Heavenly Grandfather?

[crixus]

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

Calling historical documents that are uncomfortable to members "unreliable" is a recent phenomenon.

When I joined the church in the late 80's, virtually every family member home I visited had the entire volume set of the Journal of Discourses. It was also sold by the Church bookstores and they had a difficult time keeping them in stock. But from what I understand, they no longer sell them, and the Church is adopting this apologetic notion of "official doctrine," which really makes them accountable for just a few statements.

Of course the whole idea about calling the JoD "unreliable" is to get members to stop learning about some of the things their founding apostles and prophets actually taught.

[inquiringmind]

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.

Hebrews 4:8 (in the KJV) reads "For if Jesus (Joshua) had given them rest, He would not afterward have spoken of another day."

The passage is confusing in the KJV because Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew "Joshua" (just as Elias is the Greek form of the Hebrew "Elijah"), but that does not prove that Jesus and Joshua are the same person.

So while it seems highly likely, from a non Lds pov, that the Lds distinction between Elias and Elijah is based on some misunderstanding on Joseph's part, I see no way to prove that.

And if there's no getting around what Joseph was saying in this sermon, why did he correct 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

He changed it from an ambiguous reading that could be interpreted to mean that God the Father had a Father, to a more clearly monotheistic reading that couldn't be interpreted that way.

Why would he do that?

Edited June 5, 2013 by inquiringmind

[SamIam]

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'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.)

I not assuming I am simply trying to get a feel for what your purpose in your inquires is. I have noted some consider you an antagonist, though I could not directly ascertain that for myself. I also am one of the few perhaps on this forum that I have noticed who holds a perspective that just because it can be read does not equate to in can be understood. The things you frequently inquire about can only be superficially comprehended unless one has worked on them for years seeking the insight that only comes from obedience.

I'm not presenting an elitist mentality here but simply an understanding of esoteric material and how it's import is not easily understood or intended to be understood by casual considerations.

Nonetheless, I have several quotes from Joseph Smith: concerning this subject as I have been working on it for about 6 years now. I will give one that is the clearest in it's expression which references similar perspectives as have already expressed:

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.(History of the Church 6:476)

[crixus]

And if there's no getting around what Joseph was saying in this sermon, why did he correct Rev. 1:6 to read "and hath made us kings and priests unto God, his Father" in The JST?

Don already addressed your concern here. There is no reason to believe Joseph Smith interpreted this scripture any other way than how he explicitly stated it in the context of his sermon. The whole point of his sermon was to refute his critics who said he was teaching an unbiblical doctrine of plural Gods, and Joseph Smith used Rev 1:6 as his thesis statement.

As to why Smith never "corrected" the JST, the fact is he was killed shortly after offering this "revelation" from the scriptures and he had stopped working on the JST many years prior, although he never considered it complete. Or, maybe Joseph Smith wasn't a real Prophet to begin with. Mystery solved. There are a number of scenarios that are far more plausible that your suggesting that Joseph Smith spent an entire sermon teaching something entirely different from how it was actually recorded.

Hebrews 4:8 (in the KJV) reads "For if Jesus (Joshua) had given them rest, He would not afterward have spoken of another day."

The passage is confusing in the KJV because Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew "Joshua" (just as Elias is the Greek form of the Hebrew "Elijah"), but that does not prove that Jesus and Joshua are the same person.

The difference being of course, is that Yeshua was an extremely popular name during this period and there is no contextual reason to believe the author was referring to someone other than Jesus. By contrast, the Elias/Elijah scriptures are numerous and all point to them being one and the same.

He changed it from an ambiguous reading that could be interpreted to mean that God the Father had a Father, to a more clearly monotheistic reading that couldn't be interpreted that way.

Why would he do that?

Because at the time there was no need to twist the scripture to support a doctrine he had yet to "reveal."

[Darren10]

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.

What makes it not official doctrine is a) it has never been voted on by any LDS authoratative body that i know of and b) there is no way at this point to ascertain what Joseph Smith said exactly, the context it was given, nor of any desire for others to believe this doctrine.

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 accept it as I think there's truth to it but I know of no obligation for anyone to believe it nor of any official church doctrine from the standard works or the temple which declares God the Father having a God. I think that revelations 1:6 can interpret "God" as Jesus Christ who is the God of Israel, the God of Israel Fathers, and the God of the earth. Officially, the LDS believe in becoming "kings and priests" unto the Father and, of course, unto Christ, but that is it. I can think of no other official doctrine which declares man becoming "kings and priests" to a god who existed before God the Father.

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.

Again, let mne reiterate that it is impossible to know exatcly what Jospeh Smith said and the context of what he was teaching. There may be truth in that he was attempting to confound the anti-Mormons. I think that goes to Joseph Smith's character and some of the historical background that we do know about. But even here, no one can acertain his motives for certain.

As for Elias and Elijah, my understanding is that they are the same person but as a title "Elias" may apply to anyone so long as they are a preparer of something divine and was sent by God to do the preparation.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Darren10

[inquiringmind]

Thank you SamIam.

Your source is "History of the Church 6:476."

Please forgive me, but I don't have any book called "History of the Church," and I always get confused when I come across that title (as I understand there's more than one book by that name.)

Is the source you're quoting an official Church publication?

[crixus]

Thank you SamIam.

Your source is "History of the Church 6:476."

Please forgive me, but I don't have any book called "History of the Church," and I always get confused when I come across that title (as I understand there's more than one book by that name.)

Is the source you're quoting an official Church publication?

That entry is just an excerpt of the sermon we're already discussing. You didn't realize this?

[Darren10]

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

I've found the journal of Discourse to be very reliable in substantiating set doctrines of the Church but I find it very unreliable to discover what the Church doctrines are to begin with.

[Darren10]

Samlam #28;

Thank you for quotting a source with all the words fully written out. Dan Bradley's citation in shorthand confused the caca out of me.

[inquiringmind]

The difference being of course, is that Yeshua was an extremely popular name during this period and there is no contextual reason to believe the author was referring to someone other than Jesus.

Actually, if you read Heb. 4:8in context, you'll see that the author isn't speaking of Jesus, he's speaking of Joshua the son of Nun.

He's saying that if Joshua had given them rest when they crossed the Jordan, the Psalmist would not have looked forward to another day (when Jesus would give us rest.)

[inquiringmind]

That entry is just an excerpt of the sermon we're already discussing. You didn't realize this?

I recognize it as part of the same sermon, but no one has told me whether or not Thomas Bullock is the only source of the text, and I'd like to know if SamIam is quoting from an official Church publication.

If she is, there may either be another source, or the Church may accept Bullock's account.

I'm not a Mormon, or an anti, and I'm not attacking or defending the Church here.

I'm just asking questions.

Edited June 5, 2013 by inquiringmind

[SamIam]

Thank you SamIam.

Your source is "History of the Church 6:476."

Please forgive me, but I don't have any book called "History of the Church," and I always get confused when I come across that title (as I understand there's more than one book by that name.)

Is the source you're quoting an official Church publication?

There are two that can be confused. One is The Comprehensive History of the Church which was complied by B. H. Roberts.

The other is the History of the Church and is a composite of the records kept by those who recorded in his behalf when he gave sermons as well as his own writings. Joseph Smith is listed as the author.

[inquiringmind]

There are two that can be confused. One is The Comprehensive History of the Church which was complied by B. H. Roberts.

The other is the History of the Church and is a composite of the records kept by those who recorded in his behalf when he gave sermons as well as his own writings. Joseph Smith is listed as the author.

Which one did you quote from?

[SamIam]

Which one did you quote from?

History of the Church by Joseph Smith. It may be verbatim from the source of your link and that may indeed be the actual source of the material that is included in the History of the Church.

[inquiringmind]

History of the Church by Joseph Smith. It may be verbatim from the source of your link and that may indeed be the actual source of the material that is included in the History of the Church.

And that is an official Church publication?

Would they have one in out ward library?

Can I buy one from the Church?

[SamIam]

Which one did you quote from?

There is one that I consider superior to all and it is found in two locations. It does not specifically speak to a grandfather in heaven but it does an excellent job of providing the framework for considering such:

This is the text and I will try to attach the image...

The above diagram shows the order and unity of the kingdom of God. The eternal Father sits at the head, crowned King of kings and Lord of lords. Wherever the other lines meet, there sits a king and a priest unto God, bearing rule, authority, and dominion under the Father. He is one with the Father, because his kingdom is joined to his Father's and becomes part of it.

The most eminent and distinguished prophets who have laid down their lives for their testimony (Jesus among the rest), will be crowned at the head of the largest kingdoms under the Father, and will be one with Christ as Christ is one with his Father; for their kingdoms are all joined together, and such as do the will of the Father, the same are his mothers, sisters, and brothers. He that has been faithful over a few things, will be made ruler over many things; he that has been faithful over ten talents, shall have dominion over ten cities, and he that has been faithful over five talents, shall have dominion over five cities, and to every man will be given a kingdom and a dominion, according to his merit, powers, and abilities to govern and control. It will be seen by the above diagram that there are kingdoms of all sizes, an infinite variety to suit all grades of merit and ability. The chosen vessels unto God are the kings and priests that are placed at the head of these kingdoms. These have received their washings and anointings in the temple of God on this earth; they have been chosen, ordained, and anointed kings and priests, to reign as such in the resurrection of the just. Such as have not received the fulness of the priesthood, (for the fulness of the priesthood includes the authority of both king and priest) and have not been anointed and ordained in the temple of the Most High, may obtain salvation in the celestial kingdom, but not a celestial crown. Many are called to enjoy a celestial glory, yet few are chosen to wear a celestial crown, or rather, to be rulers in the celestial kingdom.

While this portion of eternity that we now live in, called time, continues, and while the other portions of eternity that we may hereafter dwell in, continue, those lines in the foregoing diagram, representing kingdoms, will continue to extend and be lengthened out; and thus, the increase of our kingdoms will increase the kingdom of our God, even as Daniel hath said: "of the increase of his kingdom and government there shall be no end." All these kingdoms are one kingdom, and there is a King over kings, and a Lord over lords. There are Lords many, and Gods many, for they are called Gods to whom the word of God comes, and the word of God comes to all these kings and priests. But to our branch of the kingdom there is but one God, to whom we all owe the most perfect submission and loyalty; yet our God is just as subject to still higher intelligences, as we should be to him.

…These kingdoms, which are one kingdom, are designed to extend till they not only embrace this world, but every other planet that rolls in the blue vault of heaven. Thus will all things be gathered in one during the dispensation of the fulness of times, and the Saints will not only possess the earth, but all things else, for, says Paul, "All things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come: all are yours, and ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's" (Orson Hyde, "A Diagram of the Kingdom of God," Millennial Star 9 [15 January 1847]:23-24).(Joseph Smith, The Words of Joseph Smith: Ehat, Cook, 299.)

Edited June 5, 2013 by SamIam

[crixus]

What makes it not official doctrine is a) it has never been voted on by any LDS authoratative body that i know of and b) there is no way at this point to assertain what Joseph Smith said exactly, the context it was given, nor of any desire for others to believe this doctrine.

But we know exactly what the context was, and Don did a wonderful job explaining it. And this idea that nothing is doctrinal unless the Church released a C-SPAN type synopsis of a vote count, is truly ridiculous. Go ahead and name the things the Church has voted upon as "official doctrine" since 1832, with references of course. The fact is teachings such as these were considered doctrine unless otherwise indicated. It was never the case that teachings were to be treated with suspicion until an official vote on the matter was known.

And I don't know how you can seriously make that last statement with a straight face. Do you think Joseph Smith was in the practice of giving sermons about things he didn't "desire for others to believe"? What would that kind of sermon sound like anyway? Just look at these remarks from the sermons:

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.

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.

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.

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

I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying.

I have got all the truth which the Christian world possessed, and an independent revelation in the bargain

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

Does that sound like someone who was tossing out theories or opinions he didn't want his audience to necessarily believe? An official source of doctrine is the Bible, so how can you say this isn't official doctrine of the Church when your founding Prophet is telling you exactly what the Bible is saying? Those who disagree, he refers to as "fools" and apostates.

i accept it as I think there's truth to it but I know of no obligation for anyone to believe it nor of any official church doctrine from the standard works or the temple which declares God the Father having a God.

Your obligation isn't the issue. The issue is Joseph Smith's failure to do what Prophets are expected to do. The issue is he was doing precisely the thing he was accusing his "apostate" critics. He was twisting the Bible to support his doctrines. Incideally, hte Bible warns of people who do this; false prophets.

I think that revelations 1:6 can interpret "God" as Jesus Christ who is the God of Israel, the God of Israel Fathers, and the God of the earth. Officially, the LDs believe in becoming "kings and priests" unto the Father and, of course, unto Christ, but that is it. I can think of no other official doctrine which declares man becoming "kings and priests" to a god who existed before God the Father.

Then you need to reread the sermon.

Again, let mne reiterate that it is impossible to know exatcly what Jospeh Smith said and the context of what he was teaching.

Then you ignored everything Don said.

There may be truth in that he was attempting to confound the anti-Mormons. I think that goes to Joseph Smith's character and some of the historical background that we do know about. But even here, no one can acertain his motives for certain.

Yes we can. He made his motives clear. He wanted to refute his critics who accused him of preaching about other Gods. Joseph Smith admitted that this was something taught for fifteen years in the Church and he went on to use Rev 1:6 as the thesis statement of his sermon. Using this verse makes absolutely no sense unless he is literally saying it means God the Father has a Father. This isn't really complicated. Joseph Smith claimed he understood Rev 1:6, by revelation, to means something we know it doesn't mean.

[SamIam]

And that is an official Church publication?

Would they have one in out ward library?

Can I buy one from the Church?

Out of print but readily available from used LDS bookstores Such as Eborn books. Amazon has a couple of options for the old paperback copy such as this one http://www.amazon.com/History-Church-Christ-Latter-day-Saints/dp/0877476888/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1370410996&sr=8-11&keywords=history+of+the+church+joseph+smith

[Stargazer]

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.

As an amateur armchair astronomer, I have to tell you that limiting a Father and Mother God to a single galaxy is NOT going to work. Your theory fails in so many ways.

Here's a cogent example. The Andromeda Galaxy and our Milky Way Galaxy are on a collision course, and will be in about 4 billion years. In fact, such galaxy mergers are extremely common. A look through the Hubble confirms that they are happening everywhere. A look at our own galaxy at this present time shows that it is actively in the process of swallowing two small, formerly independent galaxies, known as the Lesser Megallanic and the Greater Megallanic Clouds. There is evidence that our galaxy has swallowed other galaxies in the past.

In my somewhat more likely opinion, the entire observable Universe was created by Heavenly Father, and the process started with what we call the Big Bang.

[inquiringmind]

I find that confusing.

The above diagram shows the order and unity of the kingdom of God. The eternal Father sits at the head, crowned King of kings and Lord of lords.

Is that heavenly Father?

If it's His Father, or Grandfather, or even some distant ancestor, isn't this still saying that there's one Eternal Father above all the rest (and therefore no infinite regress)?

But to our branch of the kingdom there is but one God, to whom we all owe the most perfect submission and loyalty; yet our God is just as subject to still higher intelligences, as we should be to him.

Is this speaking of Jesus or heavenly Father?

[crixus]

In 1982 Gerald Lund responded to a Question in the Ensign. (emphasis mine)

Is President Lorenzo Snow’s oft-repeated statement—“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be”—accepted as official doctrine by the Church?

Gerald N. Lund, Teacher Support Consultant for the Church Education System.

To my knowledge there has been no “official” pronouncement by the First Presidency declaring that President Snow’s couplet is to be accepted as doctrine. But that is not a valid criteria for determining whether or not it is doctrine.

Generally, the First Presidency issues official doctrinal declarations when there is a general misunderstanding of the doctrine on the part of many people. Therefore, the Church teaches many principles which are accepted as doctrines but which the First Presidency has seen no need to declare in an official pronouncement. This particular doctrine has been taught not only by Lorenzo Snow, fifth President of the Church, but also by others of the Brethren before and since that time.

In her biography of her brother, Eliza R. Snow explains the circumstances which led Lorenzo Snow to pen the famous couplet: “Being present at a ‘Blessing Meeting,’ in the Temple, previous to his baptism into the Church; after listening to several patriarchal blessings pronounced upon the heads of different individuals with whose history he was acquainted, and of whom he knew the Patriarch was entirely ignorant; he was struck with astonishment to hear the peculiarities of those persons positively and plainly referred to in their blessings. And, as he afterwards expressed, he was convinced that an influence, superior to human prescience, dictated the words of the one who officiated.

“The Patriarch was the father of Joseph, the Prophet. That was the first time Lorenzo had met him. After the services, they were introduced, and Father Smith said to my brother that he would soon be convinced of the truth of the latter-day work, and be baptized; and he said: ‘You will become as great as you can possibly wish—EVEN AS GREAT AS GOD, and you cannot wish to be greater.’” (Eliza R. Snow, Biography and FamilyRecord of Lorenzo Snow, Salt Lake City: Deseret News Co., 1884, pp. 9–10.)

Lorenzo Snow was baptized a short time later and began his service in the Church. In the spring of 1840 he was called to serve a mission in the British Isles. Before his departure he was in the home of a Church member who was preaching a sermon on the parable of the laborers in the vineyard. (See Matt. 20:1–16.) According to Elder Snow, “While attentively listening to his explanation, the Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me—the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man. I formed the following couplet which expresses the revelation, as it was shown me, and explains Father Smith’s dark saying to me at a blessing meeting in the Kirtland Temple, prior to my baptism. …

“As man now is, God once was:”

“As God now is, man may be.”

“I felt this to be a sacred communication, which I related to no one except my sister Eliza, until I reached England, when in a confidential private conversation with President Brigham Young, in Manchester, I related to him this extraordinary manifestation.” (Eliza R. Snow, pp. 46–47; italics added. Brigham Young was President of the Quorum of the Twelve at the time.)

President Snow’s son LeRoi later told that the Prophet Joseph Smithconfirmed the validity of the revelation Elder Snow had received: “Soon after his return from England, in January, 1843, Lorenzo Snow related to the Prophet Joseph Smith his experience in Elder Sherwood’s home. This was in a confidential interview in Nauvoo. The Prophet’s reply was: ‘Brother Snow, that is a true gospel doctrine, and it is a revelation from God to you.’” (LeRoi C. Snow, Improvement Era, June 1919, p. 656.)

The Prophet Joseph Smith himself publicly taught the doctrine the following year, 1844, during a funeral sermon of Elder King Follett: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1938, pp. 345–46.)

Once the Prophet Joseph had taught the doctrine publicly, Elder Snow also felt free to publicly teach it, and it was a common theme of his teachings throughout his life. About ten years before his death, while serving as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, President Snow incorporated his original couplet into a longer poem. He addressed the poem to the Apostle Paul, who had written the following to the Philippian Saints:

“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Philip. 2:5–6.)

Part of the poem reads:

The boy, like to his father grown,

Has but attained unto his own;

To grow to sire from state of son,

Is not ’gainst Nature’s course to run.

A son of God, like God to be,

Would not be robbing Deity.

(As cited in LeRoi C. Snow, p. 661.)

Numerous sources could be cited, but one should suffice to show that this doctrine is accepted and taught by the Brethren. In an address in 1971, President Joseph Fielding Smith, then serving as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said:

“I think I can pay no greater tribute to [President Lorenzo Snow and Elder Erastus Snow] than to preach again that glorious doctrine which they taught and which was one of the favorite themes, particularly of President Lorenzo Snow. …

“We have been promised by the Lord that if we know how to worship, and know what we worship, we may come unto the Father in his name, and in due time receive of his fulness. We have the promise that if we keep his commandments, we shall receive of his fulness and be glorified in him as he is in the Father.

“This is a doctrine which delighted President Snow, as it does all of us.Early in his ministry he received by direct, personal revelation the knowledge that (in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s language), ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,’ and that men ‘have got to learn how to be Gods … the same as all Gods have done before.’

“After this doctrine had been taught by the Prophet, President Snow felt free to teach it also, and he summarized it in one of the best known couplets in the Church. …

“This same doctrine has of course been known to the prophets of all the ages, and President Snow wrote an excellent poetic summary of it.”(Address on Snow Day, given at Snow College, 14 May 1971, pp. 1, 3–4; italics added.)

It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today.

===========================

What we can gather from this Ensign article is this:

1. The concept of "official" doctrine as compared to "doctrine" was really a distinction without a difference as late as 1982.

2. Public sermons by the Prophet were always considered acceptable doctrines of the Church.

3. Official pronouncements about doctrines are not valid criteria for determining official doctrines.

4. Official pronouncements about doctrines generally happen whenever there is a widespread confusion or controversy about said doctrines.

[DonBradley]

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.

The doctrine given in this sermon by Joseph Smith.

What we have here is Joseph Smith using this text to argue that God the Father has a father. That, and that alone, is my point. I just don't think it's unclear what Joseph Smith said.

Now, other questions like how important this idea is, etc., are useful to raise here. I don't see much, if any practical application of the idea since, as Joseph taught in the sermon and Latter-day Saints have always held, we worship only one Father. So, there doesn't seem to be much utility to the idea of being a priest to God's father!!

So, I agree with you that this reading seems odd and is without discernible application. I suppose it reinforces the idea of the King Follett Discourse, which Joseph Smith considered quite essential, that our Heavenly Father is an exalted man and that we can be exalted like Him. But other than that, it's hard to see how it could be relevant.

However, such reflections don't change the evident meaning of Joseph Smith's final doctrinal discourse, and one for which he claimed revelation.

Don

[Tacenda]

As an amateur armchair astronomer, I have to tell you that limiting a Father and Mother God to a single galaxy is NOT going to work. Your theory fails in so many ways.

Here's a cogent example. The Andromeda Galaxy and our Milky Way Galaxy are on a collision course, and will be in about 4 billion years. In fact, such galaxy mergers are extremely common. A look through the Hubble confirms that they are happening everywhere. A look at our own galaxy at this present time shows that it is actively in the process of swallowing two small, formerly independent galaxies, known as the Lesser Megallanic and the Greater Megallanic Clouds. There is evidence that our galaxy has swallowed other galaxies in the past.

In my somewhat more likely opinion, the entire observable Universe was created by Heavenly Father, and the process started with what we call the Big Bang.

How do galaxies get swallowed?

[DonBradley]

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.

IM, I see how you're spotting contradictions, but I think you're drawing false inferences from that.

Take the last statement you make above.

It's only true that JST Revelation 1:6 is evidence against Bullock's transcription IF:

1) We can safely assume that Joseph Smith remembered all of his thousands of revisions to the KJV over a decade earlier; and,

2) We can safely assume that Joseph Smith was skittish in Nauvoo about contradicting things he'd thought and said in the early 1830s.

How can we safely assume either of these?

I think Joseph Smith had a good memory. But to assume, as your argument does, that he must have remembered this particular passage out of those thousands is simply groundless. We have no reason to think his memory was that prodigious or that his emendation to this passage 12 years earlier was particularly memorable to him.

If you think Joseph felt bound by things he'd said earlier in his life, or even that he'd written in the JST, I'd suggest an intensive reading of his Nauvoo sermons and a comparison of these with the JST and his earlier statements. The fact is that this sermon is not the only one where Joseph Smith relies, in Nauvoo, on the KJV form of a biblical passage that he had previously rejected in the JST.

In Nauvoo, Joseph even felt comfortable rejecting ideas that had been presented in the Book of Mormon.

For example:

Alma 34:36

And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell; yea, and he has also said that the righteous shall sit down in his kingdom, to go no more out; but their garments should be made white through the blood of the Lamb.

Doctrine and Covenants 130:3

John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.Doctrine and Covenants 130:3 3 John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.

If I had time, and were so inclined, I could provide better, and numerous, such examples to show that Joseph Smith, like Emerson, knew that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." He simply did not feel bound by what he'd said before. Rather, he told the truth as he understood it now, leaving behind without need for explanation earlier understandings that he had grown past.

Note also that your argument above assumes that what Joseph had said in the JST 12 years earlier is a more relevant context for understanding his 1844 statement about the translation of Rev. 1:6 than is the context of the rest of the sermon he made the statement in and the events that prompted it.

As I've already gone over, there is abundant evidence that Joseph Smith's avowed, and accomplished, point in the final doctrinal sermon of his life was to respond to his critics by arguing that, yes, in fact, there were Gods above God the Father, including his Father.

You've asked whether this sermon is the only time Joseph Smith is reported to have taught the doctrine of their being Gods above God the Father. I think it's clear from the context that it is not.

Recall that Joseph took up this topic, and Revelation 1:6 as his text, in order to respond to apostates who took him to task for teaching the doctrine of "a plurality of Gods above the God of this universe." Rather than back down from the doctrine, Joseph fully owned and defended it, arguing that God the Father had his own heavenly progenitors. Thus we know that Joseph had been teaching the doctrine of "Gods above" God the Father before this sermon, and that the sermon wasn't announcing an entirely new doctrine but defending, reinforcing, and publicly declaring a doctrine he had already been teaching in his inner circle.

He had also hinted at this doctrine in public in the April 7, 1844 General Conference sermon we call "the King Follett Discourse," when he described God the Father as "an exalted man." who was not always God but was "once a man" and "became God" through a course of progression.

Even a casual reading of that Conference sermon (the KFD) will show that Joseph declared that much of it was intended to "show how God came to be God." Joseph flatly denied that God had always been God. So, unless one can believe that Joseph was saying there was no God at all, it becomes necessary to posit that before our[/] God "became God" (e.g., when he was a mortal man or a pre-mortal intelligence), there were others who stood in the role of God before Him - i.e., as Joseph taught in his final sermon there were "Gods above" God the Father.

If you try to make everything Joseph Smith ever said consistent, you will tie yourself in a knot and fail. No one is ever all the way consistent over time. And Joseph, with all of his boldness and his progress in knowledge over time, was certainly not.

But if you want to know what Joseph was saying in his final, June 16, 1844, sermon, look at the sermon as a whole, in its context. Apart from some trivial inconsistency of the sort that can result from a mistaken punctuation mark, Joseph's final sermon has a highly unified and consistent message, and one consistent with its context too: There are, as the authors of the Expositor had feared, "Gods above" God the Father.

Cheers,

Don

[DonBradley]

And that is an official Church publication?

Would they have one in out ward library?

Can I buy one from the Church?

Well, hmm, let's see.

1. It's titled "The History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

2. It is the history of the Church begun by Joseph Smith himself. In fact, let's see if you recognize its opening passage:

"Owing to the many reports which have been put in circulation by evil-disposed and designing persons, in relation to the rise and progress of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, all of which have been designed by the authors thereof to militate against its character as a Church and its progress in the world—I have been induced to write this history, to disabuse the public mind, and put all inquirers after truth in possession of the facts, as they have transpired, in relation both to myself and the Church, so far as I have such facts in my possession."

I hope you do recognize it, since this and much of the rest of its early narrative is canonized in the Pearl of Great Price as "Joseph Smith-History." (Compare JS-H http://www.lds.org/s...s-h/1?lang=eng# with page 1 of the History of the Church: http://books.google....IEiOmZAC&pg=PA1 )

Joseph began dictating this history in 1838, and later began publishing it serially in the Times and Seasons.

3. It was completed after his death, primarily by members of the First Presidency and Twelve: George A. Smith, Willard Richards, and Wilford Woodruff.

4. It was edited, as the title page shows, by B. H. Roberts, one of the Seven Presidents of the Seventy--a General Authority.

5. The earliest print edition says on the title page "Published by the Church."

http://books.google.... by the church"

6. This first edition had to be approved by the First Presidency under Joseph F. Smith before they would allow the Church to publish it. They required that Elder Roberts leave some things out. Interestingly, the material you object to was not one of those things. The First Presidency approved the publication of Joseph's June 16, 1844 sermon. (You can find it in that first edition here: http://books.google....christ"&jtp=473 )

7. The 1948 edition shows that it was copyrighted by and in the name of the (then) living prophet himself, George Albert Smith.

https://byustudies.b...c/hcpgs/hc.aspx

8. Though the contents of ward libraries vary from ward to ward, you likely could find one there.

9. Finally, the sermon report for the June 16, 1844 sermon was written by Thomas Bullock, who was then employed by Joseph Smith as his private clerk. So, this is not just some random guy's account of what the Prophet said. It was a report made by a man designated by the Prophet to do just that. [http://en.wikipedia....ullock_(Mormon)]

Thus, contrary to what you've obviously assumed, Bullock's sermon report was made under the Prophet's own auspices; and the History of the Church, in which it appeared, was created as an official Church publication begun by the Prophet himself and completed, edited, and approved by the subsequent leaders of the Church.

Inquiring Mind, I don't think my participation in this discussion is doing any good. While I've been doing my best to give you information in answer to your questions, that doesn't seem to be what you really want. You seem to want to confirm your present view that Joseph Smith didn't really mean in his June 16, 1844 sermon that God the Father had a father of his own. So, evidence that contradicts your preferred position on this--as nearly all of it does--you dismiss, while clinging to a tenuous thread of data that you think supports your position.

This isn't inquiry, it isn't a way to learn, and it isn't something I'm willing to spend any further time responding to. If you ever decide that you really want to learn what Joseph Smith taught in this sermon, you'll have plenty of information to start from in this thread. And perhaps we can take up the topic again then.

Until then, I'm going to bow out from discussing this one with you further.

Best wishes,

Don

Edited June 5, 2013 by DonBradley