Heavenly Grandfather?

[inquiringmind]

I've been re-reading the standard works, and some of the sermons of Joseph Smith.

I know there are many Mormons who believe in Gods above heavenly Father, and I know of one sermon where Joseph seems to interpret Rev. 1:6 to imply that (but then seems to quote the same verse to say only what all Christians take it to mean--that Christ has made us priests to His God, The Father.)

Seeing that Joseph seems to contradict himself in that sermon, if it was recorded correctly, and it seems to have only been recorded by Thomas Bullock, there seems to be reason to conclude his words on that occasion weren't recorded correctly.

So I'm wondering.

Is there any real reason for any Latter Day Saints to believe there are Gods above God the Father?

Is there anything, anywhere, that Joseph actually said on the subject that leads them to believe he believed this?

[Jude2]

I think that’s one of those questions for which we don’t have an answer.

I’ve heavily speculated that each galaxy has a Father and Mother God and their 'firstborn' plays the roll of a Messiah, then at some point a new galaxy is formed as their children reach their potential of being Gods.

[inquiringmind]

I think that’s one of those questions for which we don’t have an answer.

I’ve heavily speculated that each galaxy has a Father and Mother God and their 'firstborn' plays the roll of a Messiah, then at some point a new galaxy is formed as their children reach their potential of being Gods.

But does that speculation have any real basis in the standard works, or anything that Joseph actually said or taught?

[LordUther]

In the Missionary Pal (I think it was) one of the scriptures that was presented as teaching Heavenly Father is an exalted man was John 5:19 which reads

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he ^aseeththe ^bFather do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Which teaches that the Son can only do that which he has seen the Father do before him, which would also teach that Heavenly Father was the Saviour of His world.

[LordUther]

Sorry I don't have the hang of these quotes yet, that quote should read:

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he ^aseeththe ^bFather do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

[LordUther]

Let's try that again...

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

[SamIam]

I've been re-reading the standard works, and some of the sermons of Joseph Smith.

I know there are many Mormons who believe in Gods above heavenly Father, and I know of one sermon where Joseph seems to interpret Rev. 1:6 to imply that (but then seems to quote the same verse to say only what all Christians take it to mean--that Christ has made us priests to His God, The Father.)

Seeing that Joseph seems to contradict himself in that sermon, if it was recorded correctly, and it seems to have only been recorded by Thomas Bullock, there seems to be reason to conclude his words on that occasion weren't recorded correctly.

So I'm wondering.

Is there any real reason for any Latter Day Saints to believe there are Gods above God the Father?

Is there anything, anywhere, that Joseph actually said on the subject that leads them to believe he believed this?

Inquiringmind - I can provide the quotes you seek, however, I realized last time I was contributing to your thread on the second comforter a couple of things that concerned me. First you start a thread and then only particpate for a few early remarks and then it seems you disappear entirely off to some new venue. Thus I was unable to discern what your real intent was. Second I realized that your phrasing of your questions seems to sound as if you are not an LDS inquirer and I genuniely feel that some of the things we might be supplying cannot convey any benefit in the absence of obediance to LDS principles.

I searched many of your posts and did not find anything particularly antagonistic but still for my own understanding would you mind explaining what is the underlying purpose of your quest. This may help me feel more comfortable participating in your threads.

Edited June 5, 2013 by SamIam

[Stone holm]

If you accept the Snow Couplet as doctrine and you consider the lyrics of the hymn Hie Unto Kolob by his sister, Eliza, as true. Then the notion that Heavenly Father in turn had a Heavenly Father and that He lives with our Heavenly Aunts and Uncles on in a Celestial Kingdom nie unto Kolob becomes a pretty compelling doctrinal implication. I am troubled, however, by your use of the word "above" , as mortal children we obey our parents, not our grandparents. Our Scriptures further admonish us that although in the heavens there be many Lords and gods, for us there is only One and His Son whom He has sent.

[changed]

...I know there are many Mormons who believe in Gods above heavenly Father...

Darn, when I first read the title I thought it was going to be about this:

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.(New Testament | Luke 3:38)

You know, if Adam was a son of God, then that would make us grandchildren of God? - physical grandchildren, and spiritual children.... but I guess that's not what this thread is about so sorry for the intrusion, carry on

[altersteve]

I don't believe it, personally. I do believe the Snow couplet is true. God was once "like us" in the same Jesus Christ was like us: mortal, but still God. And we can become "like God," but what that means exactly, I have no idea. All I know is that we will never be exactly like God.

That's just my opinion.

[crixus]

Seeing that Joseph seems to contradict himself in that sermon

How so?

Is there any real reason for any Latter Day Saints to believe there are Gods above God the Father?

Because their founding Prophet taught it.

Is there anything, anywhere, that Joseph actually said on the subject that leads them to believe he believed this?

The sermon you're alluding to.

[inquiringmind]

Inquiringmind - I can provide the quotes you seek, however, I realized last time I was contributing to your thread on the second comforter a couple of things that concerned me. First you start a thread and then only particpate for a few early remarks and then it seems you disappear entirely off to some new venue.

I might have participated in that thread more if it hadn't been locked so quickly, but if i had it would have been to ask more questions, or to thank those who provided what seemed like reasonable answers.

I read some of the replies on the Snuffer thread, but I didn't have anything to add that could possibly be helpful to anyone, so I haven't said anything.

Thus I was unable to discern what your real intent was.

When I ask a Mormon, an Eastern Orthodox Christian, a Bahai, or a Sikh a question, it's because I want to know what they think or believe.

Second I realized that your phrasing of your questions seems to sound as if you are not an LDS

Isn't finding out what someone else knows, thinks, or thinks that they know always the intent of an honest person when they ask questions?

And shouldn't you assume that even non-LDS inquirers are honest people (or at least give them the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise)?

I searched many of your posts and did not find anything particularly antagonistic

Thank you.

I try to be open minded (and I don't believe I've given you any reason to believe I have any anterior motives when I ask a question.)

but still for my own understanding would you mind explaining what is the underlying purpose of your quest. This may help me feel more comfortable participating in your threads.

I'm an investigator, trying to think things out in my own mind (the way I believe Joseph, and/or Oliver were/was told to do.)

Edited June 5, 2013 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

How so?

I said he seems to contradict himself in that sermon (the way it was recorded by Bullock), because he's said to have said this.

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.

[link removed]

After saying.

Our text says "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." The Apostles have discovered that there were Gods above,

And

"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.

[link removed]

If "unto God and His Father" is "altogether correct in the translation," and the meaning is that there's a God above the Father, how can the meaning of the text be "God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"?

That seems like a contradiction (and a good reason to think the hearer who recorded these words recorded something incorrectly.)

Because their founding Prophet taught it.

But only in this one sermon, as recorded by Bullock?

The sermon you're alluding to.

Am I right in believing that Bullock is the only hearer to have recorded the words "It is altogether correct in the translation...And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father"

Please do not link to known anti-mormon sites.

~Mods

[DonBradley]

I've been re-reading the standard works, and some of the sermons of Joseph Smith.

I know there are many Mormons who believe in Gods above heavenly Father, and I know of one sermon where Joseph seems to interpret Rev. 1:6 to imply that (but then seems to quote the same verse to say only what all Christians take it to mean--that Christ has made us priests to His God, The Father.)

Seeing that Joseph seems to contradict himself in that sermon, if it was recorded correctly, and it seems to have only been recorded by Thomas Bullock, there seems to be reason to conclude his words on that occasion weren't recorded correctly.

So I'm wondering.

Is there any real reason for any Latter Day Saints to believe there are Gods above God the Father?

Is there anything, anywhere, that Joseph actually said on the subject that leads them to believe he believed this?

Inquiring Mind,

I would re-examine the sermon report to which you refer: http://www.boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1844/16Jun44.html. While there are a couple confusing spots, it is, on the whole, quite clear, particularly when placed in its historical context.

William Law and others had recently published in the Nauvoo Expositor that Smith taught as doctrine "a plurality of Gods above the God of this universe." It was to this that Joseph responded in his June 16 sermon.

So, when Joseph says "Paul says there are gods many & Lords many--I want to set it in a plain simple manner--- but to us there is but one God pertaining to us, in all thro all,--but if J. Smith says there is Gods many & Lds. many they cry away with him crucify him," and also says "-my object was to preach the Scrip--& preach the doctrine there being a God above the Far. of our Ld. J. C.," he is not denying that their claim that he teaches Gods above God the Father but embracing and defending the very doctrine to which they object.

Joseph reiterates the idea of God the Father having his own Heavenly Father over and over in the sermon, and adduces arguments to back this up, as in this section of the sermon:

if Abra. reasoned thus--if J. C. was the Son of God & John discd. that God the Far. of J. C. had a far. you may suppose that he had a Far. also---where was ther ever a Son witht. a Far.---where ever did tree or any thing spring into existence witht. a progenitor-- & every thing comes in this way--Paul says that which is Earthyly is in likeness of that which is Heavenly-- hence if J. had a Far. can we not believe that he had a Fa.r also

So, the fact that Joseph Smith was here teaching a plurality of Gods above God the Father is supported by:

1) The immediate historical context

2) The text he chose for his sermon: "he hath made us kings and priests to God and his Father."

3) His statement that his object in the sermon was to preach "the doctrine [of] their being a God above the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

4) His repeated statements in the sermon that God the Father also had a father.

5) His reasoning (in the context of discussing God the Father having a father and that God having a father as well): "wherever did [a] tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? Everything comes in this way."

6) The facts that those who were present and knew him best interpreted him as teaching that there were Gods above God the Father, and therefore were soon teaching that doctrine themselves.

Other than that, I'm not sure there's much reason to think that in this sermon he taught the doctrine that are Gods above God the Father. But I could be wrong--there may be much more evidence for this conclusion than I've been able to identify in these last few minutes ;-)

Cheers,

Don

[inquiringmind]

The facts that those who were present and knew him best interpreted him as teaching that there were Gods above God the Father

But am I right in believing that Thomas Bullock is the only hearer to have recorded the words "It is altogether correct in the translation...And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father"?

Are your points based solely on his text of the sermon?

Edited June 5, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Darren10]

I've been re-reading the standard works, and some of the sermons of Joseph Smith.

I know there are many Mormons who believe in Gods above heavenly Father, and I know of one sermon where Joseph seems to interpret Rev. 1:6 to imply that (but then seems to quote the same verse to say only what all Christians take it to mean--that Christ has made us priests to His God, The Father.)

Seeing that Joseph seems to contradict himself in that sermon, if it was recorded correctly, and it seems to have only been recorded by Thomas Bullock, there seems to be reason to conclude his words on that occasion weren't recorded correctly.

So I'm wondering.

Is there any real reason for any Latter Day Saints to believe there are Gods above God the Father?

Is there anything, anywhere, that Joseph actually said on the subject that leads them to believe he believed this?

The only reason I can think of for LDS to believe that there are gods above Heavenly Father is along speculation. There is no doctrine I know of which establishes any god above or before the Father. Even the sermons of Joseph Smith do not count. Any and all sermons, including Joseph Smith, which declare any god before the Father is not cannonized nor do I see why they should be. Furthermore, the original words and meaning, and even context of Joseph Smith's sermon's regarding an infinite regression of gods is not enturely known and therefore remains speculative. So, as for me, I view that the official LDS faith and worship begins and ends with the Father. Anything before or after the Father is speculation. In the LDs faith and worship, the Father and the Father alone stands supreme and all glory to Him and He alone. That includes all the glory the LDS give to Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of the Father.

To note, I think there is truth to the existence of gods before God the Father but how that all works out is beyond me and any mortal Ithat has ever existed save, perhaps, Jesus.

[DonBradley]

I said he seems to contradict himself in that sermon (the way it was recorded by Bullock), because he's said to have said this.

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.

This is, as you point out, Inquiring Mind, a contradiction. But it is a trivial one so far as determining the sermon's message is concerned. Joseph (as you point out) also states that the translation "God and his Father" is correct and interprets the passage explicitly to mean that there were "Gods above" God the Father.

Note that the phrase "Gods above" is the same one used by Law in the Expositor. Joseph has taken Revelation 1:6 as his text in order to refute the apostates by arguing that the New Testament itself teaches the doctrine they call "false and damnable": the doctrine of their being "Gods above" our Father, the God of this universe.

Note also that when Bullocks reports Joseph saying, "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," this can easily result from a hurried transcription or from a misreading of the transcription.

One simple erroneous substitution or misreading can turn this:

"John was one of the men, and apostles declare they were made kings and priests unto God & the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

into this:

"John was one of the men, and apostles declare they were made kings and priests unto God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Which of these readings makes more sense in the context of the rest of the sermon and in the context of the Expositor incident? And which fits best with what he says next, "It reads just so in the New Testament"? In the case of the first reading (which fits the context), the reason for adding the next sentence is clear. But what is the purpose of adding it in the second reading? What about that passage would he be feeling the need to argue for--what would be controversial about it or distinctive about God being the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? I thought that was pretty widely accepted Christian fare!

More importantly, having seen that this statement could have been messed up so easily, we should ask, can the numerous other teachings in this sermon that God the Father has a father similarly result from the mis-writing or mis-reading of a single punctuation mark?

Go through Joseph's other assertions in the sermon report that God the Father has a father of his own and "Gods above" him, and through the reasoning he adduces to support this, and see if they are similarly easy to account for.

So, on the one side we have the historical context, the text Joseph chose to respond to the apostates, his assertions that God the Father had a Father and (using the Expositor phrase) "Gods above" him, the reasoning he used to support these assertions, the way the sermon was interpreted, and so on, evidencing that he did, indeed, teach the reality of "Gods above" God the Father; and, on the other side we have a statement that doesn't seem to fit the context as currently transcribed, but which could have been turned into its opposite by a single mis-written or mis-read punctuation mark.

Finally, consider this: If Joseph were trying to deny the Expositor's claim that there were "Gods above" our Father, why in the world would he choose this text for his sermon and employ the type of arguments he employs here? If someone says, "You Mormons believe there are Gods above God the Father," would you preach to them on the biblical passage that refers to "God and his Father" that to prove that we don't believe that God has a father and that such a doctrine is false?

Joseph Smith was a man of better sense than that. He chose his text because it helped communicate what he wanted to say, not because it would communicate the opposite.

I think it's great that your inquiring mind is, well, inquiring. And I strongly suspect that if you inquire into this sermon deeply, you'll find that Joseph Smith did, in fact, teach that God the Father has a Heavenly Father of his own, and other "Gods above" him.

Regards,

Don

[DonBradley]

But am I right in believing that Thomas Bullock is the only hearer to have recorded the words "It is altogether correct in the translation...And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father"?

Why does is matter whether Bullock was the only one to have recorded those words? The question is, how could he have recorded not only those words but virtually everything else in the sermon (except the one statement you seem to favor) to mean exactly the opposite of what Joseph actually said?

We have other sermon transcriptions by Bullock; so we can compare him to the other reporters and see that he isn't prone to systematically mishearing almost entire sermons to mean exactly the opposite of what they say.

And, I laid out numerous points of evidence showing that in this sermon Joseph did teach that there are Gods above God the Father; so to act as if the whole thing hinges on one internal contradiction that can result from a wrong punctuation mark, is just silly. It doesn't. The totality of evidence indicates that Joseph used this sermon to teach a plurality of Gods above God the Father.

Don

[Darren10]

Don Bradley;

I do enjoy your posts but here's my thoughts / concerns. What LDS doctrine, including the temple, teaches us that man will become a king and priest unto a God beyond or even "above" God the Father.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

I also wonder how many Joseph Smith sermons are known to exist which teach gods beyond the Father? It seems to me that if Joseph Smith was so adamant about the truth of this doctrine that it would be widely reported on by many people in and outside the LDS faith.

[inquiringmind]

This is, as you point out, Inquiring Mind, a contradiction. But it is a trivial one so far as determining the sermon's message is concerned. Joseph (as you point out) also states that the translation "God and his Father" is correct and interprets the passage explicitly to mean that there were "Gods above" God the Father...

Note also that when Bullocks reports Joseph saying, "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," this can easily result from a hurried transcription or from a misreading of the transcription.

One simple erroneous substitution or misreading can turn this:

"John was one of the men, and apostles declare they were made kings and priests unto God & the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

into this:

"John was one of the men, and apostles declare they were made kings and priests unto God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

I get your point.

But it would seem stronger to me if Joseph hadn't actually corrected Rev. 1:6 to read "and hath made us kings and priests unto God, his Father" in The JST.

http://www.centerpla...s/iv/iv-rev.htm

Why would he do that if "God and His Father" were altogether correct in the translation.

The Joseph Smith translation of Rev. 1:6 has to be added to the evidence that Bullock misunderstood and misrecorded something crucial in his text of the sermon.

Are there any other texts that might help clarify?

Edited June 5, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Robert F. Smith]

If you accept the Snow Couplet as doctrine and you consider the lyrics of the hymn Hie Unto Kolob by his sister, Eliza, as true. Then the notion that Heavenly Father in turn had a Heavenly Father and that He lives with our Heavenly Aunts and Uncles on in a Celestial Kingdom nie unto Kolob becomes a pretty compelling doctrinal implication. I am troubled, however, by your use of the word "above" , as mortal children we obey our parents, not our grandparents. Our Scriptures further admonish us that although in the heavens there be many Lords and gods, for us there is only One and His Son whom He has sent.

Brigham Young stated in April of 1852, in a sermon in Salt Lake City, that, of the various deities which exist, one "is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do" (Journal of Discourses, 1:50).

[inquiringmind]

Brigham Young stated in April of 1852, in a sermon in Salt Lake City, that, of the various deities which exist, one "is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do" (Journal of Discourses, 1:50).

Yes, but he's also reported to have said (in that same sermon, I think) that Adam is our God, and that's been declared a heresy, so it's difficult to know where BY was speaking as a prophet, and where he was voicing his own private (and sometimes heretical) opinions.

[inquiringmind]

P.S. I've also been told that the Journal of Discourses is unreliable.

[crixus]

I also wonder how many Joseph Smith sermons are known to exist which teach gods beyond the Father? It seems to me that if Joseph Smith was so adamant about the truth of this doctrine that it would be widely reported on by many people in and outside the LDS faith.

Joseph Smith died two weeks after giving this ground-breaking sermon on the plurality of Gods. So that's why there is only one sermon on the subject. It doesn't make it less doctrinal. It was still a sermon spoken by the founding prophet as a doctrine of God. And an infinite family of Gods, this isn't some kind of myth that traveled through the Church over time. It was a well accepted principle by faithful members for more than a century. I can't think of a Mormon older than 40 who doesn't know about it. Only recently have some folks tried to distance themselves, and the Church, from Joseph Smith's "divine revelation" on this subject.

But there is no getting around the fact that Joseph Smith failed to properly understand what this verse was saying. He mangled it in order to prove the anti-Mormons were lying about him teaching something that wasn't biblical. But in the end the anti-Mormons were right, and biblical scholarship has proven Joseph Smith to be wrong.

Incidentally, he also failed to understand that Elias and Elijah were the same person. And the Church still stands by that misinterpretation of the Bible.