Smith did state that the KJV, which is quite literal, is “altogether correct,” I’m not willing at this stage to accept that Joseph was wrong. He might have been, but I’m not convinced that A. Joseph said for certain that Revelation 1:6 was “translated correctly,” and B. That the KJV is technically translated incorrectly.

What is of greater interest to me is the fact that Joseph’s inspired revision of the passage alters the verse to read, Jesus “hath made us kings & Priests unto God, his father” (see Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible, ed. Scott H. Faulring, et. al., 567). Personally, I find these sorts of issues fascinating, for they provide a window into the prophet’s evolving views as he gained inspiration from on high “line upon line precept upon precept."

Continued:

When Joseph Smith used Revelation 1:6 to teach that God the Father has a Father, you believe that Joseph was "wrong" because that’s not what the original author of Revelation 1:6 meant when he wrote the words Jesus “hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father.”

First of all, I’m going to agree with your argument in as much as I too believe that the original author did not intend to suggest what Joseph taught, namely that God the Father of Jesus Christ has a father.

I’m going to reject your conclusion, however, that Joseph Smith was wrong. First of all, he wasn’t wrong in the sense that the verse is translated correctly (assuming that's what Joseph actually said). Second of all, Joseph wasn’t wrong in the sense that he expanded the verse to mean concepts above and beyond what the original author intended.

Throughout the Bible, inspired authors do precisely what Joseph Smith did by taking an inspired text and expanding the verse via divine revelation to mean more than what the original author meant. After all, if Joseph is “wrong” for using this technique, then so is every other biblical prophet who refashioned an earlier text to fit a different context.

Was Matthew “wrong” when he took Isaiah’s prophetic judgment “behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emanuel” and reinterpreted the text as a prophecy of Jesus Christ?

What about when Matthew took out of its original context Jeremiah’s text “in Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning Rachel weeping for her children and would not be comforted, because they are not.” Was Matthew wrong on this occasion since we can easily establish that this event in Jesus’ life is not what Jeremiah had in mind?

Personally, I expect a true prophet to expand upon texts in a way that extends the scripture above and beyond what the original author meant.

So while I accept your position that the original author of Revelation 1:6 did not mean to suggest that God the Father has a Father, I reject your conclusion that Joseph was wrong. The verse is translated correctly and I appreciate the way Joseph Smith expanded it.

You’ve brought up a really good point. I won’t deny that it appears that Joseph Smith believed that John the Revelator taught in Revelation 1:6 that God the Father has a Father.

I also won’t deny the fact that I it appears that Joseph Smith was wrong.

I believe that Joseph was wrong to assume that John the Revelator wrote the book of Revelation (I don’t believe that he did), and I believe that Joseph Smith was wrong when he believed that John taught that God the Father has a Father in Rev. 1:6.

I do not believe that Joseph Smith was wrong in suggesting that God the Father has a Father, nor do I believe that Joseph Smith was wrong to take Revelation 1:6 and expand upon its meaning above the original author’s intent.

Since I don’t hold Joseph Smith or an other Prophet to the status of perfection, I do not find Joseph’s apparently mistaken assumptions problematic.

I’m not bothered by the fact that Joseph Smith assumed that John the Revelator wrote the book of Revelation, nor am I bothered by the fact that when the Prophet received insight from God concerning the way he should interpret this passage that Joseph naturally assumed that this interpretation was the original author’s intent.

Well then our conversation on this issue will have to end here, because I freely admit that I cannot prove that Joseph Smith expanded upon the original meaning of Revelation 1:6 through inspiration, any more than I can substantiate that Matthew did the same thing when he took Old Testament prophets out of context and expanded the meaning of their writings to fit the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

I can prove that that this technique is what prophet’s do, but proving whether or not they were inspired in their efforts is beyond anything that I can establish.

Since I do not believe that Joseph’s interpretation of the verse was wrong, but rather that it reflects the additional light and knowledge he obtained later in his prophetic career, I’ll stick with my suggestion.

It was an interesting discussion between you both. I must admit, I really enjoyed it.

[Xander]

I disagree with your context.

Obviously, but it isn't my context.

Well apparently you didn't explain well enough.

I explained it well enough three times and still no one has addressed the two points I raised.

I showed you that Joseph never says it directly means that verse. You assumed that.

And I showed why that is the only assumption driven by context.

You assume that because you cannot see any more options.

Wrong. We can sit here and fathom dozens upon dozens of possible options, but that isn't a good reason to believe them - just because they exist as imaginable options. This doesn't make them plausible, let alone probable. The only reason to prefer them is apologetic, which is a good reason to avoid them.

I can though.

Sure you can. This is generally what apologists do. They sit around and try to think up of as many possible alternatives as tehy can and then they think this is enough to accept them as equally valid. Well, it isn't. You simply don't understand how context works in inductive text critical arguments.

You needn't limit God to only speaking through the scriptures.

I need no such thing. But Joseph Smith clearly needed to limit his teachings in that sermon, to what the scriptures taught. He made this perfectly clear when he kept reminding his audience that he would stick to the scirptures. And then you suddenly tell me he wasn't referring to any scripture whatsoever.

Didn't you know that Joseph learned some things about John that are contained solely in the D&C? Quite a few things, I think.

Irrelevant. He wasn't referring to D&C as that would defeat the purpose of his sermon.

Plurality of God was not a concept universally excepted by Chrsitians. But the verse Joseph references supports plurality of Gods

It doesn't teach a plurality of Gods unless we see a Grandfather God therein. According to you, the verse is simply stating that Jesus has a Father. This is universally accepted by Christians.

even if it DOESN'T imply God the Grandfather.

"God above the Father of Jesus Christ" is not an implication, it is explicitly stated. Your choice to deny this plain reading is based strictly on your interpretation of an inserted comma, which may or may not have been a pause in his verbal speech, but it would be irrelevant either way. As I explained, I can say this a few different ways while pausing between those two words, add emphasis in the word "above" and still convey the message that there is a God above the Father of Jesus Christ. The scribe clearly didn't employ the use of italics to add emphasis to specific words. But I doubt the original manuscript of this sermon contained a comma. These things generally get added by subsequent editors.

It already supports plurality of Gods as is. You are trying to take it a step further, by saying this is what Joseph is saying, but I disagree with you; Joseph never said that.

Joseph Smith makes it clear by calling it a stronger doctrine. He already took it a step further in so doing.

I use the JST to show you that your interpretation of what he said is wrong.

No, all you did was prove Joseph Smith changed his interpretation after his doctrines evolved over more than a decade. All you have to do is compare his Abr 4:1-4 with the JST version of Genesis account to see that this is was normal for him. Or compare the King Follett's sermon with the Book of Moses. In the early 1830's he "translated" Genesis chapter one a certain way, and then roughly 12-13 years later he translated it in a way that made the "council of the Gods" pop up in what appeared to be every other verse. This is proof positive that Joseph Smith's theology evolved, and he expressed his views in the form of "revealed" scripture.

Nope, try again. They had a problem with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ being considered separate Gods.

No they didn't. Joseph Smith's plurality of Gods doctrine, the one that ticked off so many people, went well beyond simply rejecting the Nicean Trinity by referring to the Father and Son as separate Gods. Anyone familiar with his first vision knew he considered them separate gods all along. But what ticked people off in 1844 was his extended teachings on the plurality of gods as given a couple months earlier with the King Follett sermon, where he informs his audience that, "The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods." And more to the point, a week before this sermon the Nauvoo Expositor printed the concerns of many apostates saying the Prophet taught: "a plurality of gods above the God of this universe."

So that's all she wrote. Case closed.

The apostates were very upset with Joseph Smith for teaching a God above God the Father existed, and the sermon of June 16th was a direct response to that criticism. Thus, Joseph Smith's need to validate his doctrine with the Bible.

That was what they had a problem with.

Except you have no evidence for this. I have the full context of his 1844 sermons along with the stated concerns of those he was addressing, just a week prior to his sermon.

Except that I don't believe he changed his mind

Because you don't want to. I suggest you compare his 1844 revelations with those of the early 1830's to see just how willing he was to change his views.

So to sum up, I have established that:

1. Joseph Smith's sermon was a direct response to apostate concerns shortly after the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor.

2. Their concern was that Joseph Smith taught the existence of a God above the Father of Jesus Christ.

3. Joseph Smith's sermon was based strictly on the Bible. He provided scripture at every turn, and reminded his audience that he would stick to the scriptures in order to prove the apostates falsely accuse him of being unbiblical.

4. Joseph Smith's interpretation of Rev 1:6 is that it teaches God the Father has a Father, and he clearly referred to this as a "stronger" doctrine.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Xander

[Deborah]

It was an interesting discussion between you both. I must admit, I really enjoyed it.

And points out how important context is rather than the critics' favorite method of pick and choose.