Brigham Young?

[JLHPROF]

46 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's a bit trickier than that. D&C 110 has "We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber. His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying: I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father. Behold, your sins are forgiven you; you are clean before me; therefore, lift up your heads and rejoice."

True.  But we aren't talking about the resurrected Christ.
We are talking about Jehovah/Yaweh in the OT.  Jehovah is an office like any other.  Christ may be Jehovah now, but was he the same Jehovah, call the LORD in the KJV?
As the references I provided show, the Church didn't think so officially until 1916, thanks primarily to the influence of James Talmage.

And even today there are still scriptures that name Jehovah in the OT that cannot be talking about Christ.  Generally the member response is to say they refer to the Father if it can't be Christ.
For example - Genesis 3:8 and Moses 6:39 as opposed to Ether 3:15.
Jehovah/Yaweh appeared to Adam and Abraham yet Jesus told the Brother of Jared he had never appeared to anyone.
Genesis 3:8 (and other places) specifies Jehovah but we know it doesn't refer to Christ.

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Quote

Since Elias and Elijah are the same person, it is quite likely that we are dealing here with no more than a poetic couplet, or a scribal dittography, which led to a profound misunderstanding of the nature of Elijah-Elias.  It won't be the first time that scribal confusion has led to misunderstanding.

This is a confusing subject. The Church dictionary addresses it somewhat:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/elias?lang=eng

However, I note that Esaias and Isaiah are used distinctly, as Esaias appears as a separate prophet in D&C 84:11 who lived in the days of Abraham. It is doubtful Joseph Smith would have confused Esaias for Isaiah even though the former is a Greek form of Isaiah.

I am not going to address the matter further at this time except to say Joseph Smith may have called whoever held the keys an Elias.

I think the Elias of D&C 110 was no linguistic error and referred to the office held by a person other than Elijah.

D&C 27:6 And also with Elias, to whom I have committed the keys of bringing to pass the restoration of all things spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began, concerning the last days;
7 And also John the son of Zacharias, which Zacharias he (Elias) visited and gave promise that he should have a son, and his name should be John, and he should be filled with the spirit of Elias;

Sounds like Elias was Gabriel/Noah to me.
It was Moses, Noah, and Elijah in Kirtland.  At least, that's my opinion.

Edited September 13, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

..........................................................

However, I note that Esaias and Isaiah are used distinctly, as Esaias appears as a separate prophet in D&C 84:11 who lived in the days of Abraham. It is doubtful Joseph Smith would have confused Esaias for Isaiah even though the former is a Greek form of Isaiah.

There are a number of biblical persons named Isaiah (Ezra 8:7,19, Neh 11:7, 1 Chron 3:21, 25:3,15, 26:25), aside from the famous prophet of that name.  Any number of people might have a same or similar biblical name.  That should not be a major problem for us.

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I am not going to address the matter further at this time except to say Joseph Smith may have called whoever held the keys an Elias.

We might want to examine the matter of which keys go with which prophet in order to determine whether there is a substantive difference in the keys from Elias and Elijah, or are they appearing in complementary parallel.

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

True.  But we aren't talking about the resurrected Christ.
We are talking about Jehovah/Yaweh in the OT.  Jehovah is an office like any other.  Christ may be Jehovah now, but was he the same Jehovah, call the LORD in the KJV?
As the references I provided show, the Church didn't think so officially until 1916, thanks primarily to the influence of James Talmage.

I think it's wiser to say that they were ambiguous with the terms. There's an attempt to make it more defined. (The old Sunstone article by Boyd Kirkland "Jehovah as Father" attempts this - although I find his attempts to explain away things like D&C 110 unpersuasive in the least) 

What I think happened was that before the deuteronomists there was a clear pantheon that distinguished El from YHWH. With the move to monotheism as a way of avoiding Canaanite paganism these figures became merged although elements of the earlier traditions remained. With Christianity there were reasons to bring out those earlier traditions. But the terminology had forever been mangled. I think trying to point to a theology that treats these in a rational way is really undermined by the history of monotheism, the Great Angel, Merkebah mysticism, and so forth.

In LDS history, Jehovah only starts to become significant with Joseph learning Hebrew. With Brigham, the terms get transformed again into a new Trinity of Eloheim, Jehovah and Michael. Who fits in each title gets a bit tricky, but for a significant period Michael is God and we have his Father and GrandFather. Christ, while still crucial for salvation, becomes downplayed in terms of the Godhead.

However famously there was little unity in Church leadership during this time. During this time you have people explicitly treating Jesus as Jehovah. (Unsurprising given the history in Christian usage) So George Q Cannon says "[Jesus] was the Being who spoke to Moses in the wilderness and declared 'I am that I am.'" (1871, 26) Not only did Cannon think Jesus was Jehovah but simultaneously thought Michael/Adam was the Father. Franklin Richards said "We learn that our Savior...was named Jesus the Christ. His name when He was a spiritual being, during the first half of the existence of the earth...was Jehovah... He was the spirit Being that directed, governed, and gave the law on Mount Sinai, where Moses was permitted to see Him in part."(1885, JD 26:300) There's lots of other examples of this. 

Even with the later First Presidency statement it's much more attempting to standardize usage in a more intelligible fashion but really can't deal well with the texts.

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

It's a bit trickier than that. D&C 110 has "We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber. His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying: I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father. Behold, your sins are forgiven you; you are clean before me; therefore, lift up your heads and rejoice."

But we also have D&C 109 where Joseph prays to the Father in the name of the Son Jesus Christ (verse 4) and the proceeds to calls him Jehovah four times throughout the prayer.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

But we also have D&C 109 where Joseph prays to the Father in the name of the Son Jesus Christ (verse 4) and the proceeds to calls him Jehovah four times throughout the prayer.

Exactly.
Even if we accept the current Church teaching as the truth, I find no benefit in pretending it had been that way since the restoration began.
Bottom line is historically speaking Jehovah/Yahweh, written as "The LORD" in the OT was not officially Jesus Christ in Church teachings until the 20th century.

Even if we reject Adam-God and Brigham's explanation of who Jehovah was, and fully sustain current Church doctrine that Jehovah was the premortal Christ, it is dishonest for people to claim that has been the belief in the Church all the way back to Joseph Smith.
 

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Franklin Richards said "We learn that our Savior...was named Jesus the Christ. His name when He was a spiritual being, during the first half of the existence of the earth...was Jehovah... He was the spirit Being that directed, governed, and gave the law on Mount Sinai, where Moses was permitted to see Him in part."(1885, JD 26:300)

Based on my research, this was clearly not the first time Christ was called Jehovah (obviously).  Christ was called Jehovah in D&C 110.

But this was one of the very first expressions by a Church leader that Jehovah in the OT was the premortal Christ, the current belief of the Church.  And it didn't come until 55 years after the Church started.
Ironically, from the same Franklin D. Richards who had stated 30 years earlier  "Concerning the item of doctrine alluded to... that Adam is our Father and God... the Prophet and Apostle Brigham has declared it, and that it is the word of the Lord." - Franklin D. Richards, Aug. 26, 1854 Millennial Star

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

...............................................
BEFORE -  Brigham Young - “Jehovah God, Thou Eloheim - Thy Son Jesus Christ” (BYA, 4 Aug 1867)
AFTER - Bruce R. McConkie - We worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost. The Father’s name is Elohim; Jehovah is his Son… Be it known, then, that there is a God in heaven…

And just for fun, a throwback statement
David O. McKay - "Jehovah and His Son, Jesus Christ."  Church News July 1, 1961.

We can self-define anything not fitting the normative paradigm as a "throwback," and similarly brush aside early changes in the Book of Mormon (1830 Mother of God > 1837 Mother of the Son of God), or ignore the extraordinary anthropomorphisms in both Bible and Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 11:11, Ether 2:4-5,14, 3:4-19). Then there is the variety  in usage in the Creation Stories (Elohim in Gen 1, YHWH-Elohim in Gen 2, aside from the usage of Elohim with plural verbs and pronouns at Gen 1:27, 20:13, etc.; same as God and Lord God in Moses 2 - 3; Gods in Abraham 4 - 5, which Joseph clearly understood as Elohim in his King Follett Sermon).  In the Psalter we have proof that YHWH and Elohim could be used to refer to the same divine entity (or plural entities), since we have J Psalms identical to E Psalms in which the only difference is the use of Jehovah (J) in one version, and Elohim (E) in the other, likely versions from the Southern and Northern kingdoms respectively -- and this comports with the greater documentary hypothesis.  That alone throws a monkey wrench into that neat notion of LDS theological development, but there is more:  Paul had already identified the pre-mortal Jesus Christ with Jehovah of the Exodus (1 Cor 10:4; cf. also John 8:58, Rev 1:8,11,13-18, 22:12-20 [Isa 44:6]).

Turns out that YHWH (Jehovah) and Elohim are not names, but merely descriptive titles or epithets, and can presumably be carried by any qualified god.  This bears special attention since the 1912/1916 First Presidency statement says that "the Father placed His name upon the Son," reminding us that "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30);  "the Father is in me, and I in him" (10:38). Thus, Hugh Nibley said in 1968:

Quote

All the worlds are organized in a common pattern, . . in all the worlds you will find God alone rules but with a presidency of three and a council of twelve.  This is the rule of all worlds.  The repetitions are infinite in number and scope . . . .  As a Yeu becomes a Father, the Father then appoints new Yeus (Jehovahs) for new worlds who in turn become Fathers, etc. (cf. First Jeu 48:8; 50:1-3; 97:25-28; Pistis Sophia I, 91, 94; III, 285, 319, 329-330; IV, 355:15,23, 370:10,19,24).  Nibley, "Apocryphal Writings,"  FARMS Preliminary Report N-APO, 13.

Or as Brother Brigham said in April 1852, in a sermon in Salt Lake City, that, of the various deities which exist, one "is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do" (Journal of Discourses, 1:50; cf. Paul in I Cor 8:5-6).

LDS theology is processual in more ways that one.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Turns out that YHWH (Jehovah) and Elohim are not names, but merely descriptive titles or epithets, and can presumably be carried by any qualified god.  This bears special attention since the 1912/1916 First Presidency statement says that "the Father placed His name upon the Son," reminding us that "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30);  "the Father is in me, and I in him" (10:38). Thus, Hugh Nibley said in 1968:

  Quote

All the worlds are organized in a common pattern, . . in all the worlds you will find God alone rules but with a presidency of three and a council of twelve.  This is the rule of all worlds.  The repetitions are infinite in number and scope . . . .  As a Yeu becomes a Father, the Father then appoints new Yeus (Jehovahs) for new worlds who in turn become Fathers, etc. (cf. First Jeu 48:8; 50:1-3; 97:25-28; Pistis Sophia I, 91, 94; III, 285, 319, 329-330; IV, 355:15,23, 370:10,19,24).  Nibley, "Apocryphal Writings,"  FARMS Preliminary Report N-APO, 13.

Is Hugh Nibley saying this as a valid pattern or as speculation from Apocryphal writings? If he did believe something like this, how come we don't see it in the Church theology? How come we see a different theology in Mormon Doctrine?

Also could you provide a link to that report? I am unable to find it on https://publications.mi.byu.edu/past/farms-preliminary-reports/

Where does Nibley get Yeu as a YHWH? I must say, at first glance it seems Nibley had remarkable insight - it is certainly different from anything I have seen from the Church on the matter.

Edited September 14, 2017 by RevTestament

[Robert F. Smith]

14 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Is Hugh Nibley saying this as a valid pattern or as speculation from Apocryphal writings? If he did believe something like this, how come we don't see it in the Church theology? How come we see a different theology in Mormon Doctrine?

Hugh Nibley didn't call the shots on LDS theology.  That has been left up to the Brethren, and I don't think that they accepted Elder McConkie's views in his Mormon Doctrine.  In any case, none of them are trained theologians, and they are free to make what they will of the Scriptures.

Hugh considered many apocryphal writings to contain authentic theological and sacramental elements, and that much of that was taught to the Twelve during the Forty-Day ministry of the risen Christ -- you can see how that plays out at http://fortydayministry.com/ ..  We have people like Maklelan here on this board, who actually read Hebrew and have some inkling of what this means for the Gottheit.

[RevTestament]

49 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hugh Nibley didn't call the shots on LDS theology.  That has been left up to the Brethren, and I don't think that they accepted Elder McConkie's views in his Mormon Doctrine.  In any case, none of them are trained theologians, and they are free to make what they will of the Scriptures.

Hugh considered many apocryphal writings to contain authentic theological and sacramental elements, and that much of that was taught to the Twelve during the Forty-Day ministry of the risen Christ -- you can see how that plays out at http://fortydayministry.com/ ..  We have people like Maklelan here on this board, who actually read Hebrew and have some inkling of what this means for the Gottheit.

TBH, I have never given Gnosticism much weight, but it appears that the First book of Jeu was an early Coptic work, and I do believe the Coptic Church was able to retain some truths. I am finding that work quite fascinating, but even if Nibley thought well of it, I can see why the Church, ie FARMS, did not publish it. I'll just rely on the translation of it... thanks.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

But we also have D&C 109 where Joseph prays to the Father in the name of the Son Jesus Christ (verse 4) and the proceeds to calls him Jehovah four times throughout the prayer.

Yup. Thus my argument that they are inconsistent.

I mean there's a way to argue theologically that YHWH is a title. There's even good Jewish precedence for it of a sort with the Enochian tradition where Enoch becomes Metatron the Lesser YHWH who appears to be modeled on the pre-exilic Great Angel.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

TBH, I have never given Gnosticism much weight, but it appears that the First book of Jeu was an early Coptic work, and I do believe the Coptic Church was able to retain some truths. I am finding that work quite fascinating, but even if Nibley thought well of it, I can see why the Church, ie FARMS, did not publish it. I'll just rely on the translation of it... thanks.

Jeu is great, but without checking due to time, I believe the pages were dropped before they'd been translated or transcribed and were jumbled. So no one is fully sure of the ordering.

Although I should also add that all these traditions have pretty common structures of heavenly ascent. There's sounds/names that are largely shared between the gnostics, Egyptian magicians, merkabah/hekhalot mystics, platonic theurgists and some Christians (depending upon whether you want to call them gnostic or not). While some of the theology of what is going on varies slightly in ontology, by and large they all amount to the same thing. Secret names with deep meaning tied to certain classes of phonemes, signs, tokens, symbolic (or real) garments, priestly robes and tokens of kingship. Typically one passes daemons or angels that test one along the way.

Edited September 14, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Based on my research, this was clearly not the first time Christ was called Jehovah (obviously).  Christ was called Jehovah in D&C 110.

But this was one of the very first expressions by a Church leader that Jehovah in the OT was the premortal Christ, the current belief of the Church.  And it didn't come until 55 years after the Church started.

Ironically, from the same Franklin D. Richards who had stated 30 years earlier  "Concerning the item of doctrine alluded to... that Adam is our Father and God... the Prophet and Apostle Brigham has declared it, and that it is the word of the Lord." - Franklin D. Richards, Aug. 26, 1854 Millennial Star

Yup, I'd mentioned 110 although people who want it to be consistent often try various ways of explaining it away. But it's not the only one. There's the sermon of Jan 29, 1843. "Christ fulfiled all righteousness in becoming obedient to the the Law which himself had given to Moses on the mount" Note that this was the subject of several revisions in the JST including one dealing with the name of Jehovah in Ex 34. I don't know why so many of the classic papers of the 80's missed that one. Presumably because the name Jehovah is implied rather than made explicit. Kirkland in particular isn't terribly careful with sources IMO. An other one, albeit not clearly written by Joseph  is the Sept 1, 1842 Times and Seasons editorial on baptism which emphasizes that the Lord is a priest after the order of Melchezedek  (quoting Ps 110 with it's significance in the NT and BoM obviously) and the Son of God. So Jesus is implied to be Jehovah. (This is after Joseph's experience with Hebrew) 

We should be careful though as well since of course Lord in the Book of Mormon while obscured by translation likely often means YHWH. Of course I don't subscribe to the theory that Joseph understood fully what he translated. I suspect he didn't understand the significance of Lord until he started taking Hebrew. So while it doesn't represent Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon does portray Jesus as YHWH explicitly in places like Ether 3. How much (if at all) Joseph recognized that isn't clear. Certainly Franklin Richards recognized it since he brings up Ether 3 explicitly as part of his argument for Jesus as Jehovah.

With regard to the early Utah period I think my point is just that despite how everyone portrays Brigham Young's language as constitutive of the period there actually was a fair bit of variety. Again it's very important to realize that non-Mormon commentaries often treat Jehovah as Christ. (Admittedly how this works with the trinity is different - but that identification is important when understanding early Mormon conceptions and all too often neglected) Honestly outside of a few people who were more careful in their terminology and saw significance, I think the typical use of Jehovah was then (as now) simply ambiguous. It's used in a vague way meaning God without intending to convey what person of the Godhead is being referred to. The portrayal of the period as always meaning the Father in a clear way just is disingenuous IMO. There's no doubt uses we'd attribute to the Father such as throne of Jehovah or so forth. But I went through most of the Journal of Discourses references and they typically are just vague nebulous synonym for God.

As I said, the reason everything is muddled is because the original pre-Josiah distinction between YHWH and Eloheim was corrupted by the Deuteronomists and by the second temple period the two figures had become merged with many elements of the earlier texts edited, redacted or simply excluded. So it's a fact that sometimes in the Old Testament we talk of the throne of YHWH in a manner that more properly is El. Joseph Smith and the others carry this over. How much this muddle affects the translation of the Book of Mormon (which I'd say is a loose translation) isn't clear. In some places it's clear. In other places it's not.

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by clarkgoble