JLHPROF Posted June 28, 2016 Author Posted June 28, 2016 31 minutes ago, CV75 said: According to current LDS teaching, Jehovah (Christ) referred to Jesus (His begotten self in mortality) as the Son, by speaking for and as the Father under divine investiture of authority. Other than that which is explained by divine investiture of authority, what unanswered questions and potential contradictions remain in the Church’s current teachings on the Godhead? I find that making excuses. Yaweh, the Lord, Jehovah speaks of Jesus Christ as his son, a separate being. Combining them into one person using some esoteric term not in evidence in the text is a very trinitarian move. I also don't think that divine investiture explains these scriptures but is more accurately used in the Book of Mormon where Christ is called the Father.
CV75 Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I find that making excuses. Yaweh, the Lord, Jehovah speaks of Jesus Christ as his son, a separate being. Combining them into one person using some esoteric term not in evidence in the text is a very trinitarian move. I also don't think that divine investiture explains these scriptures but is more accurately used in the Book of Mormon where Christ is called the Father. If you are looking for evidence in the text, divine investiture of authority does have a scriptural basis (Exodus 23:21; Revelation 22:8-13). Here we have “A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles” to consider, where divine investiture of authority is brought up, originally to respond to questions about the Godhead, and not as an excuse (and for what?): https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng , and is still used in our correlated materials of today. But even if one doesn’t believe this “exposition,” we still have the Adam-God doctrine combining actual personalities into one person in the text, as I found in trying to apply it to the text of Moses 6 (as one example). Divine investiture of authority does not do that. Rather, it allows that the premortal Jesus is speaking in place of the Father to Adam, rather than resulting, as the Adam-God perspective does, in an enmeshment of characters speaking as each other and sometimes to themselves (a problem with trinitariansim). On the other hand, what unanswered questions and potential contradictions remain in the Church’s current teachings on the Godhead? Regarding the issue of the Adam-God of the human race asking his children to do something it turns out he really didn't have to do after all, that is to exercise an unnecessary faith, or false, unfulfilled faith: A godly model entails properly directed faith, and of faith in real things. That supports the perspective that Adam actually and in reality experienced the need for and object of faith in the Redeemer (without, unbeknownst to him, already having that power in himself).
Ahab Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 On 6/25/2016 at 6:16 AM, JLHPROF said: Not even close. Depends on who is doing the teaching. False doctrine had always been taught by somebody, and somebody has always been teaching the truth too. And there will never be a day when everybody agrees on every issue, with total agreement about any one thing pretty near to impossible to accomplish or even conceive of as anything more than only in someone's imagination.
Calm Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 13 hours ago, CV75 said: Not sure how this happened, but somehow JLHPROF's posts have my name on them! I never said the following: Is this a quotation mistake or a website problem? It glitches like that occasionally. Not sure how to solve it without deleting and starting over.
CV75 Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 10 hours ago, Calm said: It glitches like that occasionally. Not sure how to solve it without deleting and starting over. I'm deleting myself and starting over...!
Recommended Posts