The uniqueness of the LDS Church

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Just one of many issues with the "Jehovah of the OT is Jesus" doctrine.
Jehovah appeared to Adam and Enoch and probably others.  Christ said the Brother of Jared was the first time he appeared to anyone as a spirit child.

Is that really the best explanation when Jehovah in scripture speaks of his only begotten son?  That Jesus is speaking about himself in the 3rd person?

I don't know if it's the best but it's as good as anything else.

Any time one gets into conversation about the godhead, 3 beings-as-one in purpose, it can become confusing. If Jesus is speaking for the Godhead why not refer to himself in 3rd person?

 

Edited December 29, 2021 by HappyJackWagon

[The Nehor]

46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't know if it's the best but it's as good as anything else.

Any time one gets into conversation about the godhead, 3 beings-as-one in purpose, it can become confusing. If Jesus is speaking for the Godhead why not refer to himself in 3rd person?

 

There is no third person in the Enochian language.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There is no third person in the Enochian language.

CFR    

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

CFR    

I would prove it to me but I lack the capability to understand my answer.

Hope that clarifies things to my own satisfaction.

[MacGyver]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I don't know. God does a lot of confusing things.

I think there is a logical explanation for everything God does. I believe in a rational God. I don't see any point to Christ pretending to be the Father and confusing the heck out of everyone. But assuming he is pretending to be the Father here and speaking for him, then he would still be applying the name Lord (Jehovah) to the Father and not to himself.

[The Nehor]

Just now, MacGyver said:

I think there is a logical explanation for everything God does. I believe in a rational God. I don't see any point to Christ pretending to be the Father and confusing the heck out of everyone. But assuming he is pretending to be the Father here and speaking for him, then he would still be applying the name Lord (Jehovah) to the Father and not to himself.

I think there is a logical explanation for everything God does too. I just think it is an act of supreme hubris to imagine we are going to understand the reasoning.

[InCognitus]

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Is that really the best explanation when Jehovah in scripture speaks of his only begotten son?  That Jesus is speaking about himself in the 3rd person?

The angel in Revelation speaks about himself in the 3rd person (quoting the words of Jesus).  Jeremiah writes of himself being called as a prophet in the third person (quoting the words of the LORD).  Joseph Smith refers to himself in the third person ("I the Lord...called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun, and spake unto him...") when he spoke the revelation now known as section 1 of the Doctrine and Covenants, to a special conference of elders on November 1, 1831.   This is a standard procedure in scripture and elsewhere.  So why can't this be the best explanation?

John 12:49-50;  "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak."  This is standard procedure, and I don't see why it can't be the best explanation.

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

I think there is a logical explanation for everything God does. I believe in a rational God. I don't see any point to Christ pretending to be the Father and confusing the heck out of everyone. But assuming he is pretending to be the Father here and speaking for him, then he would still be applying the name Lord (Jehovah) to the Father and not to himself.

Perhaps the point is that it doesn't matter whether it was Jesus or the Father. The words are the same. So maybe it's not about trying to trick people but rather the message. Which one said it doesn't really matter.

Can you explain why it would matter?

[MiserereNobis]

22 hours ago, teddyaware said:

In 1 Nephi 1, Lehi sees God the Father sitting on the throne of his power as he’s being worshipped by the hosts of heaven. The the preexistent Savior and his disciples then appear on the scene as the Savior gives Lehi a prophetic book to read that pronounces cursings on Jerusalem unless it’s inhabitants repent. Clearly, in Lehi’s first vision (a coincidence?) the Father and the Son are presented as two separate personages in human form. Later on in the Book of Mormon, in Alma 36, Alma also sees God the Father seated on a throne in the form of a man, not as an “immaterial” entity without body, parts and passions.

None of this contradicts Catholic Trinitarianism. 

[InCognitus]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Perhaps the point is that it doesn't matter whether it was Jesus or the Father. The words are the same. So maybe it's not about trying to trick people but rather the message. Which one said it doesn't really matter.

Can you explain why it would matter?

It really shouldn't matter (scripturally speaking).  Isn't that what being given the authority to act for him is all about?  i.e. I "will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." (Deut 18:18), "He that heareth you heareth me" (Luke 10:16), "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" (D&C 1:38).

[JustAnAustralian]

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

None of this contradicts Catholic Trinitarianism. 

We don't need to worry about the word substance though.

[Peacefully]

6 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

I really hate this idea that God the Father is sitting on a throne and people worship Him. I am a father, and that is the last thing I would like my children to do. I would hope that God would expect us to be busily engaged in doing good, not worshipping Him. And I understand that our positive actions can be a sign of worship, but that is definitely not what that sentence implies with the words used. 

Yes. This. 

[MacGyver]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Perhaps the point is that it doesn't matter whether it was Jesus or the Father. The words are the same. So maybe it's not about trying to trick people but rather the message. Which one said it doesn't really matter.

Can you explain why it would matter?

Well I think for one thing it matters because as a church we go out of our way to say we don't believe in the Holy Trinity and claim that the rest of Christianity doesn't understand the nature of God and the Godhead correctly, while we do. We of all people should be able to say who it is that appeared to Moses and who the name Jehovah is referring to. 

If the name Jehovah refers to both the Father and the Son (which I believe it clearly does) then we should be able to explain why that is and why it isn't essentially the same thing as what was established with the Nicaean Creed.

If we say that Jehovah ONLY refers to Jesus Christ and not the Father, then we run into all sorts of problems. Like why does the Father say that his name is Jehovah in Moses 1. Why does Jesus say that the temple in Jerusalem (referred to many times in the Old Testament as Jehovah's house) was his Father's house and not his house? Why is everyone praying to Jesus Christ (Jehovah) during Old Testament times, but then Jesus says to pray to his Father (not Jehovah) for the first time in New Testament times? Why do several Old Testament prophecies about the coming of the Savior, refer to him as a servant of Jehovah or say that Jehovah is giving power? Why did Joseph Smith use the name Jehovah to address the Father in the Kirtland Temple dedicatory prayer (D&C 109)? 

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

I really hate this idea that God the Father is sitting on a throne and people worship Him. I am a father, and that is the last thing I would like my children to do.

It has been my personal experience that Heavenly Father really enjoys a good wrestle!

[MacGyver]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 Jehovah in the OT is not Jesus, despite what current Church teaching holds.
In my opinion, Jehovah is an office held by resurrected Saviors.  Which is why Christ was rightly called Jehovah in D&C 110, but not prior to receiving his mortal body.

The Eloheim - council of the Gods, oversees Jehovah's (former Saviors) as they direct Michaels/Adams in creating their worlds.  The Jehovah in the Old Testament was an "only begotten" from a previous creation.

According to the teachings of Joseph Smith, God the Father was also a former resurrected Savior. Do you believe God the Father of Jesus Christ is the Jehovah of the Old Testament or do you believe a different resurrected former Savior fulfilled this role?

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Christ appeared to nobody before the Brother of Jared. Ether 3:15

but

Jehovah (the Lord) appeared to Adam and Enoch.  Genesis 3:8 & Moses 7:4, D&C 107:49

 

Jehovah (the Lord) was the father of our spirits. Zech 12:1, Jeremiah 1:4-5, Isaiah 42:5, Deut 14:1

but

Christ was a spirit child like us.  Abraham 3:27

Great scriptures. I hadn't made the connection that Jesus Christ had never appeared to any mortal man before the Brother of Jared so he couldn't be the Jehovah who appeared to Adam and Enoch earlier. The rest of the scriptures you shared seem to support my other observations about Jehovah applying to the Father of Jesus Christ. Do you see it the same way?

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

I really hate this idea that God the Father is sitting on a throne and people worship Him. I am a father, and that is the last thing I would like my children to do. I would hope that God would expect us to be busily engaged in doing good, not worshipping Him. And I understand that our positive actions can be a sign of worship, but that is definitely not what that sentence implies with the words used. 

God doesn’t just want us to do good. Lucifer’s plan would probably have done that just as well.

He wants us to be good and that involves a whole lot more mental exertion/divine alchemy/whatever and takes a lot of contemplation and revelation and it is hard to get that if you don’t worship God.

[rodheadlee]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Old Testament uses "LORD" where Jehovah/Yahweh is written.
So if he says "Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty" it's saying Jehovah.

So in these verses we have basically:
"31 And behold, the glory of the Lord (Jehovah) was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God (Jehovah) said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.
32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.

So here you have Jehovah saying that he created the worlds by his only begotten son.  Clearly this Jehovah wasn't Jesus so another explanation is needed.
As one believer of the Jesus is God of the Old Testament doctrine put it - "When it says Lord (Yaweh) it means Jesus, except when it doesn't mean Jesus but means the Father."

Not to be picky but that's not the Old Testament that's the book of Moses.

[MacGyver]

5 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Not to be picky but that's not the Old Testament that's the book of Moses.

The Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price is the first part of the Joseph Smith translation of the Book of Genesis. How is that not the Old Testament?

Edited December 30, 2021 by MacGyver

[rodheadlee]

2 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

The Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price is the first part of the Joseph Smith translation of the Book of Genesis. How is that not the Old Testament?

Did it have a different author or not? It maybe Old Testament times but it's not the Old Testament.

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Not to be picky but that's not the Old Testament that's the book of Moses.

Do you know what the Book of Moses is?

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Did it have a different author or not? It maybe Old Testament times but it's not the Old Testament.

In theory they're the same book, same author.

[rodheadlee]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Do you know what the Book of Moses is?

Yes it's the words of Moses translated by Joseph Smith and the Old Testament is the words of Moses, the first 5 books, translated by King James.

Edited December 30, 2021 by rodheadlee

[rodheadlee]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

In theory they're the same book, same author.

Yeah but that theory doesn't work with translations by two different people. I don't have a problem knowing Jehovah is Jesus Christ of the Old Testament and not the Father of Jesus Christ of the Old Testament. 

When I first joined the church back in 1982 this is the one thing that clarified the Old Testament for me. So don't try to confuse it by saying Jehovah is an office, it's not.

Edited December 30, 2021 by rodheadlee
Clarification

[MacGyver]

12 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Did it have a different author or not? It maybe Old Testament times but it's not the Old Testament.

The author is Moses in both cases. It's the same book. Genesis or the First Book of Moses.

The only difference between the two is that the Lord had Joseph Smith restore some of the plain and precious truths that where lost over time in the Joseph Smith translation.

[MacGyver]

3 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Yeah but that theory doesn't work with translations by two different people.

The Hebrew word for Lord God is Jehovah Elohim. It doesn't matter who translates it. It's the same name.