Joseph Smith - god to the children of Israel

[theplains]

I read the following statement by Joseph Smith in History of the Church, volume 6.

"God made Aaron to be the mouth piece for the children of Israel, and He will make 
me be god to you in His stead, and the Elders to be mouth for me; and if you don’t 
like it, you must lump it."

A previous version of Gospel Principles (1997) says, "All good things come from God. 
Everything that he does is to help his children become like him—a god."

Is the historical statement by Joseph Smith an early manifestation of the exaltation 
that is mentioned in Doctrine and Covenants 132:20?  Or does the 'god' there mean
something other than becoming a deity?

Was Brigham Young considered the next god for the children of Israel after Joseph 
Smith died?

[Pyreaux]

Different meaning. Jesus obtained godhood at his spirit birth prior to creation (thus a God from the beginning and begotten, so uncreated), inherited God's name and speaks as he were God the Father to the prophets, even though he is ever the mediator. Moses became "god" to Pharoh as a prophet has a mediator role. We are speaking of derivative-gods, not exalted god-like beings.

Edit: There is a much longer explanation about the nature of priest-kings that obtain godhood by their priestly sonship, thus conceptually joined the species and how the kings spoke as God. Not sure if you're ready for that.

Edited July 10, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Benjamin McGuire]

I wouldn't consider it to be an expression of exaltation really (although the idea feeds into it in terms of the early models of the organization of the Celestial Kingdom). Joseph Smith's statement is an interpretation of Exodus 4:14-16 and 7:1 -

Quote

4:14-16: And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart. And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.

7:1 And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Joseph Smith was merely recontextualizing the passage - Joseph replaces Moses, and becomes a god to the Elders, and the elders become his prophets to the people. There are a lot of ways to interpret the word "god" here in these Old Testament verses that don't involve the idea of deification.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

I read the following statement by Joseph Smith in History of the Church, volume 6.

"God made Aaron to be the mouth piece for the children of Israel, and He will make 
me be god to you in His stead, and the Elders to be mouth for me; and if you don’t 
like it, you must lump it."

A previous version of Gospel Principles (1997) says, "All good things come from God. 
Everything that he does is to help his children become like him—a god."

Is the historical statement by Joseph Smith an early manifestation of the exaltation 
that is mentioned in Doctrine and Covenants 132:20?  Or does the 'god' there mean
something other than becoming a deity?

Was Brigham Young considered the next god for the children of Israel after Joseph 
Smith died?

Strictly historically speaking, it would appear the first statement is not about exaltation but about prophets as divine agents. I think a Catholic/Anglican/Lutheran application might be "In persona Christi" (the priest speaks the words of God to the assembly in administering the holy rites). In this sense, all of Joseph Smith's successors are as gods to the children of Israel, and they in turn delegate other "saviours" upon Mount Zion (Obadiah, Nehemiah).

[Dario_M]

I don't really understand the question. 

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, theplains said:

Or does the 'god' there mean
something other than becoming a deity?

If this topic is important to you, please define what identifies a "deity" from a "god".

Without that, it is all just semantics.

They are the same to me.

[Pyreaux]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If this topic is important to you, please define what identifies a "deity" from a "god".

Without that, it is all just semantics.

They are the same to me.

We say "godhood" is something obtained after your death, resurrection, and receiving glory like God the Father, because God the Father is a human with a glorified body, the state of true immortal godhood. Yet there are anomalies to this idea, such as premortal Jesus, the Holy Ghost, and mortal Moses, Samuel and Joseph Smith who are accurately called "gods" yet having not been resurrected at the time they are called, they were either born again members of the Godhead or priesthood. Different meaning, a "god" by deification, theosis or exaltation and a "god" by priestly sonship, mediatorship, investure of authority.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Pyreaux

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

We say "godhood" is something obtained after your death, resurrection, and receiving glory like God the Father, because God the Father is an a human with glorified body, the prime example of true godhood. Yet there are anomalies to this idea, such as premortal Jesus, the Holy Ghost, Moses, Samuel and Joseph Smith who are accurately called "gods" yet having not been resurrect at the time they are called. Different meaning,gods of deification/theosis/exaltation and gods by priestly sonship and authority.

Yes I know- I asked the question of ThePlains.

Your definition is not his definition- THAT is the problem.

[teddyaware]

On 7/10/2023 at 4:46 PM, theplains said:

I read the following statement by Joseph Smith in History of the Church, volume 6.

"God made Aaron to be the mouth piece for the children of Israel, and He will make 
me be god to you in His stead, and the Elders to be mouth for me; and if you don’t 
like it, you must lump it."

A previous version of Gospel Principles (1997) says, "All good things come from God. 
Everything that he does is to help his children become like him—a god."

Is the historical statement by Joseph Smith an early manifestation of the exaltation 
that is mentioned in Doctrine and Covenants 132:20?  Or does the 'god' there mean
something other than becoming a deity?

Was Brigham Young considered the next god for the children of Israel after Joseph 
Smith died?

In this instance, Joseph Smith’s application of the title ‘god’ to himself is to be understood in the same sense that Jehovah applied it to Moses in Exodus 7:1, and again when the Savior referenced it when speaking of ancient prophets upon who God bestowed the same title of divine authority.

1 And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land. (Exodus 7)

and…

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 

 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God?

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (John 10)

[mfbukowski]

On 7/11/2023 at 12:33 PM, Pyreaux said:

We say "godhood" is something obtained after your death, resurrection, and receiving glory like God the Father, because God the Father is a human with a glorified body, the state of true immortal godhood. Yet there are anomalies to this idea, such as premortal Jesus, the Holy Ghost, and mortal Moses, Samuel and Joseph Smith who are accurately called "gods" yet having not been resurrected at the time they are called, they were either born again members of the Godhead or priesthood. Different meaning, a "god" by deification, theosis or exaltation and a "god" by priestly sonship, mediatorship, investure of authority.

Not the way I see it; you are seeing things temporally and literally.  It takes probably eternitieS to become God, and I mean that literally.

How long is an eternity?

Perhaps one cycle of what we call perhaps one big bang of this material universe to another with the same material?

One ETERNAL ROUND?

In may religions like Buddhism and Hinduism, one walks in circles around a sacred symbol, praying, imo representing eternity as MANY eternal rounds. 

So one might achieve godhood, then continue perhaps to other eternal rounds, circles upon circles.   We see this in our "sacred dance" in the temple; we see it with Joshua and Jericho.

Jesus said he only does what he has seen his father do- how is that possible in temporal thinking?

It's not.

He may have been a son of God watching his Father as a savior, then took the role on for himself AS a savior for this world and so on for the other beings you mention.

All we have or know is what humans are capable of dreaming up as stories, and we try to squish prophecies into the tiny boxes of human reason.  This is one way we silly humans can squish God's wonders into our tiny boxes, and every one creates their own.

We just need to learn not to take them so seriously since we cannot possibly fit God's universe, the ocean of his knowledge, into our little mud puddle on the beach.

That may be the only thing Augustine wrote, which I still find useful. 

https://aleteia.org/2020/07/05/what-a-child-taught-st-augustine-at-the-seashore/

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by mfbukowski

[theplains]

On 7/10/2023 at 6:59 PM, CV75 said:

In this sense, all of Joseph Smith's successors are as gods to the children of Israel,

"As god" or "god"?   Or does the terminology mean the same thing?

[theplains]

On 7/11/2023 at 6:18 AM, mfbukowski said:

If this topic is important to you, please define what identifies a "deity" from a "god".

Without that, it is all just semantics.

They are the same to me.

Moses (god to Aaron) and Satan (god of this world) are not deities but a representation of
a powerful ruler or judge (as in Psalm 82).

[CV75]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

"As god" or "god"?   Or does the terminology mean the same thing?

For me, the use of "as," "a," and the lower case "g" together convey the sense of prophets acting as authorized  representatives of God within the comparatively very narrow scope defined by the very few and specific keys He delegated to them.

ETA: in line with your post above, rulers in the kingdom of God on earth / judges in Israel.

Edited July 18, 2023 by CV75

[Benjamin McGuire]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

For me, the use of "as," "a," and the lower case "g" together convey the sense of prophets acting as authorized  representatives of God within the comparatively very narrow scope defined by the very few and specific keys He delegated to them.

The challenge is that this isn't within an original text - this is all modern tradition (that is, modern interpretation). The idea of some sort of distinction between capital and lower case letters as distinguishing between a noun and a proper noun doesn't even exist in English before the printing press is invented - and even for some time afterwards. Before 1300, at least in English, there was no functional difference between lower case and upper case letters. After that point, we start to see them used to begin sentences - but not to distinguish nouns. Consider this early copy of the fist page of John's Gospel in Tyndale's bible (1526). You can see that the word used is 'god' - it isn't capitalized anywhere on the page. Ancient Hebrew and Greek didn't have capital letters (actually, technically, they only had capital letters). So when you discuss this idea of "as" or "a" or the lower case "g", with reference to biblical passages, you are just providing an interpretation of the text, not some feature of the text itself.

Now, superimposing an interpretation on to the text isn't itself a bad thing - we do it all the time (it is part of the process of translation after all). What is bad is pretending, somehow, that this meaning that we are interpreting from the text is what the text really meant all along - that is, that the Old Testament authors intended the text to be read in a way that conforms to our own modern day doctrinal views. Or, in other words, it is okay to recontextualize the text - to 'liken it unto ourselves.' It isn't okay to suggest that our new text and context, once we have likened it unto ourselves - is what that original author meant in the first place.

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The challenge is that this isn't within an original text - this is all modern tradition (that is, modern interpretation). The idea of some sort of distinction between capital and lower case letters as distinguishing between a noun and a proper noun doesn't even exist in English before the printing press is invented - and even for some time afterwards. Before 1300, at least in English, there was no functional difference between lower case and upper case letters. After that point, we start to see them used to begin sentences - but not to distinguish nouns. Consider this early copy of the fist page of John's Gospel in Tyndale's bible (1526). You can see that the word used is 'god' - it isn't capitalized anywhere on the page. Ancient Hebrew and Greek didn't have capital letters (actually, technically, they only had capital letters). So when you discuss this idea of "as" or "a" or the lower case "g", with reference to biblical passages, you are just providing an interpretation of the text, not some feature of the text itself.

Now, superimposing an interpretation on to the text isn't itself a bad thing - we do it all the time (it is part of the process of translation after all). What is bad is pretending, somehow, that this meaning that we are interpreting from the text is what the text really meant all along - that is, that the Old Testament authors intended the text to be read in a way that conforms to our own modern day doctrinal views. Or, in other words, it is okay to recontextualize the text - to 'liken it unto ourselves.' It isn't okay to suggest that our new text and context, once we have likened it unto ourselves - is what that original author meant in the first place.

We LDS of course have the term "Divine Investiture" which makes it clear when a being is acting AS God in a given situation, and also indicates he is authorized to do so.

It indicates a temporary delegation of authority.

The Father and the Son

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng

Edited July 18, 2023 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

20 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The challenge is that this isn't within an original text - this is all modern tradition (that is, modern interpretation). The idea of some sort of distinction between capital and lower case letters as distinguishing between a noun and a proper noun doesn't even exist in English before the printing press is invented - and even for some time afterwards. Before 1300, at least in English, there was no functional difference between lower case and upper case letters. After that point, we start to see them used to begin sentences - but not to distinguish nouns. Consider this early copy of the fist page of John's Gospel in Tyndale's bible (1526). You can see that the word used is 'god' - it isn't capitalized anywhere on the page. Ancient Hebrew and Greek didn't have capital letters (actually, technically, they only had capital letters). So when you discuss this idea of "as" or "a" or the lower case "g", with reference to biblical passages, you are just providing an interpretation of the text, not some feature of the text itself.

Now, superimposing an interpretation on to the text isn't itself a bad thing - we do it all the time (it is part of the process of translation after all). What is bad is pretending, somehow, that this meaning that we are interpreting from the text is what the text really meant all along - that is, that the Old Testament authors intended the text to be read in a way that conforms to our own modern day doctrinal views. Or, in other words, it is okay to recontextualize the text - to 'liken it unto ourselves.' It isn't okay to suggest that our new text and context, once we have likened it unto ourselves - is what that original author meant in the first place.

Yes, we obtain light to our understanding through the media we experience, in this case the JS quote in the OP, according to our language (which is in the quote and my personal case, fairly more standardized and modern English and grammar), unto our understanding (2 Nephi 31: 3). My understanding of Tyndale's language, which does not align with my own as much as Jospeh Smith's, requires some extra effort and/or grace.