The Destruction of God?

[Exiled]

48 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hugh Nibley thought anti-Mormons to be essential, and that they kept the Saints on their toes.

Well, maybe I have a new calling and didn't know it?

[Bobbieaware]

34 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I tried to explain that the word "Godhead" is a very poor and misleading translation for what is better as Gottheit, etc., and -heit in German does not suggest "head."  There are actually quite a few cases  in which the German scholarship has been badly interpreted by speakers of English (Jehovah is another atrocity).  You apparently missed my poor attempt to correct the "Godhead" mistake.

No.  It is not limited to God (or a group of gods).  As I pointed out briefly, pleroma "fulness" in the NT refers to the totality of divinity (whatever that is) in both Christ and (since he is in heaven) in his church (as the receptacle of that pleroma) -- the Body of Christ, and not necessarily the basar/corpus of Communion, but rather the body of believers in whom that same pleroma is to be found. However, there is one more problem with that concept, because Greek philosophical norms have it that Christ has the ideal, perfect pleroma (in heaven), which is expressed in ordinary life (on Earth) in less perfect ways.  Heavenly archetypes are merely reflected or expressed by less real phenomena on Earth.  This means, as Carl Jung expressed it, that "since the infinite and eternal possess no qualities," i.e., "both thinking and being cease," the pleroma is therefore "both nothing and everything."

As you may know, while on Earth, Christ "emptied" himself of all divinity (Philippians 2:7).  This is  known as the kenosis or kenoma, which is the opposite of pleroma.  He did this to subject his will to that of the Father.

Based on what I have just said (above), D&C 20:17 can be seen as a powerful statement meant to be taken as a poetic expression of that archetypal, unchangeable deity -- using formulaic phrases which are not otherwise explained.

If the term divinity goes beyond the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost to embrace all who ever were or will yet become Gods, it doesn’t change the meaning at all because anyone who becomes a God becomes the perfect embodiment of all divine attributes. It’s by virtue of this understanding of a shared perfect godhood that Christ is able to speak to us in the first person as if he is God the Father.

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. (John 17)

It’s a shame the prophet Amulek wasn’t a contemporary of Carl Jung (his philosophical superior) because then he might have avoided the unfortunate use of the expression “infinite and eternal” when speaking of the nature of Christ’s atoning sacrifice for sin. It’s truly embarrassing when one realizes the expression ‘infinite and eternal sacrifice’ actually means a sacrifice without any discernable meaning. Hopefully, somewhere along the way the leaders of the Church will be persuaded to change the expression  ‘infinite and eternal’ to ‘finite and limited.’  😉

10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

and...

14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

So let’s begin the lobbying effort today to get the leaders of the Church to agree to change ‘infinite and eternal’ (I.e. without any discernible meaning) to ‘finite and limited.’ Let’s make Jong proud. And then when we’re done with that we’ll turn our attention to the other unfortunate verse in D&C 20 where the Prophet Joseph Smith makes the same unfortunate mistake when speaking of the divine nature of God.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

Maybe "opposite guy" is a priesthood calling and lucifer isn't what he is portrayed to be like you say. I wonder how that applies to those pesky "anti-mormons" who always want to say the cup is half empty? Maybe they actually are providing a good service to the saints in making sure there is a definite black and white choice? As God needs Satan, so do Mormons need their anti brethren. 

Well I was joking about Satan being a calling and I think opposition is inevitable anyway, so I am not sure we "really" need them, but I get your point too, and it's a clever response I must admit!  

Honestly I think there are no anti arguments which work and that all depend on the anti's being philosophically uneducated.  That's why I only quote famous atheist philosophers to justify Mormonism- if the best and the brightest, like Rorty see religion as justifiable, then what kind of argument can the anti's have?

I don't know why the LDS around here don't get what I am doing but if the best atheists can't put together an argument against us, we should be all over that

Instead I get flak for believing in relativism and not believing in truth

It's not about that at all.  If relativism and the non-existence of truth helps our cause, why would you want to argue against the best and brightest to make bad dualistic arguments when the bad guys are on our side anyway?

Apologetics makes no sense.  They use outmoded thought patterns trying to prove what they don't even need to prove if they go with the atheists own paradigms

Mormons and atheists if the atheist is educated, is really very close.  Alma 32's definition of truth does not even mention God directly and DC 93 speaks of "spheres" of truth which are the same as "language games"

It drives me nuts!  

Maybe I should write a book about the folly of Mormon apologetics.  All we have to do is agree with educated atheists in our context instead of theirs and we win instantly.

Thanks for the post.  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

If the term divinity goes beyond the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost to embrace all who ever were or will yet become Gods, it doesn’t change the meaning at all because anyone who becomes a God becomes the perfect embodiment of all divine attributes. It’s by virtue of this understanding of a shared perfect godhood that Christ is able to speak to us in the first person as if he is God the Father.

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 .........................; that they may be one, even as we are one:................................

How is it that all of us participate in that fulness?  Or at least the body of believers do so.

Quote

....................................................... but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice....................................

"infinite and eternal" here refers to the full coverage of any and all sin which was or could be committed by humans, and applicable permanently.  Easy to say, but not so easy to do, which is probably why Satan bet against it.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I was joking about Satan being a calling and I think opposition is inevitable anyway, so I am not sure we "really" need them, but I get your point too, and it's a clever response I must admit!  

Honestly I think there are no anti arguments which work and that all depend on the anti's being philosophically uneducated.  That's why I only quote famous atheist philosophers to justify Mormonism- if the best and the brightest, like Rorty see religion as justifiable, then what kind of argument can the anti's have?

I don't know why the LDS around here don't get what I am doing but if the best atheists can't put together an argument against us, we should be all over that

Instead I get flak for believing in relativism and not believing in truth

It's not about that at all.  If relativism and the non-existence of truth helps our cause, why would you want to argue against the best and brightest to make bad dualistic arguments when the bad guys are on our side anyway?

Apologetics makes no sense.  They use outmoded thought patterns trying to prove what they don't even need to prove if they go with the atheists own paradigms

Mormons and atheists if the atheist is educated, is really very close.  Alma 32's definition of truth does not even mention God directly and DC 93 speaks of "spheres" of truth which are the same as "language games"

It drives me nuts!  

Maybe I should write a book about the folly of Mormon apologetics.  All we have to do is agree with educated atheists in our context instead of theirs and we win instantly.

Thanks for the post.  

This type of thinking is where I see mormonism and religion having to go. I remember my freshman philosophy professor saying as much when we reviewed James and what he had to say. Today's heretics are sometimes viewed as prophets in the future.

[Guest]

On February 5, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Josh Khinder said:

Mormon leaders have taught God is not all knowing

God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end." Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses Vol. 6:120

"Jan 7-8, 1960 - First Presidency decides that Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine “must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation.” They are exasperated that McConkie and his publisher released the book without pre-publication publicity or notifying First Presidency. Even his father-in-law, senior apostle, Joseph Fielding Smith, “did not know anything about it until it was published.” This is McConkie’s way to avoid repetition of Presidency’s stopping his pre-announced Sound Doctrine three years earlier.

 

Committee of two apostles (Mark E Petersen and Marion G Romney) reports that McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine contains 1,067 doctrinal errors. For example, page 493 said: “Those who falsely and erroneously suppose that God is progressing in knowledge and gaining new truths cannot exercise sufficient faith in him to gain salvation until they divest themselves of their false beliefs.” However, McConkie is affirming doctrine of omniscience officially condemned by previous First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1865.”

 

 

 

I am sorry, are you responding to my comments? Because nothing I said, that I am aware of, that would cause your to post these moments. Have you confused me with someone else? I assumed the thread was about the "Destruction of God". 

[JLHPROF]

17 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

Please give me book, chapter and verse where unbelievers are children of God 

 

4 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

Have received one yet 

 

Sorry Mittens, didn't realize that your request was to be such a high priority for me.  You know, as compared to sleeping, working, job hunting, and visiting my father in the hospital.
I will be sure and give your CFR's that you are perfectly capable of googling yourself much more priority in my life in the future.

All of us are offspring of God, believers or unbelievers
Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
Hebrews 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

"Believers" become sons and daughters, ie heirs

Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him

I John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

[Bobbieaware]

25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

How is it that all of us participate in that fulness?  Or at least the body of believers do so.

"infinite and eternal" here refers to the full coverage of any and all sin which was or could be committed by humans, and applicable permanently.  Easy to say, but not so easy to do, which is probably why Satan bet against it.

I truly appreciate your measured responses. That being said, I thought I made myself clear when I specified it’s only those believers who are exalted to the fullness of Godhood who can properly be referred to as beings in whom dwells all fullness of deity bodily. While those who have not yet been resurrected and exalted as Gods may be of the divine race, and while they may also be well on the way to becoming Gods, it isn’t until they become fully one with the Father and the Son, and share fully in all their divine attributes, that they can rightly be referred to as Gods who possess all the fullness of deity bodily.

I think it’s critically important to understand that Christ and his yet to be exalted followers do not at all hold the same position within your definition of the fulness deity, While the Son is fully one with his Father and the Holy Ghost, and while he may also spiritually dwell within his saints through the Spirit (at least as much as the saints are willing to allow him to do so), the fact of the matter is that the flip side of this — the idea that the fullness of deity does already dwell within his imperfect followers — isn’t at all true.

The reason why the Savior can correctly  be described as a being in whom dwells all the fulness of deity, but the same cannot be said of his saints, is because while the saints may be more or less connected to each other through the unifying influence of the Spirit, and while the saints may also be somewhat unified with the Father and the Son through the same indwelling Spirit, the fact is that vast majority of the saints are not at all in the same state of perfection as that enjoyed by the Father and the Son. So it would be quite inappropriate to say that within the as yet unexalted saints dwells all the fulness of deity just because they enjoy a less than perfect relationship with God.. 

Sorry if my writing is not of optimal clarity. Also sorry if I belabored a point you already believe and well-understand..

I’m glad to know the words infinite and eternal don’t necessarily have to be defined the way Jung defines them.

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I truly appreciate your measured responses. That being said, I thought I made myself clear when I specified it’s only those believers who are exalted to the fullness of Godhood who can properly be referred to as beings in whom dwells all the fullness of deity bodily. While those who have not yet been resurrected and exalted as Gods may be of the divine race, and while they may also be well on the way to becoming Gods, it isn’t until they become fully one with the Father and the Son, and share fully in all their divine attributes, that they can rightly be referred to as Gods who possess all the fullness of deity bodily.

I think it’s critically important to understand that Christ and his yet to be exalted followers do not at all hold the same position within your definition of the fulness deity, While the Son is fully one with his Father and the Holy Ghost, and while he may also spiritually dwell within his saints through the Spirit (at least as much as the saints are willing to allow him to do so), the fact of the matter is that the flip side of this — the idea that the fullness of deity does already dwell within his imperfect followers — isn’t at all true.

The reason why the Savior can correctly  be described as a being in whom dwells all the fulness of deity but the same cannot be said of his saints is because while the saints may be more or less connected to each other through the unifying influence of the Spirit, and while the saints may also be somewhat unified with the Father and the Son through the same indwelling Spirit, the fact is that vast majority of the saints are not at all in the same state of perfection as that enjoyed by the Father and the Son. So it would be quite inappropriate to say that within the as yet unexalted saints dwells all the fulness of deity just because they enjoy a less than perfect relationship with God.. 

Sorry if my writing is not of optimal clarity. Also sorry if I belabored a point you already believe and well-understand..

I’m glad to know the words infinite and eternal don’t necessarily have to be defined the way Jung defines them.

 

Edited February 8, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

.................................. while the saints may also be somewhat unified with the Father and the Son through the same indwelling Spirit, the fact is that vast majority of the saints are not at all in the same state of perfection as that enjoyed by the Father and the Son. So it would be quite inappropriate to say that within the as yet unexalted saints dwells all the fulness of deity just because they enjoy a less than perfect relationship with God..................................................

Augustine divided them into the City of God and the City of Man, while only God knows who his true saints are -- the actual Body of Christ, His Church (the Kingdom of God on Earth, which carries his full authority).

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Augustine divided them into the City of God and the City of Man, while only God knows who his true saints are -- the actual Body of Christ, His Church (the Kingdom of God on Earth, which carries his full authority).

I realize my last post was kind of muddled and my central point not made nearly as clearly as I would have liked, so I’ll try to be brief and crystal clear. If I get the jist of what you seem to be saying, it is that the Apostle Paul’s expression ‘all the fullness of deity” refers not just to those exalted divine beings who are fully worthy of worship because they fully possess the power to create, redeem and save, but the same description also equally applies to those imperfect beings (the members of the earthly church) who worship God in the hope that they too will one day become exalted divine beings who are fully worthy of worship. If I state your position correctly, does this mean you believe that just as all the fullness of deity now resides in Christ bodily that that same fullness of deity now resides bodily in the saints while they are yet in a state of great imperfection? Just trying to make sure I understand you.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

I realize my last post was kind of muddled and my central point not made nearly as clearly as I would have liked, so I’ll try to be brief and crystal clear. If I get the jist of what you seem to be saying, it is that the Apostle Paul’s expression ‘all the fullness of deity” refers not just to those exalted divine beings who are fully worthy of worship because they fully possess the power to create, redeem and save, but the same description also equally applies to those imperfect beings (the members of the earthly church) who worship God in the hope that they too will one day become exalted divine beings who are fully worthy of worship. If I state your position correctly, does this mean you believe that just as all the fullness of deity now resides in Christ bodily that that same fullness of deity now resides bodily in the saints while they are yet in a state of great imperfection? Just trying to make sure I understand you.

What I am saying is that we should always engage the actual words of the NT, and their interpretation by historically important figures.  Does St Augustine have a point?  You don't engage his view.  What sort of power and authority do the saints on Earth exercise as the Kingdom of God, or his priesthood?  How may they have the power to bind and loose on Earth, and simultaneously in heaven?  Now.  How are they the Body of Christ?  Now.  What does the NT in fact say on such matters?  Does that conflict with our theological opinions?  Are our modern formulae too pat?  Too timid?  Are they absurd?  Do we really understand the Sitz im Leben der alten Kirche?

[Josh Khinder]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

 

Sorry Mittens, didn't realize that your request was to be such a high priority for me.  You know, as compared to sleeping, working, job hunting, and visiting my father in the hospital.
I will be sure and give your CFR's that you are perfectly capable of googling yourself much more priority in my life in the future.

All of us are offspring of God, believers or unbelievers
Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
Hebrews 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

"Believers" become sons and daughters, ie heirs

Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him

I John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

Romans 9

 ⁴who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; ⁵of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

 ⁸That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. ⁹For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

¹⁰And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac ¹¹(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), ¹²it was said to her, 

 

Notice that we are children of God thru adoption and none-believers aren't children of God, and before conception we didn't exist since we had done neither good or bad.

 

James Talmage, a Mormon Apostle, said Psalm 82:6 is not about becoming gods.

  "In Psalm 82:6, judges invested by divine appointment are called 'gods.'  To this scripture the Savior referred in His reply to the Jews in Solomon's Porch.  Judges so authorized officiated as the representatives of God and are honored by the exalted title 'gods.'  Compare the similar appellation applied to Moses (Exo. 4:16; 7:1).  Jesus Christ possessed divine authorization, not through the word of God transmitted to Him by man, but as an inherent attribute.  The inconsistency of calling human judges 'gods,' and of ascribing blasphemy to the Christ who called Himself the Son of God, would have been apparent to the Jews but for their sin-darkened minds."  (James Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 501). -- Mormons often quote Psalm 82:6 which Jesus quoted in John 10:30-34 to show that we can become gods. 

 Rather than them believing the truth from a Christian, perhaps they will believe it from their own apostle.

 judge must act with impartiality and true justice, because even judges must stand someday before the Judge. Verses 6 and 7 warn human magistrates that they, too, must be judged: “I said, `You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.' But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler.”

 This passage is saying that God has appointed men to positions of authority in which they are considered as gods among the people. They are to remember that, even though they are representing God in this world, they are mortal and must eventually give an account to God for how they used that authority.

 

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What I am saying is that we should always engage the actual words of the NT, and their interpretation by historically important figures.  Does St Augustine have a point?  You don't engage his view.  What sort of power and authority do the saints on Earth exercise as the Kingdom of God, or his priesthood?  How may they have the power to bind and loose on Earth, and simultaneously in heaven?  Now.  How are they the Body of Christ?  Now.  What does the NT in fact say on such matters?  Does that conflict with our theological opinions?  Are our modern formulae too pat?  Too timid?  Are they absurd?  Do we really understand the Sitz im Leben der alten Kirche?

Back to basics. Do you find the following 3  interpretations of Colossians 2:9, as found in the Church New Testament Seminary Student Manual, the Church’s New Testament Backgrounds compendium, and Jeff Lindsay’s Mormanity Blog  to be inaccurate and/or deficient in any way?

1) Speaking of Jesus Christ, Paul testified, “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” This phrase indicates Jesus Christ is fully divine and possesses the full power of godhood. (New Testament Seminary Student Manual)

and...

2) For in [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9.) Some have interpreted this passage to mean that the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—are the same person, or three persons in one. Paul is anxious to combat the heretical notion that Christ was not a physical being and that his bodily suffering, death, and resurrection were only fictional. In countering this false notion, and in order to emphasize the supremacy of the Savior above man and angels, Paul teaches that the fulness of the Godhead’s glory, honor, and power is in Christ physically, or bodily—that is, nothing is lacking in the Savior that requires man to seek some other source or means of salvation. (New Testament Backgrounds)

3) Bodily. I like that word. The physical, tangible body of the Resurrection, the one that witnesses handled and saw and that Christ declared and showed to have flesh and bone, not spirit alone, still exists. In the real and tangible body of Christ, the fullness of God's glory and power exists. He is real and, as Paul said, looks just like His Father, for He is "the express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3). And wonderfully, we are created in that physical image, sons and daughters of our very real Father in Heaven. (Mormanity)

 

Edited February 8, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

 

Curious as to why you are quoting yourself.  Did you mean to edit and hit the wrong button?

[Bobbieaware]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Curious as to why you are quoting yourself.  Did you mean to edit and hit the wrong button?

Thanks. Didn’t realize it happened until you pointed it out. Wish I could delete it but edit is no longer available on that post.

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

Have received one yet 

Quote

The scriptures use these terms in two ways. In one sense, we are all literal spirit children of our Heavenly Father. In another sense, God’s sons and daughters are those who have been born again through the Atonement of Christ. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/sons-and-daughters-of-god?lang=eng

I understand your confusion, but it's not complicated.

[Meerkat]

On 2/2/2018 at 10:46 AM, Bernard Gui said:

What would God be if he were bereft of his wisdom, purpose, power, mercy, and justice?

Grand Moff Tarkin.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Back to basics. ............................... the Church New Testament Seminary Student Manual, the Church’s New Testament Backgrounds compendium, and Jeff Lindsay’s Mormanity Blog ..................................................................(Mormanity)

I thought that we had moved on to the NT status of the Saints, the Body of Christ, His Church, the Kingdom of God on Earth.  Should we address that issue, or should it be left undiscussed?  Is it too dangerous?

[Josh Khinder]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I understand your confusion, but it's not complicated.

The Bible is clear Jehovah created our spirits   Zechariah 12 1The burden of the word of the Lord against Israel. Thus says the Lord, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him:   Isa. 44:24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, Josh Khinder said:

The Bible is clear Jehovah created our spirits   Zechariah 12 1The burden of the word of the Lord against Israel. Thus says the Lord, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him:   Isa. 44:24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;

Which is why early Church leaders like  Brigham Young differentiated between the OT Jehovah and Jesus Christ and specifically treated Jehovah as a priesthood office, not a personal name.

In my opinion, the office of Jehovah refers to a resurrected Savior, one who lay down their life and took it up again.  Which is why Jesus is Jehovah in D&C 110, but clearly not the Jehovah in most of the OT.

 

[Josh Khinder]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Which is why early Church leaders like  Brigham Young differentiated between the OT Jehovah and Jesus Christ and specifically treated Jehovah as a priesthood office, not a personal name.

In my opinion, the office of Jehovah refers to a resurrected Savior, one who lay down their life and took it up again.  Which is why Jesus is Jehovah in D&C 110, but clearly not the Jehovah in most of the OT.

 

Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions
Taken from the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith
Tenth President of Mormonism
A course Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums
1972-73

Lesson 6 page 39

It was Jesus who gave commandments to Adam after he was driven out of the Garden of Eden and who directed Enoch and Noah before the flood. It was Christ who named Abraham and made him that through his posterity all nations would be blessed. He, it was who called Moses to lead Isreal out of Egypt and who wrote with his fingers on the tables of stone. He had no body until he was born in Bethlehem.

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, Josh Khinder said:

Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions
Taken from the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith
Tenth President of Mormonism
A course Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums
1972-73

Lesson 6 page 39

It was Jesus who gave commandments to Adam after he was driven out of the Garden of Eden and who directed Enoch and Noah before the flood. It was Christ who named Abraham and made him that through his posterity all nations would be blessed. He, it was who called Moses to lead Isreal out of Egypt and who wrote with his fingers on the tables of stone. He had no body until he was born in Bethlehem.

Yep.  Church leaders haven't always agreed 100% on every aspect of doctrine.
This is one example.

[Josh Khinder]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Yep.  Church leaders haven't always agreed 100% on every aspect of doctrine.
This is one example.

Are you a Church leader ?  

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yep.  Church leaders haven't always agreed 100% on every aspect of doctrine.
This is one example.

He's never gonna get this.  One non-sequitur after another, all strawmen.

I feel like posting on each post.  "Yes, and why do you think this is important?"