Moses 1:6 Help For Sunday School

[Veles]

Hi to all... I'm a member from Europe, apologize for my poor english.

 

I've to prepare a lesson for sunday school tomorrow, is about the first chapter of the Book of Moses. The church manual underlined the necessity to teach that God in this chapter is Jehova [Old Testament: Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, lesson 1: Note: Class members should understand that Jehovah, not Heavenly Father, appeared to Moses in this vision]... but at the verse 6 I read:

 

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all

 

If is Jehova aka pre-mortal Jesus speaking, who's the Only Begotten in this context?

 

 

[teddyaware]

Hi to all... I'm a member from Europe, apologize for my poor english.

 

I've to prepare a lesson for sunday school tomorrow, is about the first chapter of the Book of Moses. The church manual underlined the necessity to teach that God in this chapter is Jehova [Old Testament: Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, lesson 1: Note: Class members should understand that Jehovah, not Heavenly Father, appeared to Moses in this vision]... but at the verse 6 I read:

 

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all

 

If is Jehova aka pre-mortal Jesus speaking, who's the Only Begotten in this context?

Several times in the scriptures we find the Lord Jehovah (the premortal Jesus Christ) speaking in the first person, as if it is God the Father Himself who is speaking. And there are even instances (the above passage being one of them) where Jehovah/Christ even speaks of Himself as if it is God the Father speaking of His Only Begotten Son. I know this can be very confusing at first, but this principle is well known among the scriptorians of the Church as "the principle of divine investiture."

In 1916, the First Presidency wrote and published a document called a Doctrinal Exposition in which they explained some of the reasons why there are times in the scriptures where Christ is spoken of as the Father. The document sets forth several reasons why Christ is often referred to in the scriptures by the title of Father:

1) He is the Father of heaven and earth by reason of being the creator.

2) He is the Father of our salvation by means of His atoning sacrifice and glorious resurrection.

3) He is also given the title of Father through the principle of divine investiture.

I will now quote from portion of the Doctrinal Exposition of 1916 dealing with the sacred principle of divine investiture:

"A fourth reason for applying the title “Father” to Jesus Christ is found in the fact that in all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority. This is true of Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in the which He was known as Jehovah; also during His embodiment in the flesh; and during His labors as a disembodied spirit in the realm of the dead; and since that period in His resurrected state. To the Jews He said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30; see also John 17:11, 22); yet He declared, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), and further, “I am come in my Father’s name” (John 5:43; see also John 10:25). The same truth was declared by Christ Himself to the Nephites (see 3 Ne. 20:35; 3 Ne. 28:10), and has been reaffirmed by revelation in the present dispensation (D&C 50:43). Thus the Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father’s name; and so far as power, authority, and godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father." (Doctrinal Exposition of 1916)

This Doctrinal Exposition goes on to explain the principle of divine investiture by using the following illustration from the Bible:

"The ancient Apostle John was visited by an angel who ministered and spoke in the name of Jesus Christ. As we read, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John” (Rev. 1:1). John was about to worship the angelic being who spoke in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, but was forbidden:

'And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

“Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God' (Rev. 22:8–9).

And then the angel continued to speak as though he were the Lord Himself:

'And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last” (Rev. 22:12–13).

The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ, who had been exalted to the right hand of God His Father, had placed His name upon the angel sent to John, and the angel spoke in the first person, saying, “I come quickly,” “I am Alpha and Omega,” though he meant that Jesus Christ would come and that Jesus Christ was Alpha and Omega." (Doctrinal Exposition of 1914)

The Latter-day Saint Apostle Bruce R. McConkie simply summarized the reason why Christ occasionally speaks in the scriptures in the first person, as if He is God the Father of our spirits:

"... since he [Jesus] is one with the Father in all of the attributes of perfection, and since he exercises the power and authority of the Father...the Father puts his own name on the Son and authorizes him to speak in the first person as though he were the Father." (Bruce R. McConkie)

Edited August 30, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

Hi to all... I'm a member from Europe, apologize for my poor english.

 

I've to prepare a lesson for sunday school tomorrow, is about the first chapter of the Book of Moses. The church manual underlined the necessity to teach that God in this chapter is Jehova [Old Testament: Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, lesson 1: Note: Class members should understand that Jehovah, not Heavenly Father, appeared to Moses in this vision]... but at the verse 6 I read:

 

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all

 

If is Jehova aka pre-mortal Jesus speaking, who's the Only Begotten in this context?

Welcome to the board.

 

Just so you know that others agree with teddyaware, I also endorse his answer and he says basically what I was going to say, but I he says it better!

 

Note that he also has received some "rep points" ( the little green numbers at the bottom right of his post) meaning that others also agree with his answer.

[teddyaware]

Welcome to the board.

 

Just so you know that others agree with teddyaware, I also endorse his answer and he says basically what I was going to say, but I he says it better!

 

Note that he also has received some "rep points" ( the little green numbers at the bottom right of his post) meaning that others also agree with his answer.

There are times when I want to give you rep points too, Mark. But because of a minor infraction I've been on limited status for a few months now, and when you're on "limited" you can't award reputation points.

[JLHPROF]

For the purpose of your Sunday School lesson I would go with Teddy's answer.

 

But just so you are aware, not every Church member believes that way (I for one do NOT agree) but that is not a topic for Sunday School.  Personally, I don't believe that Jehovah in the Old Testament was Christ.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

For the purpose of your Sunday School lesson I would go with Teddy's answer.

 

But just so you are aware, not every Church member believes that way (I for one do NOT agree) but that is not a topic for Sunday School.  Personally, I don't believe that Jehovah in the Old Testament was Christ.

... and the church did not teach He was until the early 1900's.

BUT, like JLH says... stick to the lesson plans. 

BUT.... keep studying.

[teddyaware]

For the purpose of your Sunday School lesson I would go with Teddy's answer.

 

But just so you are aware, not every Church member believes that way (I for one do NOT agree) but that is not a topic for Sunday School.  Personally, I don't believe that Jehovah in the Old Testament was Christ.

In reality, the name/title Jehovah (The Eternal One) applies equally to both the Father and the Son. The reason why we call the premortal Christ Jehovah is because Jehovah is one of the sacred names of the Father, and through the principle of divine investiture the Father placed that sacred name on His Only Begotten Son. The following very notable messianic verse of scripture clearly demonstrates that the name/title Jehovah applies to the our Heavenly Father as well as to the Son:

1 The LORD (LORD in all capital letters signifying the sacred name Jehovah) said unto my Lord (Christ), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (Psalms 110)

So who can deny that in the above verse Jehovah is clearly God the Father, who commands His Son to sit at His right hand till all the Son's enemies are overcome.

In reality the Old Testament period was no different than any other Gospel dispensation; for in every dispensation (Law of Moses period included) it has always been the same: All men and women are always commanded to worship God the Father in the name of His Son. All those of the Mosaic Dispensation who were "in the know" understood that God the Father was the God of the Old Testament who was to be worshiped in the name of the Son...

4 For, for this intent have we written these things, that they may know that we knew of Christ, and we had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming; and not only we ourselves had a hope of his glory, but also all the holy prophets which were before us.

5 Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son. (Jacob 4)

The reason why we say Jehovah/Christ is the God of the Old Testament is because the Father placed His sacred name upon the Son while the Son was yet unembodied. This is why Christ testified to the unbelieving Jews as follows:

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am (The Eternal). (John 8:56-58)

Most interestingly, there are two curious headings in the LDS Bible's topical guide, one saying: "God the Father-Jehovah" and the other saying "Jesus Christ-Jehovah." The sacred name applies to both the Father and the Son (in the case of the Son, by divine investiture)

 

Edited August 30, 2014 by teddyaware

[Veles]

Several times in the scriptures we find the Lord Jehovah (the premortal Jesus Christ) speaking in the first person, as if it is God the Father Himself who is speaking. And there are even instances (the above passage being one of them) where Jehovah/Christ even speaks of Himself as if it is God the Father speaking of His Only Begotten Son. I know this can be very confusing at first, but this principle is well known among the scriptorians of the Church as "the principle of divine investiture." [...]

Thank you for your comprehensive answer... if I well understood, this mean that when Jehovah said: "and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth", he's talking about himself, but said that as if he were the Father, who's speaking about the Son.

 

Very complicated to explain... may be I'll not talk about that, if not asked from present members.

[Veles]

For the purpose of your Sunday School lesson I would go with Teddy's answer.

 

But just so you are aware, not every Church member believes that way (I for one do NOT agree) but that is not a topic for Sunday School.  Personally, I don't believe that Jehovah in the Old Testament was Christ.

Interesting... this topic is really openly questionable by members? or is question of conscience (personally)?

[teddyaware]

Thank you for your comprehensive answer... if I well understood, this mean that when Jehovah said: "and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth", he's talking about himself, but said that as if he were the Father, who's speaking about the Son.

 

Very complicated to explain... may be I'll not talk about that, if not asked from present members.

Actually, it really isn't complicated. Think of it as the Saviour quoting the words of the Father as he speaks to Moses. It's a bit more involved than that, but when you get right down to the simplified essence of the whole thing, that's all there is to it.

All the best of you from the New York City area...

[JLHPROF]

Interesting... this topic is really openly questionable by members? or is question of conscience (personally)?

 

Not every member in the Church believes every doctrine exactly the same.  We have our own minds, our own studies, and our own faith.

Not even every prophet of the Church believes all doctrines the same.  I choose which prophetic interpretation of scripture I believe.  I am not bound by the teaching of the current administration for any reason.

But that being said, you don't teach personal ideas in Sunday School.  You should just teach as deep a version of the manual as you can put together.

[Kevin Christensen]

Incidentally, I read Psalm 110 differently.  I don't see it as El Elyon speaking to the pre-Mortal Christ, but Yahweh speaking to the King/High Priest. This is of course, interesting because, Yaheweh is a son of El Elyon, the Most High, and the Anointed High Priest represents the Atoning Messiah, just as the LORD represents the Most High.  There are layers of representation going on here.   It's a temple text, a liturgy, and, as Margaret Barker explains in various places, much of the Hebrew is unreadable.  She provides some interesting readings, and consideration of other versions.

 

And while I have room for the community of Saints to have different understandings of various things, I think we ought not oversimplify about who thought what when.  Long before the 1916 doctrinal exposition Parly P. Pratt could write a hymn stating "once a meek and lowly lamb, now the LORD, the Great I AM.

 

Margaret Barker's The Great Angel:  A Study of Israel's Second God is essential reading, I think.

 

A preview:

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

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

West Jordan, Utah

[teddyaware]

Incidentally, I read Psalm 110 differently.  I don't see it as El Elyon speaking to the pre-Mortal Christ, but Yahweh speaking to the King/High Priest. This is of course, interesting because, Yaheweh is a son of El Elyon, the Most High, and the Anointed High Priest represents the Atoning Messiah, just as the LORD represents the Most High.  There are layers of representation going on here.   It's a temple text, a liturgy, and, as Margaret Barker explains in various places, much of the Hebrew is unreadable.  She provides some interesting readings, and consideration of other versions.

 

And while I have room for the community of Saints to have different understandings of various things, I think we ought not oversimplify about who thought what when.  Long before the 1916 doctrinal exposition Parly P. Pratt could write a hymn stating "once a meek and lowly lamb, now the LORD, the Great I AM.

 

Margaret Barker's The Great Angel:  A Study of Israel's Second God is essential reading, I think.

 

A preview:

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

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

West Jordan, Utah

 

Hi Kevin,

 

The scriptures are full of prophetic dualism; both readings can be correct. And if the Lord Jesus Christ is the great I Am, then most assuredly the Father is the great I Am as well. After all, all the power, glory, knowledge, wisdom and authority Christ received, He received from the perfect Heavenly Father whom he worshiped and adored as the God who was the eternal source of all truth and life.

12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;

13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;

14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.

15 And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son.

16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father; (D&C 93)

Edited August 31, 2014 by teddyaware

[juliann]

In reality, the name/title Jehovah (The Eternal One) applies equally to both the Father and the Son. The reason why we call the premortal Christ Jehovah is because Jehovah is one of the sacred names of the Father, and through the principle of divine investiture the Father placed that sacred name on His Only Begotten Son. The following very notable messianic verse of scripture clearly demonstrates that the name/title Jehovah applies to the our Heavenly Father as well as to the Son:

1 The LORD (LORD in all capital letters signifying the sacred name Jehovah) said unto my Lord (Christ), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (Psalms 110)

 

 

 

Jehovah was created from Yahweh, it is not a biblical. It refers to the son.  There are many titles for God in the OT. Lord is a translator's substitution for them.

 

It would be helpful if you would document your theories.

[teddyaware]

Jehovah was created from Yahweh, it is not a biblical. It refers to the son.  There are many titles for God in the OT. Lord is a translator's substitution for them.

 

It would be helpful if you would document your theories.

They are not my theories. In the early days of the Restoration, it was common for the leaders of the Church to refer to God the Father as Jehovah. Do a Google search so you can learn for yourself. It is not my style to go off halfcocked. The "Christ only is Jehovah" teaching was not standardized until the first decades of the 20th century.

Edited August 31, 2014 by teddyaware

[Rodeo]

Divine investiture? I have always read Moses ch.1 to be Heavenly Father speaking, not Jesus Christ. Do we just make these things up on the fly?

[halconero]

Divine investiture? I have always read Moses ch.1 to be Heavenly Father speaking, not Jesus Christ. Do we just make these things up on the fly?

 

Well, there is precedent in the Book of Mormon for Jesus Christ taking upon himself the titles and prerogatives of the Father. This itself is a distinctly NON-trinitarian view of God, in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate in personage, and not confused with one another, but still one God. For the Son to take upon himself the name and powers of the Father is distinctly taught in Restorationist scripture, and is distinctly non-Trinitarian.

 

The "Divine Investiture" line comes from a 1916 statement from the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve on the nature of Jesus Christ's simultaneous divine Sonship and Fathership. The concept is that by investing an authorized servant with the power and authority to perform an act in God's name, they may be called by that as well. It occurs in the Old Testament, in which an angel is referred to as God because he acts in his name. The Son, invested with power to create the world, adopt the covenant faithful as His sons and daughters, and by executing the will of the Father, may be called the Father. 

[cinepro]

Hi to all... I'm a member from Europe, apologize for my poor english.

 

I've to prepare a lesson for sunday school tomorrow, is about the first chapter of the Book of Moses. The church manual underlined the necessity to teach that God in this chapter is Jehova [Old Testament: Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, lesson 1: Note: Class members should understand that Jehovah, not Heavenly Father, appeared to Moses in this vision]... but at the verse 6 I read:

 

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all

 

If is Jehova aka pre-mortal Jesus speaking, who's the Only Begotten in this context?

 

The manual (and teddyaware) both do a good job of providing the Church's "official" take on the subject (specifically that it is Jesus talking in those verses).  You can't go wrong teaching this, and you should teach this.

 

.

.

.

.

That being said, you are correct in your impression that this theory makes no sense.

 

 

Here's a past discussion of it you can review at your leisure:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/47211-jehovah-speaking-as-the-father/

[Tacenda]

Maybe, speaking from my lameness with scripture, Jesus and God are the same people!

[halconero]

Maybe, speaking from my lameness with scripture, Jesus and God are the same people!

Yes, but it gets more complicated than that. In orthodox Christianity, Jesus may be God, but he certainly isn't the Father. The Father may be God, but he isn't the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit may be God, but he isn't Christ. I believe the phrase is "worshipping them in unity without confusing the persons, nor dividing the substance"

In Latter-day Saint theology Jesus is God by virtue of him being the Son of the Father, being ordained by God to be his Son, and by acting in unity with the Father.

[janderich]

I agree the Sunday School answer of divine investiture etc. is the correct one to teach and is right to a degree. But in my own mind and heart I feel there is much more here. Divine investiture is not explained anywhere in the scriptures. Plus, there are so many scriptures that do not fall in line with this teaching, even, perhaps especially, in the BoM. For example:

 

Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen - Mosiah 16:15

 

Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. - Ether 3:14

 

And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the spirit; and after she had been carried away in the spirit for the space of a time, the angel spake unto me, saying, Look! And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me, behold the Lam of God, yea, even the Eternal Father! - 1 Ne 11:19-21 Original 1830 edition

 

Behold, I come unto my own, to fulfill all things which I have made known unto the children of men from the foundation of the world, and to do the will, both of the Father and of the Son - of the Father because of me, and of the Son because of my flesh. - 3 Ne 1:14

 

I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. and because he dwelleth in the flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son. ...Thus becoming the Father and Son - And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. - see Mosiah 15:1-5

 

Of course there are others, not to mention the Bible, PofGP, or the D&C.

Edited August 31, 2014 by janderich

[mfbukowski]

So we have ambiguous scriptures about this all.  No surprise here, the scriptures are ambiguous.  We need to get over it.  It's not like we have any way to check to see if the scriptures "correspond" to anything.  No internet chatroom with God- and he doesn't twitter.

 

So why do we accept the scriptures as "scriptural" in the first place?  Because the church says so.  There are all kinds of potential "scriptures" we do NOT accept.  What is canon is canon.  We are not going to change that.

 

So if the church accepts a certain interpretation of some amibiguous scripture, why shouldn't I accept it?  Some guy on the internet knows better?

 

I just don't get it.  No "The Church" is not infallible, but our presumption in being LDS in the first place is that it has the Authority of God.  So why bother thinking up our own theories about this stuff?

 

I am going to believe what "the church" makes up over what any guy on the internet makes up.

[janderich]

So we have ambiguous scriptures about this all.  No surprise here, the scriptures are ambiguous.  We need to get over it.  It's not like we have any way to check to see if the scriptures "correspond" to anything.  No internet chatroom with God- and he doesn't twitter.

 

So why do we accept the scriptures as "scriptural" in the first place?  Because the church says so.  There are all kinds of potential "scriptures" we do NOT accept.  What is canon is canon.  We are not going to change that.

 

So if the church accepts a certain interpretation of some amibiguous scripture, why shouldn't I accept it?  Some guy on the internet knows better?

 

I just don't get it.  No "The Church" is not infallible, but our presumption in being LDS in the first place is that it has the Authority of God.  So why bother thinking up our own theories about this stuff?

 

I am going to believe what "the church" makes up over what any guy on the internet makes up.

There is a way to find out truth and it is through the power of the Holy Ghost which is given to every worthy member of this church. This is the way, and it has always been so, and will continue to be. The church provides certain direction and I am grateful for it. But leaders in this church do not have all wisdom and all knowledge.

 

The spirit tells me there are more to these scriptures than what I have hitherto heard from general authorities. I do not know exactly what that is, but I am open to further light and truth when I find it. If at some point I do happen to present my thoughts consider them well and perhaps the spirit will whisper the truth to you. But of course, I am just a man, like all men, and men speak the philosophies of men, even if sometimes they are mingled with scripture.

[mfbukowski]

There is a way to find out truth and it is through the power of the Holy Ghost which is given to every worthy member of this church. This is the way, and it has always been so, and will continue to be. The church provides certain direction and I am grateful for it. But leaders in this church do not have all wisdom and all knowledge.

 

The spirit tells me there are more to these scriptures than what I have hitherto heard from general authorities. I do not know exactly what that is, but I am open to further light and truth when I find it. If at some point I do happen to present my thoughts consider them well and perhaps the spirit will whisper the truth to you. But of course, I am just a man, like all men, and men speak the philosophies of men, even if sometimes they are mingled with scripture.

Totally agree.

 

My point is I just prefer to listen to the philosophies of men general authorities for public consumption.  What I believe in my heart is another matter.  But I have no problem with what you are saying.  The Holy Spirit reveals to each of us what we need to know- but our little minds can never put it all together.  So what I need to know may differ from what you need to know.  I think we only get the pieces of the puzzle we need - simply because the whole picture is just plain too huge to comprehend.

 

Words will never be adequate to describe any of it really- direct spiritual experience is the closest we can get.  So your words and description work for you, mine work for me.  It's not that they contradict each other, it's like the three blind men and the elephant.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

 

So yes, we all have different parts of the puzzle revealed to us for our own personal edification. 

 

But for general purposes, I choose to stick with what the church chooses to make public.

[cinepro]

So we have ambiguous scriptures about this all.  No surprise here, the scriptures are ambiguous.  We need to get over it.  It's not like we have any way to check to see if the scriptures "correspond" to anything.  No internet chatroom with God- and he doesn't twitter.

 

Newsflash...