Book Of Moses

[inquiringmind]

Ive been reading the book of Moses, and I don't see how it leaves room for the possibility of any God above or beside our God.

How can the following passage be interpreted in any way that doesn't make the Father of Jesus the one God who has always been God?

And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God ^aAlmighty, and ^bEndless is my ^cname; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?...And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the ^asimilitude of mine ^bOnly ^cBegotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the ^dSavior, for he is full of ^egrace and ^ftruth; but there is ^gno God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I ^hknow them all. (Moses 1:3,6.)

God says He is "without beginning of days or end of life," and that there is "no God beside" Him.

How does this leave room for a heavenly grandfather, great grandfather, etc.?

[Ahab]

Ive been reading the book of Moses, and I don't see how it leaves room for the possibility of any God above or beside our God.

How can the following passage be interpreted in any way that doesn't make the Father of Jesus the one God who has always been God?

And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God ^aAlmighty, and ^bEndless is my ^cname; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?...And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the ^asimilitude of mine ^bOnly ^cBegotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the ^dSavior, for he is full of ^egrace and ^ftruth; but there is ^gno God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I ^hknow them all. (Moses 1:3,6.)

God says He is "without beginning of days or end of life," and that there is "no God beside" Him.

How does this leave room for a heavenly grandfather, great grandfather, etc.?

There is no God other than the God he is, or the "kind" of God that he is, and the God that he is consists of individual persons with each one of them being that God.

Thus, the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is also God, but yet all who are God are the one true God... even though some people may call them Gods while to be more politically correct it would be more proper to call them persons who are God.

Simple stuff, really, even though the semantics can be a little confusing.

Oh, and one other thing. We (LDS) often use the word/term "God" to refer to our Father in heaven, although we realize there are other persons who are God too.

[altersteve]

One thing is for certain. There is nothing that is above or equal with our Father in heaven. Please do not let critics make you think that we believe otherwise.

[inquiringmind]

One thing is for certain. There is nothing that is above or equal with our Father in heaven. Please do not let critics make you think that we believe otherwise.

Than why did Joseph say "My object was to preach the scripture and preach the doctrine, there being a God above the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Joseph Smith's Commentary on the Bible, pg. 217 [from a discourse given on June 16th 1844, recorded by Thomas Bullock; WJS, 378-81])?

[altersteve]

Than why did Joseph say "My object was to preach the scripture and preach the doctrine, there being a God above the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Joseph Smith's Commentary on the Bible, pg. 217 [from a discourse given on June 16th 1844, recorded by Thomas Bullock; WJS, 378-81])?

Again, it is not an official doctrine of the Church that God has a god whom He worships. We do not teach it. This has been said on this board many times. It is speculation, and nothing more than that.

You also have to realize that because Joseph was killed very shortly after giving the King Follett discourse and the Sermon in the Grove, so he didn't have a lot of time to clarify these ideas. We're not quite sure how he fit these ideas together, or exactly what he meant, whether it was a revelation, or otherwise, and you also have to realize that because these remarks were published after his death, we cannot know if that is actually what he said, word-for-word. (Maybe he actually said, "My object was to preach the scripture and preach the doctrine, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Notice the comma after "above." That changes the whole meaning of the sentence.) But we simply do not know, so it is therefore just speculation. Please get the idea that the Church teaches it out of your mind.

Edited July 26, 2011 by altersteve

[Franktalk]

Again, it is not an official doctrine of the Church that God has a god whom He worships. We do not teach it. This has been said on this board many times. It is speculation, and nothing more than that.

You also have to realize that because Joseph was killed very shortly after giving the King Follett discourse and the Sermon in the Grove, so he didn't have a lot of time to clarify these ideas. We're not quite sure how he fit these ideas together, or exactly what he meant, whether it was a revelation, or otherwise, and you also have to realize that because these remarks were published after his death, we cannot know if that is actually what he said, word-for-word. (Maybe he actually said, "My object was to preach the scripture and preach the doctrine, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Notice the comma after "above." That changes the whole meaning of the sentence.) But we simply do not know, so it is therefore just speculation. Please get the idea that the Church teaches it out of your mind.

I agree. A comma is a powerful thing. Take this one:

Luke 4:17-21

17And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

18The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

19To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

20And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

21And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

We all know this but go to the book of Isaiah and read the original:

Isaiah 61

1The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

2To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

That comma has lasted over two thousand years.

[David T]

You also have to realize that because Joseph was killed very shortly after giving the King Follett discourse and the Sermon in the Grove, so he didn't have a lot of time to clarify these ideas. We're not quite sure how he fit these ideas together, or exactly what he meant, whether it was a revelation, or otherwise, and you also have to realize that because these remarks were published after his death, we cannot know if that is actually what he said, word-for-word. (Maybe he actually said, "My object was to preach the scripture and preach the doctrine, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Notice the comma after "above." That changes the whole meaning of the sentence.)

Actually, we have several contemporary journal accounts of those sermons, recorded on the day they were given. They're quite consistent. While the Bullock report is by far the most complete, it's records are consistent with the teachings reported in the other reports. And the rest of the context and logic of what Bullock reported precludes your proposal of the comma in that instance.

Argument:

*The ancient apostles discovered a plurality of Gods, that there were gods above. Example: A God above the Lord Jesus Christ: His Father

*Consistent with this, I am teaching boldly that there exists God above the Father of Christ.

* If I'm a blasphemer, so is Paul and the Apostles. So deal with it.

*Nevertheless, we are only subject to our God.

It's very consistent with the principles presented in Abraham, where there is always something above in degrees of hierarchy.

Again, it is not an official doctrine of the Church that God has a god whom He worships. We do not teach it. This has been said on this board many times. It is speculation, and nothing more than that.

...But we simply do not know, so it is therefore just speculation. Please get the idea that the Church teaches it out of your mind.

The question he posed wasn't if it's an official doctrine of the Church, the question "why did Joseph say it, and why?". There's sometimes a big difference, there.

There are many current doctrines of the Church which were not taught by Joseph, and there were many things taught by Joseph which are not current doctrines of the Church.

Edited July 27, 2011 by nackhadlow

[mfbukowski]

Ive been reading the book of Moses, and I don't see how it leaves room for the possibility of any God above or beside our God.

This isn't a thing we have to worry about. There is no God above or beside our God except in speculation, and in any case, that has nothing to do with our salvation.

Don't get hung up about it. About the only place Joseph ever discussed this possibility was in the King Follette Discourse which was a funeral oration and is not doctrinal.

There is only one God (understood as "Godhead"- Father Son and HG) that we have to pray to, obey, understand or deal with.

That is also very clear in the Book of Mormon- the rest is speculation so don't worry about it. It's all just talk- interesting ideas, but irrelevant to anything important. We also believe that God created worlds without number, but we don't exactly get obsessed by chasing down aliens, thank goodness!

Edit:

OK just read the rest of the thread- the above was a quick reply- of course I still stand by what I said above but you have to realize that we have further understanding of all these things than any other church- WE CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS OTHERS DON'T EVEN THINK TO ASK.

The main point is that all we have to worry about for our salvation is understanding our GODHEAD and the rest can be thought of as "mystery" or "speculation". Yes, Joseph may have taught it- but you will eventually learn that we ALL have the potential to be like God- so it becomes irrelevant how many there might be and how they are relevant or irrelevant to each other.

It's like when you were a kid- you grew up as a baby with one Daddy- that was all that mattered.

Then you figured out other kids had a Daddy too- but YOURS was YOURS and the only one you had to worry about. So it is with our Father

1Cor 8:

5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Yes, Paul was talking about idols here, but the point is still the same. There is only one God you and I have to worry about- and that is our Father.

Edited July 27, 2011 by mfbukowski

[David T]

Joseph's understanding of principles evolved during his life. Towards the end of his life, he was thinking very dynastically, and kingdom-oriented, which is made very manifest in his involvement and establishment of the Quorum of Anointed (Preparation of Kings and Priests), Council of Fifty (political infrastructure preparation for the Kingdom), and the Temple.

Here's Orson Hyde's description of how the Kingdom pertaining to us works, with that beyond God Himself not being of concern. The assumption being that God himself was himself on one of those spokes in his own hierarchy, and that all will eventually be the 'crown' to their line.

But again, as I understand it, such speculation is not a current explicit doctrine of the Church, whereas the KFD note of God being an Exalted man, however, is. It's easy and understandable to see the logical implication that many make based on this.

Then again, I'm quite okay with noting that there are some things which are official doctrine that I disagree with.

Edited July 27, 2011 by nackhadlow

[mfbukowski]

Then again, I'm quite okay with noting that there are some things which are official doctrine that I disagree with.

Oh you slimy apostate you!

I happen to disagree with many here about what constitutes "doctrine" - including. as what does NOT define doctrine, some people's interpretation of press releases!

For me, if it's not in the Standard Works, it's not doctrine. I haven't seen too many poorly worded, anonymously written, press releases added to the standard works recently.

[mfbukowski]

Many creedal Christians actually agree with the notion that there will be more than one reward in heaven- that some will receive "crowns" and others will receive more "jewels" in their "crown" than others- so we are not the only ones who believe in differential rewards for righteous living.

Catholics now regard Mary as a "Co-Redemptrix" which I think is about as close to the notion of "exaltation" their idea of theosis will handle. They of course would never call her a "goddess" but nevertheless, one has to admit she is pretty far "up there"

Of course I am no longer anything close to an expert on Catholic doctrine, and I hope this does not lead to a derail, but I thought it deserved mentioning.

[HiJolly]

Oh you slimy apostate you!

I happen to disagree with many here about what constitutes "doctrine" - including. as what does NOT define doctrine, some people's interpretation of press releases!

For me, if it's not in the Standard Works, it's not doctrine. I haven't seen too many poorly worded, anonymously written, press releases added to the standard works recently.

ROFL. I agree, though I think that statement was very much a needed thing.

HJ

[David T]

Oh you slimy apostate you!

I happen to disagree with many here about what constitutes "doctrine" - including. as what does NOT define doctrine, some people's interpretation of press releases!

For me, if it's not in the Standard Works, it's not doctrine. I haven't seen too many poorly worded, anonymously written, press releases added to the standard works recently.

I think when some people use the term 'Doctrine of the Church", they mistake it with the "Doctrine of Christ". The former attempts to explain and teach the latter, but it isn't always as accurate as it could be, IMHO.

Doctrine does mean "teaching". There are things taught in official Church publications which I do not think are necessarily things which have been taught by, or revealed in Christ - even by revelation. I am certainly okay with allowing errors to creep into the Doctrine of the Church. I think it's one key goal of mortality to get the two to get even more further alligned - and I think we're seing that, bit by bit.

And I do think there are statements and assertions in the Standard Works which are not currently doctrine, nor things I that I believe.

So maybe I am a slimy apostate after all Even though I sustain the current leaders of the Church, and recognize their authority to dictate what is and is not taught in official Church settings/publications. Whatever.

Edited July 27, 2011 by nackhadlow

[mfbukowski]

I think when some people use the term 'Doctrine of the Church", they mistake it with the "Doctrine of Christ". The former attempts to explain and teach the latter, but it isn't always as accurate as it could be, IMHO.

Doctrine does mean "teaching". There are things taught in official Church publications which I do not think are necessarily things which have been taught by, or revealed in Christ - even by revelation. I am certainly okay with allowing errors to creep into the Doctrine of the Church. I think it's one key goal of mortality to get the two to get even more further alligned - and I think we're seing that, bit by bit.

And I do think there are statements and assertions in the Standard Works which are not currently doctrine, nor things I that I believe.

So maybe I am a slimy apostate after all Even though I sustain the current leaders of the Church, and recognize their authority to dictate what is and is not taught in official Church settings/publications. Whatever.

Well I figure that following the Spirit is what found the church for me, and I am not about to stop doing what leads me to truth because some human tells me I am wrong. I'm stickin' to the methodology that got me here in the first place, regardless of where it leads! It's all I have!

Of course it helps that that approach, in itself, is "doctrinal".

[David T]

Well I figure that following the Spirit is what found the church for me, and I am not about to stop doing what leads me to truth because some human tells me I am wrong. I'm stickin' to the methodology that got me here in the first place, regardless of where it leads! It's all I have!

Of course it helps that that approach, in itself, is "doctrinal".

I think, on the essentials, and speaking as a convert, we're agreed on this matter

[zerinus]

It's very consistent with the principles presented in Abraham, where there is always something above in degrees of hierarchy.

In the Book of Abraham the hierarchy doesn't go on indefinitely, but ends somewhere. The hierarchy of planets eventually ends in Kolob. If it went on indefinitely, we would end up with a planet which would be infinitely large, which is a physical impossibility. Similarly, the hierarchy of "intelligences" doesn't go on indefinitely, but ends in God, who is the most intelligent of all.

[cinepro]

Ive been reading the book of Moses, and I don't see how it leaves room for the possibility of any God above or beside our God.

How can the following passage be interpreted in any way that doesn't make the Father of Jesus the one God who has always been God?

And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God ^aAlmighty, and ^bEndless is my ^cname; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?...And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the ^asimilitude of mine ^bOnly ^cBegotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the ^dSavior, for he is full of ^egrace and ^ftruth; but there is ^gno God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I ^hknow them all. (Moses 1:3,6.)

God says He is "without beginning of days or end of life," and that there is "no God beside" Him.

How does this leave room for a heavenly grandfather, great grandfather, etc.?

It might make it easier to understand if you know that it isn't "God the Father" speaking to Moses in Moses 1; it is actually Jesus, the son, speaking as if he were the Father.

Or it might not.

[David T]

It might make it easier to understand if you know that it isn't "God the Father" speaking to Moses in Moses 1; it is actually Jesus, the son, speaking as if he were the Father.

Or it might not.

Or it's simply THE LORD, which narratively at this point incorporates the pre-mortal Christ as well as the Father into one figure. Or not (follow up post is here, by the way)

Edited July 27, 2011 by nackhadlow

[inquiringmind]

Thank you all.

Catholics now regard Mary as a "Co-Redemptrix"

This is not meant to be a derail, but I don't believe "Co-Redemptrix" is "official" Catholic doctrine.

[altersteve]

I think it also must be pointed out that in the Sermon in the Grove, when Joseph is talking about God the Father's supposed father, he seems to be speculating:

]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. I know it is good reasoning.

He seems to make it clear here, several times, that he is reasoning through this. All he is really preaching here, it seems to me, is that the Father passed through mortality, laid down His life, and took it back up again, and gave His Son Jesus Christ that same power, a power which we clearly do not share, so we therefore cannot become "gods" in the sense that most Latter-day Saints (and critics) seem to think. But the idea of an "infinite regress of gods" seems to come from Joseph's own mind and from his own reasoning, from his own reading of the Bible, not from a revelation from God. Joseph probably would have said otherwise if that were the case.

Edited July 27, 2011 by altersteve

[mfbukowski]

I think, on the essentials, and speaking as a convert, we're agreed on this matter

[mfbukowski]

Thank you all.

This is not meant to be a derail, but I don't believe "Co-Redemptrix" is "official" Catholic doctrine.

I dunno.

The title is approved by the Catholic Magisterium^[2] though not included in the concluding chapter of the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Marian teaching. Even so, it is not a dogma. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix.^[3]

^{[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-2]}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix