Rodeo Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 I have never understood why we have tried to make such a science project of this divine investiture of the whole thing. What does it matter who is speaking, whether it be the Father or the Son? Because of the ambiguous state its all in shouldn't we just assume its the Father speaking in Moses ch.1 and not try to really confuse everything? If Moses was in prayer to God the Father, wasn't he literally addressing Him? So why would somebody else answer but the Father himself? When we pray do we not also directly address the Father?
cinepro Posted September 3, 2014 Posted September 3, 2014 I have never understood why we have tried to make such a science project of this divine investiture of the whole thing. What does it matter who is speaking, whether it be the Father or the Son? Because of the ambiguous state its all in shouldn't we just assume its the Father speaking in Moses ch.1 and not try to really confuse everything? If Moses was in prayer to God the Father, wasn't he literally addressing Him? So why would somebody else answer but the Father himself? When we pray do we not also directly address the Father? I think the problem is that we have some leaders who insist "the Father has never dealt with man directly and personally since the fall, and he has never appeared except to introduce and bear record of the Son." So when you have that as a rule, and then you have some eternal being in the scriptures appearing to a prophet and saying "I am the Father", you gotta make it fit somehow. Why those leaders couldn't look at Moses 1 and say "Hmmm...it appears that on at least one occasion the Father has appeared directly to a prophet, because it's pretty clear this is the Father" I don't know. Likewise, if the axiom in the first paragraph is true, then I don't know why Jesus couldn't identify himself to Moses exactly as he did to the Brother of Jared.
Rodeo Posted September 3, 2014 Posted September 3, 2014 I think the problem is that we have some leaders who insist "the Father has never dealt with man directly and personally since the fall, and he has never appeared except to introduce and bear record of the Son." So when you have that as a rule, and then you have some eternal being in the scriptures appearing to a prophet and saying "I am the Father", you gotta make it fit somehow. Why those leaders couldn't look at Moses 1 and say "Hmmm...it appears that on at least one occasion the Father has appeared directly to a prophet, because it's pretty clear this is the Father" I don't know. Likewise, if the axiom in the first paragraph is true, then I don't know why Jesus couldn't identify himself to Moses exactly as he did to the Brother of Jared.I completely agree. We shouldnt have to jump through special hoops just to make some rule that makes no sense stick. It bothers me that someone would even put it in the teaching manual to begin with. Just let it be alone and let individuals interpret it for what it is. We do have the gift of the Holy Ghost to bring all things to the truth.
Recommended Posts