Jesus As God Of The Ot

[EllenMaksoud]

Can anyone provide the Mormon basis for Jesus as God of the OT?

[JLHPROF]

Can anyone provide the Mormon basis for Jesus as God of the OT?

 

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/jehovah?lang=eng

The idea was popularized by Jesus the Christ by Talmage in 1915.  Prior to that there were other doctrines in the Church that were widely accepted.

But this is the current teaching and the scriptural references.  I don't hold to it, but here it is.

[mfbukowski]

Can anyone provide the Mormon basis for Jesus as God of the OT?

John 1:1 etc.

 

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

² The same was in the beginning with God.

³ All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

So "the Word" is the messenger- Jesus, and all that was created was created by the Word (Logos)

 

Plus we have Jehovah revealing his Name as "I am" and then Jesus saying "Before Abraham was, I AM" - using the sacred name- and then all the Pharisees etc wanting to stone Jesus for saying that.

 

He definitely claimed to be the God of the OT.  I think that is pretty much accepted by most Christians- not just Mormons.

[mfbukowski]

Just google "Jesus is creator" and you will see.

 

Try also "Jesus is Jehovah"

[EllenMaksoud]

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/jehovah?lang=eng

The idea was popularized by Jesus the Christ by Talmage in 1915.  Prior to that there were other doctrines in the Church that were widely accepted.

But this is the current teaching and the scriptural references.  I don't hold to it, but here it is.

I am not at ease with the doctrine.

[EllenMaksoud]

John 1:1 etc.

So "the Word" is the messenger- Jesus, and all that was created was created by the Word (Logos)

 

Plus we have Jehovah revealing his Name as "I am" and then Jesus saying "Before Abraham was, I AM" - using the sacred name- and then all the Pharisees etc wanting to stone Jesus for saying that.

 

He definitely claimed to be the God of the OT.  I think that is pretty much accepted by most Christians- not just Mormons.

I am most anxious to distance myself from Isaiah 14: 11-20  ¹ Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

¹² How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

¹³ For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

¹⁴ I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

¹⁵ Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

¹⁶ They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

¹⁷ That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

¹⁸ All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.

¹⁹ But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.

²⁰ Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.

 

So, when the talk begins about our being exalted, and being Gods, I get really nervous, not at all at peace.

 

It is impossible to ignore John 1, however.

[Kevin Christensen]

Can anyone provide the Mormon basis for Jesus as God of the OT?

 

There is this:

 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1459&index=4

 

And this:

 

http://www.theway.org.uk/back/431Barker.pdf

 

For starters.

 

The single best source is Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God.

 

FWIiW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[teddyaware]

The holy name Jehovah or Yahweh literally means "The Eternal One." That title or description applies as well to God the Father as it does to Jesus Christ, because both are "The Eternal One". In fact, in the early days of the Restoration, prior to the early 1900's, it wasn't uncommon for some leaders in the Church to apply that appellation to both the Father and the Son, and this because, as I said, both are infinite and eternal beings within the Godhead. Later, I believe, more for convenience and to avoid confusion among the members, the title of Jehovah was made to apply more particularly to Christ. Nevertheless, if you turn to the LDS Bible topical guide, you will still see a concordance heading titled "God the Father, Jehovah." So as you can now see, the title of Jehovah can rightly apply to either the Father or the Son. So there's no need to sweat it.

Edited January 7, 2014 by teddyaware

[changed]

 

So, when the talk begins about our being exalted, and being Gods, I get really nervous, not at all at peace.

 

.

I read some C.S. Lewis over Christmas, (Weight of Glory?) he was pondering on what glory/exaltation was all about, that it seemed like seeking Glory or glorifying God was some selfish/prideful thing, but then he quoted the scripture about becoming a child to enter heaven - picturing how a child seeks praise for their accomplishments, or how a dog gets all excited when you tell them "good boy", that this is the type of praise we should seek/give - not the prideful/superficial kinds of glory, but the praise due to humble servants/children/animals whose goal isn't to get gain, but rather to please others. I like that definition of praise/glory. So now, when I think of someone who is exalted, I think of someone who is appreciated for their service - someone who is happy like a child who feels appreciated and loved.

Edited January 7, 2014 by changed

[changed]

The holy name Jehovah or Yahweh literally means "The Eternal One." That title or description applies as well to God the Father as it does to Jesus Christ, because both are "The Eternal One". In fact, in the early days of the Restoration, prior to the early 1900's, it wasn't uncommon for some leaders in the Church to apply that appellation to both the Father and the Son, and this because, as I said, both are infinite and eternal beings within the Godhead. Later, I believe, more for convenience and to avoid confusion among the members, the title of Jehovah was made to apply more particularly to Christ. Nevertheless, if you turn to the LDS Bible topical guide, you will still see a concordance heading titled "God the Father, Jehovah." So as you can now see, the title of Jehovah can rightly apply to either the Father or the Son. So don't sweat it.

"We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance," - http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng

Does it really matter who did what in the OT?  Either way, they both agreed with one another.

[teddyaware]

"We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance," - http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng

Does it really matter who did what in the OT?  Either way, they both agreed with one another.

You're simply saying what I said in a different way. So we agree.

[changed]

You're simply saying what I said in a different way. So we agree.

Sorry, yes, I agree.

[mbh26]

This is a good link from sunstone on the evolution of the doctrine Jesus=Jehovah

 

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/044-36-44.pdf

 

Just to summarize

 

1.  The Book of Mormon speaks of only one God who could manifest himself as both God the Father or the Son.

2.  By the end of the year 1835, Joseph began to use the name Jehovah to refer to the Father.

3.  Brigham Young considered Elohim and Jehovah to be patriarchal superiors to Adam, the father of Jesus Christ.

4.  While not all General Authorities agreed with Brigham Young's Adam-God teachings, many of them did speak of Jehovah as the Father.

5.  The controversy over the identities of the temple culminated in a meeting with Wilford Woodruff and George Q. Cannon. 

6.  Many members wrote to the first presidency protesting their efforts to overturn the theological views of previous Mormon leaders.

7.  The first presidency moved to abate public criticism and internal controversy by citing the scriptures as the final official word on this matter.

8.  The theological problems were all "finally" resolved in a carefully worked out statement  written by James E. Talmage. 

 

 

I wondered what the explanation was for the differing accounts of the first vision.  Did Joseph initially not understand that he saw two separate beings until he received further light and knowledge years later? 

Edited January 7, 2014 by mbh26

[changed]

I wondered what the explanation was for the differing accounts of the first vision.  

My b.i.l. is a cop, and was telling us about an investigator class he took where in the middle of the class, someone ran in with a bannana, attacked the teacher, and then ran out again.  The teacher then asked everyone to write down what they had witnessed - describe the suspect, what was the weapon used, cloths, etc. etc. When they compared what everyone had written, the accounts were all over the place - even though this was a class full of cops who were supposed to be trained at noticing details etc. etc.  The teacher then proceeded to tell everyone that eye witness accounts are considered to be the least accurate form of evidence. 

Consdier that the NT is basically filled with a bunch of different accounts of the same events (Math, Mark, Luke John etc. etc.) Why so many accounts of the same thing? 

It's human nature to not fully understand what we see.  In court, false accounts are those that have every detail in agreement (rehersed) ...  true accounts are those with missing details, people change opinions, add/subtract/realize new aspects of what really happened through talking it over.

Edited January 7, 2014 by changed

[Tacenda]

I believe JS at first believed in the trinity God and then evolved into current doctrine. In the original BoM it's the trinity God at first and then changes were made to add "son of" in various places where it says Jesus was God. There are places where the trinity is still there but according to critics, Joseph got tired of making all the changes in the 1830 edition and in many places left it alone. But LDS apologists have reasons or explanations for the changes in the BoM.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Tacenda

[Tiki]

Can anyone provide the Mormon basis for Jesus as God of the OT?

Have you ever heard of The Book of Mormon?

[mbh26]

Consdier that the NT is basically filled with a bunch of different accounts of the same events (Math, Mark, Luke John etc. etc.) Why so many accounts of the same thing? 

 

I can totally understand how one might be overwhelmed by the experience and be less than accurate about what actually happened.  I just remember how it was presented in seminary that Joseph saw God the Father and Jesus Christ and immediately knew the Trinitarian doctrine he was taught wasn't true.  Perhaps it was more like he had that experience and only after contemplating it over the next five years did he start to realize that he saw two beings rather than one.  Is that more in line with current apologetics, just curious?

[teddyaware]

I believe JS at first believed in the trinity God and then evolved into current doctrine. In the original BoM it's the trinity God at first and then changes were made to add "son of" in various places where it says Jesus was God. There are places where the trinity is still there but according to critics, Joseph got tired of making all the changes in the 1830 edition and in many places left it alone. But LDS apologists have reasons or explanations for the changes in the BoM.

Joseph Smith did not believe in a trinity with an immaterial, disembodied and "totally other" God the Father. In the very first Chapter of the Book of Mormon, God the Father is a being in the form of a man who sits upon a throne. Non-LDS Christians do not believe the personage of the Father has the form of a man...

8 And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God.

9 And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day.

10 And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament.

So in the first chapter of the Book of Mormon, completed before the Church was actually organized, God, Christ and the twelve apostles are shown as separate and distinct personages of human form. After all, how could Lehi have seen God sitting on throne unless He had form.

In addition, in the Book of Moses, given during the first year of the Church's existence, we read:

"35 Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also.

36 Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also, and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren." (Moses 7)

 

So here God refers to Himself as a Man of Holiness with hands and eyes, and this in the very earliest days of the Restoration!

 

Also, the Prophet Joseph Smith's own testimony contradicts your idea...

“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.”12

“That which is without body or parts is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)

There is strong reason to believe the prophet spoke the truth here.

Edited January 7, 2014 by teddyaware

[Coreyb]

I can totally understand how one might be overwhelmed by the experience and be less than accurate about what actually happened.  I just remember how it was presented in seminary that Joseph saw God the Father and Jesus Christ and immediately knew the Trinitarian doctrine he was taught wasn't true.  Perhaps it was more like he had that experience and only after contemplating it over the next five years did he start to realize that he saw two beings rather than one.  Is that more in line with current apologetics, just curious?

If you read the lectures on faith you will probably come to realize that the idea you were taught in seminary isn't exactly accurate

[EllenMaksoud]

Have you ever heard of The Book of Mormon?

That is sarcastic and unacceptable.

[Cold Steel]

Jehovah and Jesus both had the same titles and both are One in purpose. When our first parents fell, the Father required there be an intercessor, and that intercessor was Yahweh. Zechariah clearly saw Jehovah as the one who would come in glory and save Jerusalem from Gog/the Beast (see Ezek. 38-39; Zech. 12-14). It's Jehovah's feet that will stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, and Jehovah who will come to judge the nations--even though John 5:22 states that the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son.

The Father has no ditect interaction with man except it comes through the Son. He bears witness of the Son and that's it. Once the earth is glorified and redeemed and are judged and ressurected, then the Son will turn it all back to the Father, thus delivering his stewardship to the Father, even as Adam delivered his stewardship to the Son.

But yes, in modern revelation and in the Book of Mormon, Jesus identified himself as Jehovah. See again the story of the Brother of Jared where Jehovah explains he will one day come and take upon himself a body of flesh and bone.

[strappinglad]

There are over a dozen scriptures in the OT, mostly Isaiah, where the Lord of Hosts , the Mighty one of Jacob , is referred to as the Redeemer and/or the Savior. Just another way to connect to the Christ.

Edited January 7, 2014 by strappinglad

[jana at jade house]

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/jehovah?lang=eng

The idea was popularized by Jesus the Christ by Talmage in 1915.  Prior to that there were other doctrines in the Church that were widely accepted.

But this is the current teaching and the scriptural references.  I don't hold to it, but here it is.

and I am nearly positive it was taught by Joseph Fielding Smith even before that.   

[jana at jade house]

I am not at ease with the doctrine.

Why? The *Godheid work in total and perfect harmony.  They are One in everything but person.  It really doesn't matter which One is speaking to us, because  they have one voice.  Jehovah was given our spirits to guide back to the Father. Why would He not be the Creator and Father of our world.  It minimizes Elohim not one shred.

 

*Oh, gosh this is the Dutch word...is it Godhead in English?