Jesus As God Of The Ot

[Kevin Christensen]

I am assuming you mean Joseph F. Sr, but that still dates to the turn of the 1900s.  Prior to that time the Church had other teachings and Christ as Jehovah wasn't the accepted doctrine until then.  So who knows, we may have a new doctrine in another 50 years.

Of course "accepted" or "formally articulated" or "widely recognized" aren't the same notion as "correct." Jim's citation of 3 Nephi 11:14, for instance, is simply pointing out something that has been there since 1829, whether it was often cited or not.

And we do have interesting passage in Hymns that predate 1900. "once a meek and lowly lamb, Now the Lord, the Great I AM" or "Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah, Jesus anointed that prophet and seer..."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited January 8, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[JAHS]

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

 

I can provide some scriptural evidence which some may have already suggested. Jehovah in the Old Testament is described as judge:

 

In his attempts to save the inhabitants of the city of Sodom from destruction if as many as ten righteous men inhabit the city, Abraham himself calls the LORD (Jehovah) "the Judge of all the earth" (Gen. 18:25). One of the attributes of Jehovah is that he is Judge.

 

1 Sam 2:10 - "shall judge the ends of the earth"

Deut 32:36 - "shall judge his people"

1Chr 16:33 - "cometh to judge the earth"

Ps 9:8 - "shall judge the world in righteousness"

Ps 96:10 - "shall judge the people righteously"

Ps 96:13 - "cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth"

Isa 2:4 - "shall judge among the nations"

Isa 3:13 - "standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people"

Isa 11:4 - "with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity"

Isa 33:22 - "is our judge"

Eze 18:30 - "will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways"

 

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is identified as the judge:

John 9:39 - "And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world." 

The Apostles also identified Jesus Christ as the judge:

Acts 10:42 - "it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead"

Acts 17:31 - "he will judge the world in righteousness"

Rom 14:10 - "we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ"

2 Cor 5:10 - "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ"

2 Tim 4:1 - "shall judge the quick and the dead"

Jude 1:14-15 - "The Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all"

John 5:22 -"the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son"

 

Since the Father "judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son", the judge named Jehovah, described in the Old Testament verses, must therefore be Jesus Christ.

[ChristKnight]

I can tell you as the Nicene Creed of circa 325 was taught in the 50's in the Roman church it was confusing and muddled.The Trinity was somehow three somethings in one but I never thought about them as people per se until I came into LDS doctrine.  Since the trinity explanation of the 50's was unexplanable, most common Catholics accepted the "divine mystery" dodge. It was my darling LDS sis in law who made me take a hard look at Jesus'baptism event and see all three separate beings were there;  not bound together like some divine participants in a three legged race but separate defined individuals. It was a watershed moment. 

 

Since I don't desire to get into another Trinity debate, nor do I want to derail this thread, this will be my only post on the matter .

 

Firstly, it is a caricature to claim that an appropriate analogy of the Trinity is that the Persons are "bound together like some divine participants in a three legged race".  That is not an accurate portrayal based on what the traditional Trinity doctrine actually teaches.  Also, I am unsure as to how Jesus' baptism would point you in the direction of the LDS view of the Godhead instead of the traditional Trinitarian view.  As teddyaware mentioned, Trinitarians also point to Jesus' baptism to show that three distinct Persons (who are not each other, as that is what is meant by "distinct") were present, and this verse is used very similarly to how LDS use it.  Trinitarians reject any notion that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one Person, that Jesus prayed to Himself, etc.  It may be better to see how Unitarians and Modalists address such matters, since such views are not the same as the Trinity doctrine.

 

I don't see "divine mystery" as a "dodge", anymore than certain things in both the Catholic and LDS faiths are unexplainable, for various reasons.  Catholicism also uses the word "mystery" in different ways, such as to mean Truths that cannot be discerned through mere human reason alone, but are revealed by God to man (I'm sure that 3DOP can articulate this better than I can). 

 

Another issue is that Trinitarians and LDS may not be using words such as "being" and "person" in the same way (remembering that the formal defining of the Trinity doctrine originated in a non-English speaking world).  Latter-day Saints are okay with using "person"/"personage" and "being" interchangeably (i.e. three separate Personages/Beings").  In contrast, Trinitarians use those words to refer to two different concepts.  The Three are distinct "Persons", but not distinct Beings".  Their oneness is one of "being" (also referred to as nature/essence/substance), and not a oneness of "personhood" (the Father is the Father, the Son is the Son, the Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost, and none are the others).  Further, while LDS are okay with referring to them as "separate Personages/Beings", Catholics/traditional Christians are specific in the words they use, and will say "distinct" instead of "separate".  They would say that the three Persons are "inseparable", not because they are attached to each other in a three legged race, but because you cannot have one Person without the others, and they have eternally existed as a Trinity.  You cannot have a Son without a Father, you cannot have a Father without a Son, and the Holy Ghost comes from the Father through the Son.

 

One book that is very helpful in seeing how simple the Trinity doctrine actually is, and has been recommended by many Catholics, is Frank Sheed's The One Thing Is Three: How the Most Holy Trinity Explains Everything, and Pope Benedict XVI's The God of Jesus Christ: Meditations on the Triune God, and Introduction to Christianity.  Note that I'm certainly not implying that these books are necessary to understand the Catholic view on God, or that you even need to read books to get that understanding.  The Trinity can be explained very briefly.

 

Finally, I do think it makes sense that as a Catholic, you never saw the Persons of the Trinity as "people" (men?), since this also points to two different views on the nature of God.  Latter-day Saints believe that God and man are of the same "species".  God is an exalted man, and the Son and the Holy Ghost are literal spirit sons of the Father (as we all are).  They are all actual people, like we are (though exalted of course, at least in the case of the Father and the Son, since the Holy Ghost does not have a body).  The difference between us and them is therefore one of progression (and our progression is made possible through the Atonement).  In contrast, the Catholic/traditional view sees God and man as two different "species".  God is God, man is man, they are different.  The Son/Jesus is also a man due to His Incarnation (and it is through His atonement that the chasm between God and man is bridged and theosis is possible), however the Father and the Holy Ghost are not viewed as literal males. 

 

Anyway, I probably went on longer than necessary.  My only point is that while there are definitely differences between how Latter-day Saints and Catholics/traditional Christians view God, the issue of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost not being each other/attached to each other/etc isn't one of them.  Both would agree that Christ's baptism makes this obvious.

[teddyaware]

Since I don't desire to get into another Trinity debate, nor do I want to derail this thread, this will be my only post on the matter .

 

Firstly, it is a caricature to claim that an appropriate analogy of the Trinity is that the Persons are "bound together like some divine participants in a three legged race".  That is not an accurate portrayal based on what the traditional Trinity doctrine actually teaches.  Also, I am unsure as to how Jesus' baptism would point you in the direction of the LDS view of the Godhead instead of the traditional Trinitarian view.  As teddyaware mentioned, Trinitarians also point to Jesus' baptism to show that three distinct Persons (who are not each other, as that is what is meant by "distinct") were present, and this verse is used very similarly to how LDS use it.  Trinitarians reject any notion that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one Person, that Jesus prayed to Himself, etc.  It may be better to see how Unitarians and Modalists address such matters, since such views are not the same as the Trinity doctrine.

 

I don't see "divine mystery" as a "dodge", anymore than certain things in both the Catholic and LDS faiths are unexplainable, for various reasons.  Catholicism also uses the word "mystery" in different ways, such as to mean Truths that cannot be discerned through mere human reason alone, but are revealed by God to man (I'm sure that 3DOP can articulate this better than I can). 

 

Another issue is that Trinitarians and LDS may not be using words such as "being" and "person" in the same way (remembering that the formal defining of the Trinity doctrine originated in a non-English speaking world).  Latter-day Saints are okay with using "person"/"personage" and "being" interchangeably (i.e. three separate Personages/Beings").  In contrast, Trinitarians use those words to refer to two different concepts.  The Three are distinct "Persons", but not distinct Beings".  Their oneness is one of "being" (also referred to as nature/essence/substance), and not a oneness of "personhood" (the Father is the Father, the Son is the Son, the Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost, and none are the others).  Further, while LDS are okay with referring to them as "separate Personages/Beings", Catholics/traditional Christians are specific in the words they use, and will say "distinct" instead of "separate".  They would say that the three Persons are "inseparable", not because they are attached to each other in a three legged race, but because you cannot have one Person without the others, and they have eternally existed as a Trinity.  You cannot have a Son without a Father, you cannot have a Father without a Son, and the Holy Ghost comes from the Father through the Son.

 

One book that is very helpful in seeing how simple the Trinity doctrine actually is, and has been recommended by many Catholics, is Frank Sheed's Theology and Sanity.  Other books that I've seen recommended include Scott Hahn's First Comes Love: Finding Your Family in the Church and the Trinity, Michael Gaitley's The One Thing Is Three: How the Most Holy Trinity Explains Everything, and Pope Benedict XVI's The God of Jesus Christ: Meditations on the Triune God, and Introduction to Christianity.  Note that I'm certainly not implying that these books are necessary to understand the Catholic view on God, or that you even need to read books to get that understanding.  The Trinity can be explained very briefly.

 

Finally, I do think it makes sense that as a Catholic, you never saw the Persons of the Trinity as "people" (men?), since this also points to two different views on the nature of God.  Latter-day Saints believe that God and man are of the same "species".  God is an exalted man, and the Son and the Holy Ghost are literal spirit sons of the Father (as we all are).  They are all actual people, like we are (though exalted of course, at least in the case of the Father and the Son, since the Holy Ghost does not have a body).  The difference between us and them is therefore one of progression (and our progression is made possible through the Atonement).  In contrast, the Catholic/traditional view sees God and man as two different "species".  God is God, man is man, they are different.  The Son/Jesus is also a man due to His Incarnation (and it is through His atonement that the chasm between God and man is bridged and theosis is possible), however the Father and the Holy Ghost are not viewed as literal males. 

 

Anyway, I probably went on longer than necessary.  My only point is that while there are definitely differences between how Latter-day Saints and Catholics/traditional Christians view God, the issue of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost not being each other/attached to each other/etc isn't one of them.  Both would agree that Christ's baptism makes this obvious.

I believe one of the main differences between the traditional trinity and the LDS trinity (if it can be called such) is that the three personage but one God is left an unresolved mystery in the former and definitively explained in the latter. The LDS explanation of the oneness of the three persons is that each personage of the Godhead thinks, feels, acts, and knows exactly like the others, and the one substance (homoousios) that brings this perfect unity to the three persons is the Eternal Spirit, or Mind, of Truth (The Lectures on Faith equates the word Spirit with the word Mind; both are spelled with the first letter in capital).

Edited January 8, 2014 by teddyaware

[Calm]

I think jana was just talking about how it was taught to her and others around her she probably discussed it with in the 50s, not necessarily that was the actual doctrine.  I have heard Catholics who have taught the Trinity in ways I see as effective and in ways I see as totally messed up.  If they haven't looked at it closely themselves, it seems it is harder for them to pass on their understanding leading to greater confusion.

 

And as 3DOP has pointed out in the past, IIRC, people often use "mystery" inappropriately to merely refer to something they can't explain.

 

Interesting point about "people".  I hadn't considered that point before.

[rameumptom]

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.

 

There is no perfect translation for "Yahweh".  "Eternal One" is just one definition. It can also mean "One who IS", "One who Becomes", "One who Creates", etc.

[rameumptom]

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.

 

What makes you nervous?  The key is not that we can become Gods, but HOW we attempt to become Gods. Lucifer/Satan sought to make himself God, even causing war in heaven to achieve it.  That is what will bring him down.

A Christ-like approach we find in Abraham 3 and Moses 4:1-4, where Jesus does not seek power for himself, but only to serve God.  God then freely gives his glory to Jesus as a gift. Jesus does the same for us: he gives us the gift of salvation and exaltation, when we seek to follow Him humbly.  We cannot, however, seek to steal or take it by force.

[rameumptom]

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.

 

That is a simplistic reading of the BoM.  When you actually read the parts that say the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "one God", it is in conjunction with us being one with the Godhead and with each other. For example, 3 Ne 11 the Lord first warns of Satan and contention, and then states that his doctrine is one of unity, wherein we all become one by Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Holy Ghost; and so become as the Godhead (who are one God).

Edited January 8, 2014 by rameumptom

[rameumptom]

On the Trinity and Modalism: most traditional Christians use modalism to describe the Trinity!  It is like a hand with fingers, or an egg with different part (yolk, shell, white), etc.

There are many traditional Christians who read the Bible and come to the conclusion that God is a man-like being (called Father, saw Moses and others face to face, etc).

Many in and before Joseph Smith's day questioned the concept of Trinity, including Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (in letters they wrote to each other).

[Calm]

On the Trinity and Modalism: most traditional Christians use modalism to describe the Trinity!  It is like a hand with fingers, or an egg with different part (yolk, shell, white), etc.).

that doesn't sound like modalism to me since the three parts of the egg and parts of the hand are all existing at the same time.

The water analogy where it can appear as either liquid, gas or solid is more modalism in my view.

[mfbukowski]

Since I don't desire to get into another Trinity debate, nor do I want to derail this thread, this will be my only post on the matter .

 

Firstly, it is a caricature to claim that an appropriate analogy of the Trinity is that the Persons are "bound together like some divine participants in a three legged race".  That is not an accurate portrayal based on what the traditional Trinity doctrine actually teaches.  Also, I am unsure as to how Jesus' baptism would point you in the direction of the LDS view of the Godhead instead of the traditional Trinitarian view.  As teddyaware mentioned, Trinitarians also point to Jesus' baptism to show that three distinct Persons (who are not each other, as that is what is meant by "distinct") were present, and this verse is used very similarly to how LDS use it.  Trinitarians reject any notion that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one Person, that Jesus prayed to Himself, etc.  It may be better to see how Unitarians and Modalists address such matters, since such views are not the same as the Trinity doctrine.

 

I don't see "divine mystery" as a "dodge", anymore than certain things in both the Catholic and LDS faiths are unexplainable, for various reasons.  Catholicism also uses the word "mystery" in different ways, such as to mean Truths that cannot be discerned through mere human reason alone, but are revealed by God to man (I'm sure that 3DOP can articulate this better than I can). 

 

Another issue is that Trinitarians and LDS may not be using words such as "being" and "person" in the same way (remembering that the formal defining of the Trinity doctrine originated in a non-English speaking world).  Latter-day Saints are okay with using "person"/"personage" and "being" interchangeably (i.e. three separate Personages/Beings").  In contrast, Trinitarians use those words to refer to two different concepts.  The Three are distinct "Persons", but not distinct Beings".  Their oneness is one of "being" (also referred to as nature/essence/substance), and not a oneness of "personhood" (the Father is the Father, the Son is the Son, the Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost, and none are the others).  Further, while LDS are okay with referring to them as "separate Personages/Beings", Catholics/traditional Christians are specific in the words they use, and will say "distinct" instead of "separate".  They would say that the three Persons are "inseparable", not because they are attached to each other in a three legged race, but because you cannot have one Person without the others, and they have eternally existed as a Trinity.  You cannot have a Son without a Father, you cannot have a Father without a Son, and the Holy Ghost comes from the Father through the Son.

 

One book that is very helpful in seeing how simple the Trinity doctrine actually is, and has been recommended by many Catholics, is Frank Sheed's The One Thing Is Three: How the Most Holy Trinity Explains Everything, and Pope Benedict XVI's The God of Jesus Christ: Meditations on the Triune God, and Introduction to Christianity.  Note that I'm certainly not implying that these books are necessary to understand the Catholic view on God, or that you even need to read books to get that understanding.  The Trinity can be explained very briefly.

 

Finally, I do think it makes sense that as a Catholic, you never saw the Persons of the Trinity as "people" (men?), since this also points to two different views on the nature of God.  Latter-day Saints believe that God and man are of the same "species".  God is an exalted man, and the Son and the Holy Ghost are literal spirit sons of the Father (as we all are).  They are all actual people, like we are (though exalted of course, at least in the case of the Father and the Son, since the Holy Ghost does not have a body).  The difference between us and them is therefore one of progression (and our progression is made possible through the Atonement).  In contrast, the Catholic/traditional view sees God and man as two different "species".  God is God, man is man, they are different.  The Son/Jesus is also a man due to His Incarnation (and it is through His atonement that the chasm between God and man is bridged and theosis is possible), however the Father and the Holy Ghost are not viewed as literal males. 

 

Anyway, I probably went on longer than necessary.  My only point is that while there are definitely differences between how Latter-day Saints and Catholics/traditional Christians view God, the issue of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost not being each other/attached to each other/etc isn't one of them.  Both would agree that Christ's baptism makes this obvious.

Thanks for your post

 

Their oneness is one of "being" (also referred to as nature/essence/substance), and not a oneness of "personhood" (the Father is the Father, the Son is the Son, the Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost, and none are the others).

I guess that is why Wittgenstein was ultimately a mystic, and though raised Catholic and quite religious, he never wrote anything about theology per se.

 

I can understand those words, that we are making a "thing" called "being/nature/essence/substance" but I do not understand what that thing is.  Purpose- now that is a word I understand, and can see how multiple persons can be one in purpose.  But as you say, this is probably a derail, but I am not sure it is.

 

Really to me it goes to the core of the subject of the thread- how Jesus and the Father are one, or not one.

[mfbukowski]

On the Trinity and Modalism: most traditional Christians use modalism to describe the Trinity!  It is like a hand with fingers, or an egg with different part (yolk, shell, white), etc.

There are many traditional Christians who read the Bible and come to the conclusion that God is a man-like being (called Father, saw Moses and others face to face, etc).

Many in and before Joseph Smith's day questioned the concept of Trinity, including Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (in letters they wrote to each other).

If you see the word "God" as a collective noun like "Family" I think it all becomes clear.  The three (or more) persons in the "God Family" are one in purpose and mind.

 

At some point, we get to join the family.  We are born with the potential to become one of them, but have to learn the business to be able to be worthy to get the full inheritance.

 

Maybe it is a bad analogy, and not politically correct, and definitely culturally defined, but communicating these ideas simply is not easy.

[teddyaware]

that doesn't sound like modalism to me since the three parts of the egg and parts of the hand are all existing at the same time.

The water analogy where it can appear as either liquid, gas or solid is more modalism in my view.

You are correct. Modalism speaks of one person in three manifestations. So water as ice, liquid and gas is a good analogy because in all three of these manifestations of water the H2O molecule is the underlying common element. An egg is less perfect as an analogy because the shell, the white and the yoke of the egg, while all parts of the egg, are different in composition.

Edited January 9, 2014 by teddyaware

[Cold Steel]

The relationship in the Godhead is one of the easiest doctrines in the Restored Church. The Father and Son came out of the premortal council with the issue of atonement settled. First comes the setup, then temptation, the fall of man, the preeminence of Christ, the reign and atonement of the Savior, the judgment, the Millennium, resurrection of man and the glorification and sanctification of Earth. All is followed by the presentation, in which the Son presents His stewardship to the Father.

 

Since the fall, the Father has not spoken directly to man except to bear record of the Son. He did not talk to Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses or any other prophet directly, again, except to bear witness of the Son. The God of Israel is Jesus Christ, the great Savior and Judge of mankind. When Jesus prayed to the Father concerning the Twelve, He said, "...that they may be ONE, even as we are ONE." Thus, we see the way in which the Father and Son are One. It's the same way the First Presidency is One, or that the Quorum of the Twelve are One.

 

It's no more complicated than that. The early Roman church had the same problem with metaphor when it came to the Lord's Supper. They had to invent transubstantiation to deal with it, which also doubled as a miracle in a church that had become demiracled. So "this is my body" and "this is my blood" took on literal meanings when they were clearly metaphors.

 

I suspect with the loss of spiritual gifts and the raging apostasy, the clergy went overboard in trying to mystify everything.

 

 

[teddyaware]

The relationship in the Godhead is one of the easiest doctrines in the Restored Church. The Father and Son came out of the premortal council with the issue of atonement settled. First comes the setup, then temptation, the fall of man, the preeminence of Christ, the reign and atonement of the Savior, the judgment, the Millennium, resurrection of man and the glorification and sanctification of Earth. All is followed by the presentation, in which the Son presents His stewardship to the Father.

 

Since the fall, the Father has not spoken directly to man except to bear record of the Son. He did not talk to Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses or any other prophet directly, again, except to bear witness of the Son. The God of Israel is Jesus Christ, the great Savior and Judge of mankind. When Jesus prayed to the Father concerning the Twelve, He said, "...that they may be ONE, even as we are ONE." Thus, we see the way in which the Father and Son are One. It's the same way the First Presidency is One, or that the Quorum of the Twelve are One.

 

It's no more complicated than that. The early Roman church had the same problem with metaphor when it came to the Lord's Supper. They had to invent transubstantiation to deal with it, which also doubled as a miracle in a church that had become demiracled. So "this is my body" and "this is my blood" took on literal meanings when they were clearly metaphors.

 

I suspect with the loss of spiritual gifts and the raging apostasy, the clergy went overboard in trying to mystify everything.

 

 

Excellent, well-written summation! The Restored Gospel is just great!

[Tacenda]

1 Timothy 3:16

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

John 4:24 (KJV) 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

John 4:25 (KJV) 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh , which is called Christ: when he is come , he will tell us all things.   

John 4:26 (KJV) 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.   

[EllenMaksoud]

From conversations I have had outside this forum, the "Jesus as God of the OT " opinion is not universal, and I have seen just lots of scripture both in favor of and in opposition to it. It takes time to process all this. One opinion I heard last night was if Jesus was praying to God in the garden of Gethsemane, then was he talking to himself?  I can see that caring for "humans" would possibly drive one to distraction.

[theplains]

From conversations I have had outside this forum, the "Jesus as God of the OT " opinion is not universal, and I have seen just lots of scripture both in favor of and in opposition to it.

 

Which LDS scriptures do you believe are in favour and against the teaching that Jesus is

God of the OT?

 

Thanks,

Jim