God the father's role in the church of jesus christ

[echelon]

I believe the direction I get for my personal life and that of my family comes from God the Father who uses Jesus to aid Him so that through the atonement I can make the necessary changes towards my perfection.  My prayers are to God the Father and answered by God the Father.  Glory be to God the Father.

The direction and support I expect to get for the affairs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is something different.

In President Nelson’s opening address this last conference he said “I know for sure that the Lord directs the affairs of His Church. He said, “I will show [you] that I am able to do mine own work.”

Many prophets and general authorities have declared the same in the past.  

“Now brethren, let it be understood by all that Jesus Christ stands at the head of this church which bears His sacred name. He is watching over it. He is guiding it. Standing at the right hand of His Father, He directs this work. His is the prerogative, the power, the option to call men in His way to high and sacred offices and to release them according to His will by calling them home.” - President Hinckley “God is at the Helm” April 1994

Yet, when I pray as to who my councilors should be, or for guidance on fulfilling my calling, it is still to God the Father, not to the head of the church.

Why does this matter to matter to me? Well it confuses me and makes my prayers seem impersonal as I know God the Father will not be answering them since all inquiries will simply be forwarded to Jesus for processing.  This also makes God the Father seem like a messenger, an administrative assistant to Jesus Christ which I don’t like.

The only way I can come to terms with this confusion is this being God’s way of teaching Jesus.  Jesus is as much on the path to perfection as we are (just waaaay further ahead), and while he will never sin he may still be learning better ways of doing things, hence God the Father is keeping tabs on all our requests about the administrative affairs of the church so that our prayers are going to both God the Father and Jesus but answered only by Jesus.

The only problem with that is that the prayer is still addressed to God the Father and thus the expectation to be answered by God the Father. Another explanation I thought of is that addressing our prayers to God the Father is not about His role in the church but rather the mechanics of prayer which makes more sense to me.  Where communication of any type simply just goes through God the Father to its appropriate destination, but that just makes my relationship with Him even more impersonal.

So, I would like to extend this question out to this discussion board for your thoughts in helping wade through this confusion of mine.  “What is God the Father’s role in the Church of Jesus Christ when we pray to Him for direction in the administrative affairs of His son’s church?”

 

[bluebell]

As I understand it, Jesus is our mediator with the Father, so everything we do goes through Him.  He stands between us and God right now.  We pray to God but we do it in the name of Jesus Christ because it is through Him that God hears and answers our prayers, for example. 

Because of the Fall, we have no direct dealings with God the Father, except for the couple of times that He has chosen to personally introduce His son.  

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As I understand it, Jesus is our mediator with the Father, so everything we do goes through Him.  He stands between us and God right now.  We pray to God but we do it in the name of Jesus Christ because it is through Him that God hears and answers our prayers, for example. 

Because of the Fall, we have no direct dealings with God the Father, except for the couple of times that He has chosen to personally introduce His son.  

Not that I know, but this is a great answer bluebell. 

[echelon]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As I understand it, Jesus is our mediator with the Father, so everything we do goes through Him.  He stands between us and God right now.  We pray to God but we do it in the name of Jesus Christ because it is through Him that God hears and answers our prayers, for example. 

Because of the Fall, we have no direct dealings with God the Father, except for the couple of times that He has chosen to personally introduce His son.  

Does this mean that God, through Jesus, is the 'real' head of the church who is answering my questions about who to select as counselors or the prophet's questions about doctrine or policy?

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, echelon said:

Does this mean that God, through Jesus, is the 'real' head of the church who is answering my questions about who to select as counselors or the prophet's questions about doctrine or policy?

That's an interesting question.  I'm not exactly sure but maybe considering the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Matt. 21: 33-46) could provide some insight.  In it, God the Father is the 'owner' or householder and the ultimate authority.

Edited April 11, 2021 by bluebell

[CV75]

2 hours ago, echelon said:

Does this mean that God, through Jesus, is the 'real' head of the church who is answering my questions about who to select as counselors or the prophet's questions about doctrine or policy?

In this instance, I think it means that Jesus is using the Church that He (Jesus) leads to bring the Father's children into alignment with the Father's will, preparatory to bringing us back into Their presence united as one exalted family council. The communion of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and us through prayer is a first step in fulfilling that aim. It doesn't matter who or what we are praying about for within or without callings, assignments, etc. in the Church. The Church that Jesus leads is both the one we are now familiar with and the future Church of the Firstborn.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, echelon said:

Does this mean that God, through Jesus, is the 'real' head of the church who is answering my questions about who to select as counselors or the prophet's questions about doctrine or policy?

If they are of one heart and mind, would it make any difference in the answer itself who says anything?

I envision prayers being received and addressed in a council of the Godhead...though the form of the Council might be unrecognizable to mortals who need to be physically connected somehow to communicate.  Christ is the one appointed to report what is happening for the humans of this world and any work undertaken is supervised by him...he stands before the Father as if it were us standing there in one sense, he knows us better than we know ourselves so it is as if we are present in terms of our needs and desires being understood and addressed, but I see the Father as invested in the discussion as much as Christ and the Spirit are. 
 

It is all a family affair, all working together in love to bring eternal life to humankind. 

[teddyaware]

7 hours ago, echelon said:

Does this mean that God, through Jesus, is the 'real' head of the church who is answering my questions about who to select as counselors or the prophet's questions about doctrine or policy?

Do yourself a favor and reread the book of 3 Nephi, beginning at chapter 11, and you’ll get an in-depth look into how Jesus Christ directs the Church that bears his name under the direction of the Father. You’ll see that even though Jesus Christ is a resurrected and fully exalted God at the time he ministered to the Nephites everything he says and does is at the direction of the Father. It’s no different today, everything Christ in does as he leads his restored Church is at the command of his Father, for it always has been and always will be his delight and glory to fulfill the will of the Father. Read 3 Nephi, as I’ve suggested, and you’ll never have to be confused on this issue again.

[echelon]

I think I see where I am going wrong in my thinking.  I was interpreting the 'head' as someone who independently oversees their area of responsibility. As the head of my house, I decide when it is bedtime, I decide if my kids can take the car, and I decide if they are allowed to stay at a friends house (and I have my wife's permission to say so).  For some reason I didn't see being the head of a church after His own name the same way, thinking that Jesus while following His Fathers example and not needing to be commanded in all things, had the flexibility to make His own decisions when choosing who to call as His prophet or endorsing my choices for a counselor.  When I read in John 8:28 "I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me" I had no idea how literal that was and reminds me of His part in the temple ceremony in that all 'official business' between God and Man including the affairs of The Church of Jesus Christ are conducted among the Gods or Godhead, Jesus being our intermediary among them.  

 

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, echelon said:

I believe the direction I get for my personal life and that of my family comes from God the Father who uses Jesus to aid Him so that through the atonement I can make the necessary changes towards my perfection.  My prayers are to God the Father and answered by God the Father.  Glory be to God the Father.

The direction and support I expect to get for the affairs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is something different.

In President Nelson’s opening address this last conference he said “I know for sure that the Lord directs the affairs of His Church. He said, “I will show [you] that I am able to do mine own work.”

Many prophets and general authorities have declared the same in the past.

Part of the confusion may stem from the word "Lord."  In the KJV of the Bible, "LORD" is the translation for Hebrew YHWH (Yahweh Exodus 6:3), which means "He who creates that which  comes into existence."  Scholars call that the Tetragrammaton.  English tradition wrongly also has this Tetragram as "Jehovah."  So the question is Who is Jehovah?  Some people insist that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament, which the Jews certainly don't accept, even though Jesus claims to be "I AM" (Ehyeh "I AM," John 8:58, Exodus 3:14, meaning "I create that which comes into existence").  For the Jews, Yahweh or Ehyeh is one God ('Elohim), and can be referred to as the "LORD God" (Yahweh 'Elohim).  However, all of these supposed "names" are really titles, which can be freely used by God the Father or God the Son.

12 hours ago, echelon said:

“Now brethren, let it be understood by all that Jesus Christ stands at the head of this church which bears His sacred name. He is watching over it. He is guiding it. Standing at the right hand of His Father, He directs this work. His is the prerogative, the power, the option to call men in His way to high and sacred offices and to release them according to His will by calling them home.” - President Hinckley “God is at the Helm” April 1994

Yet, when I pray as to who my councilors should be, or for guidance on fulfilling my calling, it is still to God the Father, not to the head of the church.

Why does this matter to matter to me? Well it confuses me and makes my prayers seem impersonal as I know God the Father will not be answering them since all inquiries will simply be forwarded to Jesus for processing.  This also makes God the Father seem like a messenger, an administrative assistant to Jesus Christ which I don’t like.

When I was a young Marine, my company would assemble in ranks according to regular formation principles, squads and platoons, rank and file leaders all neatly lined up.  Front and center was the Executive Officer (the ExO), a 1st Lieutenant with one silver bar.  Facing the company, he would receive the report from each of the four platoon commanders (2nd lieutenants, with single gold bars).  The ExO would then do an about face, salute the Captain (two silver bars) and report -- "all present and accounted for, Sir."  Everything done was done through the ExO.  Everywhere we went, in the field or in garrison, the Capt gave his orders through the ExO.  Never directly.

When I first went to the 5th Marine Regiment, my Captain was a WW II battle-tested officer.  His ExO was a young 1st Lt still learning the ropes.  The 2nd Lts were green, still unsure, but gung-ho officers fresh from Officers Candidate School (OCS) or the U.S. Naval Academy (Annapolis), scared and completely dependent for direction upon their platoon gunnery sergeants and the company gunny (a battle-tested master gunnery sgt).

We had a chain of command in the USMC, and so does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  God the Father is the boss or chairman of the board.  His executive officer or CEO is his battle-tested Son, Jesus Christ (the First Counselor), from whom all orders come to us, right down the chain of command to our file leaders.  That chain of command includes an angelic host and the Holy Spirit (the Second Counselor), and the essential human leaders of that vast chain of priesthood of the Order of the Son of God, which functions on both sides of the vail.  Some of us are part of that vast brotherhood, all trying to work out our salvation, some of us running scared, but hopeful.

12 hours ago, echelon said:

The only way I can come to terms with this confusion is this being God’s way of teaching Jesus.  Jesus is as much on the path to perfection as we are (just waaaay further ahead), and while he will never sin he may still be learning better ways of doing things, hence God the Father is keeping tabs on all our requests about the administrative affairs of the church so that our prayers are going to both God the Father and Jesus but answered only by Jesus.

The only problem with that is that the prayer is still addressed to God the Father and thus the expectation to be answered by God the Father. Another explanation I thought of is that addressing our prayers to God the Father is not about His role in the church but rather the mechanics of prayer which makes more sense to me.  Where communication of any type simply just goes through God the Father to its appropriate destination, but that just makes my relationship with Him even more impersonal.

So, I would like to extend this question out to this discussion board for your thoughts in helping wade through this confusion of mine.  “What is God the Father’s role in the Church of Jesus Christ when we pray to Him for direction in the administrative affairs of His son’s church?”

God the Father still keeps a hand in, as he did in the Sacred Grove to Joseph Smith, and as he did in Genesis 18, when he appeared to Abraham at Mamre, accompanied by two angels.  How do we know that the LORD (Yahweh) there is God the Father?   Because he eats a meal with Abraham, something Jesus could not do until he was embodied two thousand years later.  Planet Earth is only one of the myriad of worlds headed by God the Father.

[rongo]

Several of my thoughts:

1) Lord or LORD is not used with 100% technical precision in the Old Testament, or by modern speakers (including general authorities) to denote the lines of cleavage in the 1916 First Presidency statement on the Godhead. That is: often when people say "the Lord," they really mean "God" or "God the Father," and not necessarily "Jehovah" or "God the Son." 

2) I agree with the OP concerning whom we pray to. I started a thread years ago on this topic, and there was interesting discussion representing a range of views. I also envision myself talking to the Father when I pray. Others consider themselves talking to Jesus. I personally think that we should be praying to the Father, and not Jesus, but I don't think that God refuses to listen to or answer prayers from people who see it differently than I do.

3) While there seems to be diminishing faith in the Book of Mormon as a literal record of real people that was translated by the gift and power of God, for those of us who still believe this, I think a key passage is Jacob 4:5 --- "Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name." There is more Christology (pre-Advent) among Old Testament peoples and prophets than the current Old Testament contains (this would be mocked by the "higher critics"). 

4) There was a concerted effort in the 80s and 90s to combat anti-Mormon attacks that we aren't Christian, and the after effects of this continue to this day. We are so sensitive to this that we have largely shifted to "Jesus-centric rhetoric," at the expense of focus on the Father (i.e., emphasis on the Father has declined drastically in favor of emphasis on the Son). People regularly complain about how little Jesus is emphasized in their meetings, when often He is the sole emphasis (complaints about testimonies about the Restoration, because we need more "Christ-based testimonies," etc.). I don't think it's zero-sum/either-or; I think the Restoration is interconnected with the mission and focus on the Savior, but many people have been conditioned to only want to hear talk about Jesus all the time.

5) The member of the Godhead we have the most contact with is the Holy Ghost. Through investiture of authority, they all represent each other, but when we communicate with God (in either direction), it is through the Holy Ghost. 

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

Several of my thoughts:

1) Lord or LORD is not used with 100% technical precision in the Old Testament, or by modern speakers (including general authorities) to denote the lines of cleavage in the 1916 First Presidency statement on the Godhead. That is: often when people say "the Lord," they really mean "God" or "God the Father," and not necessarily "Jehovah" or "God the Son." 

2) I agree with the OP concerning whom we pray to. I started a thread years ago on this topic, and there was interesting discussion representing a range of views. I also envision myself talking to the Father when I pray. Others consider themselves talking to Jesus. I personally think that we should be praying to the Father, and not Jesus, but I don't think that God refuses to listen to or answer prayers from people who see it differently than I do.

3) While there seems to be diminishing faith in the Book of Mormon as a literal record of real people that was translated by the gift and power of God, for those of us who still believe this, I think a key passage is Jacob 4:5 --- "Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name." There is more Christology (pre-Advent) among Old Testament peoples and prophets than the current Old Testament contains (this would be mocked by the "higher critics"). 

4) There was a concerted effort in the 80s and 90s to combat anti-Mormon attacks that we aren't Christian, and the after effects of this continue to this day. We are so sensitive to this that we have largely shifted to "Jesus-centric rhetoric," at the expense of focus on the Father (i.e., emphasis on the Father has declined drastically in favor of emphasis on the Son). People regularly complain about how little Jesus is emphasized in their meetings, when often He is the sole emphasis (complaints about testimonies about the Restoration, because we need more "Christ-based testimonies," etc.). I don't think it's zero-sum/either-or; I think the Restoration is interconnected with the mission and focus on the Savior, but many people have been conditioned to only want to hear talk about Jesus all the time.

5) The member of the Godhead we have the most contact with is the Holy Ghost. Through investiture of authority, they all represent each other, but when we communicate with God (in either direction), it is through the Holy Ghost. 

I wish it wasn't called "the Holy Ghost". I wonder when that was first spoken in our history. Why not "the Holy Spirit"? 

Also, I believe most that pray to Jesus, they believe that Jesus is God, or the Trinity, I believe. 

And it seems, that the current church is emphasizing Jesus more than ever before. 

[Robert F. Smith]

55 minutes ago, rongo said:

Several of my thoughts:

1) Lord or LORD is not used with 100% technical precision in the Old Testament, or by modern speakers (including general authorities) to denote the lines of cleavage in the 1916 First Presidency statement on the Godhead. That is: often when people say "the Lord," they really mean "God" or "God the Father," and not necessarily "Jehovah" or "God the Son." 

Confusion is rife, and will continue to be so.

55 minutes ago, rongo said:

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

3) While there seems to be diminishing faith in the Book of Mormon as a literal record of real people that was translated by the gift and power of God, for those of us who still believe this, I think a key passage is Jacob 4:5 --- "Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name." There is more Christology (pre-Advent) among Old Testament peoples and prophets than the current Old Testament contains (this would be mocked by the "higher critics"). 

Of course.

55 minutes ago, rongo said:

4) There was a concerted effort in the 80s and 90s to combat anti-Mormon attacks that we aren't Christian, and the after effects of this continue to this day. We are so sensitive to this that we have largely shifted to "Jesus-centric rhetoric," at the expense of focus on the Father (i.e., emphasis on the Father has declined drastically in favor of emphasis on the Son). People regularly complain about how little Jesus is emphasized in their meetings, when often He is the sole emphasis (complaints about testimonies about the Restoration, because we need more "Christ-based testimonies," etc.). I don't think it's zero-sum/either-or; I think the Restoration is interconnected with the mission and focus on the Savior, but many people have been conditioned to only want to hear talk about Jesus all the time.

5) The member of the Godhead we have the most contact with is the Holy Ghost. Through investiture of authority, they all represent each other, but when we communicate with God (in either direction), it is through the Holy Ghost. 

Your are not wrong.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

2) I agree with the OP concerning whom we pray to. I started a thread years ago on this topic, and there was interesting discussion representing a range of views. I also envision myself talking to the Father when I pray. Others consider themselves talking to Jesus. I personally think that we should be praying to the Father, and not Jesus, but I don't think that God refuses to listen to or answer prayers from people who see it differently than I do.

ETA: Intriguingly, the Nephites prayed directly to Jesus, but I think that was because the resurrected Christ was physically there with them. The pattern for us is to pray to the Father, in Jesus' name. 

[JustAnAustralian]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wish it wasn't called "the Holy Ghost". I wonder when that was first spoken in our history.

If the Journal of Discourses are correct, at least as far back as 1844

https://scriptures.byu.edu/#:tea61&"holy ghost":st&&1830&1845&gj&r&30@0$"holy ghost"

 

1580 if the British Library has their dates right

https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Two_Right_Profitable_and_Fruitfull_Conco/TX1mAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&kptab=overview (preface page, about 2/3 of the way down on the right hand side)

Not sure how the difference is handled in Latin or Italian though given what is mentioned here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Holy_Ghost

[Calm]

It is not just the Church that uses “Holy Ghost”.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm

https://holyghostfbg.org

https://m.facebook.com/HolyGhostBaptistChurch203/

Looks like “Holy Spirit” became the dominant choice for many in the last century due to the more recent connotation of Ghost  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Spirit_in_Christianity#Etymology_and_usage

Edited April 13, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/holy-ghost-and-holy-spirit-4627
 

Quote

Before the Second Vatican Council, the Third Person of the Trinity was referred to in English as the Holy Ghost....

The more modern sense of a disembodied dead person is first attested in the late 14th century but remained quite rare. In modern English, the word gast sneaked into the word aghast, which means "to be terrified, shocked, or rendered breathless." The related German word Geist, which means both spirit and ghost, has occasionally found its way into English in words such as poltergeist....

Quote

When translating the Bible into English the scholars behind the King James Version (1611) opted to use the term Holy Ghost. This is used 90 times in the KJV, while Holy Spirit occurs seven times. The reason for the choice is not clear, as the words Ghostand Spirit translate the same Greek words.

This use of Holy Ghost had already been made in the Douay-Rheims Catholic translation, first published in 1582 and revised several times. This was the Bible chiefly used by English-speaking Catholics for several centuries.

Practically all recent translations of the Bible, both Protestant and Catholic, have preferred Holy Spirit in most instances. The reason is probably because the meaning of the word ghost has gradually shifted over the last 300 years and now predominantly refers to the vision of the specter of a deceased person or a demonic apparition.

 

[Calm]

Since Holy Ghost is used in the KJV, chances are the term was used from the beginning of the Church.

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Holy+Ghost&version=KJV
 

Isn’t the original baptism ordinance using “Holy Ghost”?  Trying to check the original 1833 section, but the JSPP is stalling out for me or whatever one calls when the page never surfaces. 

Edited April 13, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It is not just the Church that uses “Holy Ghost”.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm

https://holyghostfbg.org

https://m.facebook.com/HolyGhostBaptistChurch203/

Looks like “Holy Spirit” became the dominant choice for many in the last century due to the more recent connotation of Ghost  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Spirit_in_Christianity#Etymology_and_usage

 

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since Holy Ghost is used in the KJV, chances are the term was used from the beginning of the Church.

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Holy+Ghost&version=KJV
 

Isn’t the original baptism ordinance using “Holy Ghost”?  Trying to check the original 1833 section, but the JSPP is stalling out for me or whatever one calls when the page never surfaces. 

 

1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

If the Journal of Discourses are correct, at least as far back as 1844

https://scriptures.byu.edu/#:tea61&"holy ghost":st&&1830&1845&gj&r&30@0$"holy ghost"

 

1580 if the British Library has their dates right

https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Two_Right_Profitable_and_Fruitfull_Conco/TX1mAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&kptab=overview (preface page, about 2/3 of the way down on the right hand side)

Not sure how the difference is handled in Latin or Italian though given what is mentioned here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Holy_Ghost

Thanks you two. I'd forgotten the origin of the HG. I don't get how most of the LDS I know don't believe in ghosts, lol!

[echelon]

 

11 hours ago, rongo said:

I started a thread years ago on this topic, and there was interesting discussion representing a range of views.

I'm interested in reading that, do you recall the subject so I can look it up? 

It is odd to me that after reading Matthew 6:9 ("After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name") and 3 Nephi 18:19 (“Ye must always pray unto the Father in my name”) that people would envision praying to Jesus or someone other than to whom the prayer is addressed.  Though I'm not entirely surprised by it either because of a long time gripe I have with how we are instructed to perform baby blessings where they first address the Father, and then turn their attention to the baby:

Then the one acting as voice:

1. Addresses Heavenly Father as in prayer.

2. States that the blessing is being performed by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

3. Gives the child a name.

4. Addresses the child.

5. Gives a blessing to the child as guided by the Spirit.

6. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

Perhaps our prayers are like that, address the Father and then address Jesus for instruction and decisions about His church and close in Jesus' name.

[2BizE]

Where does Heavenly Mother fit into this paradigm?

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

Where does Heavenly Mother fit into this paradigm?

We don't mention her out of respect. Keep her on the down low..

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Where does Heavenly Mother fit into this paradigm?

Part of the Eloiheim of whom the “Father” is the face for that group which consists of Gods, Goddesses, and possibly other beings we have no conception of. The Father is the designated ‘face’ of the group and is also a real being even though He is not all of the Eloiheim.

WARNING: This doctrine is possibly heretical. The Nehor takes no responsibility for any damnation that anyone may experience due to believing or accepting this tenet.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wish it wasn't called "the Holy Ghost". I wonder when that was first spoken in our history. Why not "the Holy Spirit"? . ......................

 

6 hours ago, Calm said:

It is not just the Church that uses “Holy Ghost”.........................

Looks like “Holy Spirit” became the dominant choice for many in the last century due to the more recent connotation of Ghost  ......................

These are merely translation choices.  One is Anglo-Saxon, the other is Latin.  English is a mixture of such duplicate terms.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/11/2021 at 8:22 PM, echelon said:

I think I see where I am going wrong in my thinking.  I was interpreting the 'head' as someone who independently oversees their area of responsibility. As the head of my house, I decide when it is bedtime, I decide if my kids can take the car, and I decide if they are allowed to stay at a friends house (and I have my wife's permission to say so).  For some reason I didn't see being the head of a church after His own name the same way, thinking that Jesus while following His Fathers example and not needing to be commanded in all things, had the flexibility to make His own decisions when choosing who to call as His prophet or endorsing my choices for a counselor.  When I read in John 8:28 "I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me" I had no idea how literal that was and reminds me of His part in the temple ceremony in that all 'official business' between God and Man including the affairs of The Church of Jesus Christ are conducted among the Gods or Godhead, Jesus being our intermediary among them. 

Jesus is not only the intermediary, but he is the heir apparent and coregent with the Father in the same way that King Mosiah II is coregent with his father King Benjamin.  In fact, King Benjamin's Speech is the occasion of the coregency ritual in which the King makes his son active King, after which the Old King steps into the background.  You will also notice that our priesthood is after the Order of the Son.  This has been in process since the Great Divine Council before the foundation of the world.

We are all part of an extended family which stretches back into infinity.  In an infinite universe.  There was no beginning, and there shall be no end.

Hugh Nibley put it this way in his FARMS Preliminary Report N-APO, "Apocryphal Writings" (from an address originally delivered in 1968), p. 13, 

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).  See C. Schmidt & V. MacDermot, Books of Jeu (Leiden: Brill, 1978).