Some truth to a non-traditional Christ

[jonah747]

I had a question on what I read in the "We Look to Christ" sermon in a General
Conference.

Former LDS President Hinckley said, "As a Church we have critics, many of them. 
They say we do not believe in the traditional Christ of Christianity. There is 
some substance to what they say. Our faith, our knowledge is not based on ancient 
tradition, the creeds which came of a finite understanding and out of the almost 
infinite discussions of men trying to arrive at a definition of the risen Christ.  
Our faith, our knowledge comes of the witness of a prophet in this dispensation 
who saw before him the great God of the universe and His Beloved Son, the 
resurrected Lord Jesus Christ".

Who was the first LDS prophet to give a witness of Jesus being born to heavenly 
parents?

[webbles]

Just now, jonah747 said:

Who was the first LDS prophet to give a witness of Jesus being born to heavenly 
parents?

Are you talking about his pre-existence birth or his mortal birth?  Because I'm not sure how President Hinckley's quote has anything to do with this question.

[ksfisher]

21 minutes ago, jonah747 said:

I had a question on what I read in the "We Look to Christ" sermon in a General
Conference.

Former LDS President Hinckley said, "As a Church we have critics, many of them. 
They say we do not believe in the traditional Christ of Christianity. There is 
some substance to what they say. Our faith, our knowledge is not based on ancient 
tradition, the creeds which came of a finite understanding and out of the almost 
infinite discussions of men trying to arrive at a definition of the risen Christ.  
Our faith, our knowledge comes of the witness of a prophet in this dispensation 
who saw before him the great God of the universe and His Beloved Son, the 
resurrected Lord Jesus Christ".

Who was the first LDS prophet to give a witness of Jesus being born to heavenly 
parents?

 

The quote you’ve cited from President Hinckley refers to Joseph Smith.

When the light rested upon me I ^bsaw two ^cPersonages, whose brightness and ^dglory defy all description, ^estanding above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My ^fBeloved ^gSon. Hear Him!

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng

 

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by ksfisher

[Pyreaux]

There is no known primary record of Smith explicitly teaching about a Heavenly Mother, though several of Smith's contemporaries attributed it to him or as the natural conclusion of his theology (if exaltation/godhood is connected to marriage, if that is universal, then there should be a Heavenly Mother). An editorial footnote of History of the Church 5:254, quotes Smith; "Come to me; here's the mysteries man hath not seen, Here's our Father in heaven, and Mother, the Queen."

Though many of the prophets speak of a divine feminine but are ignored by tradition.

"Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?... The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was... When he prepared the heavens, I was there... Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men." (Proverb 8:22-31)

Edited December 16, 2023 by Pyreaux

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

There is no known primary record of Smith explicitly teaching about a Heavenly Mother, though several of Smith's contemporaries attributed it to him or as the natural conclusion of his theology (if exaltation/godhood is connected to marriage, if that is universal, then there should be a Heavenly Mother). An editorial footnote of History of the Church 5:254, quotes Smith; "Come to me; here's the mysteries man hath not seen, Here's our Father in heaven, and Mother, the Queen."

Though many of the prophets speak of a divine feminine but are ignored by tradition.

"Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?... The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was... When he prepared the heavens, I was there... Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men." (Proverb 8:22-31)

If Jesus is Jehovah and Jehovah is Heavenly father, who according to brother B. Young is the literal physical FATHER of Jesus, we have a problem.

Jesus is then his own father.

What am I missing?  

- Just another Godhead/Trinity problem? 😏

That's one reason I tend toward monotheism.  The rest might be the philosophies of men mangled by scripture. 

No wonder Catholics see the Incarnation as a mystery.

Maybe @MiserereNobis can give us a hand.

"And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" is a sacred phrase for them and perhaps should be for us as well.

I think there might be some logic problems in this all?

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

54 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If Jesus is Jehovah and Jehovah is Heavenly father, who according to brother B. Young is the literal physical FATHER of Jesus, we have a problem.

Jesus is then his own father.

What am I missing?  

- Just another Godhead/Trinity problem? 😏

That's one reason I tend toward monotheism.  The rest might be the philosophies of men mangled by scripture. 

No wonder Catholics see the Incarnation as a mystery.

Maybe @MiserereNobis can give us a hand.

"And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" is a sacred phrase for them and perhaps should be for us as well.

I think there might be some logic problems in this all?

 

 

 

It's easy once you realize some of these are offices, not individuals.

There are multiple individuals with the office of Jehovah.  Multiple Adams.  Multiple Christs (although only one for our world).  Eloheim is plural.  Scripture refers to the Gods.

Trying to reduce to three individuals causes confusion.  Trying to reduce further to a single individual causes traditional trinitarian beliefs.  Once you realize polytheism is the truth it's so much simpler because it eliminates most contradictions.

[InCognitus]

53 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" is a sacred phrase for them and perhaps should be for us as well.

How the Word was made flesh has more to do with Jesus being born in the flesh on earth.  But I think the opening post is more concerned with the other sense that Jesus was 'begotten" of the Father, as it says in Hebrews, "when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him" (Heb 1:6).  How is it that Jesus is the "firstbegotten" (prōtótokon)?

The early Christians had some interesting things to say on this topic.  Ignatius even goes so far as to classify those who "introduce God as a Being unknown" and "suppose Christ to be unbegotten" in the category of "not Christians, but Christ-betrayers".  (Fun times )

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

If Jesus is Jehovah and Jehovah is Heavenly father, who according to brother B. Young is the literal physical FATHER of Jesus, we have a problem.

Jesus is then his own father.

What am I missing?  

- Just another Godhead/Trinity problem? 😏

That's one reason I tend toward monotheism.  The rest might be the philosophies of men mangled by scripture. 

No wonder Catholics see the Incarnation as a mystery.

Maybe @MiserereNobis can give us a hand.

"And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" is a sacred phrase for them and perhaps should be for us as well.

I think there might be some logic problems in this all?

According to Hebrews 1, the pre-incarnated Jesus was born in heaven the day He inherited the great name of Jehovah His Father, therefore, they are both Jehovah.

"[Jesus] being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they [Jehovah]... said he... Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee... he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, and let all the angels of God worship him..."

"I am come in my Father's name" (John 5:43) but the name of JeHoVaH/YAHoWaH is an ineffable and secret name, "...he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself." (Revelation 19:12). "the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?" (Judge 13:18)

Edited December 16, 2023 by Pyreaux

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's easy once you realize some of these are offices, not individuals.

There are multiple individuals with the office of Jehovah.  Multiple Adams.  Multiple Christs (although only one for our world).  Eloheim is plural.  Scripture refers to the Gods.

Trying to reduce to three individuals causes confusion.  Trying to reduce further to a single individual causes traditional trinitarian beliefs.  Once you realize polytheism is the truth it's so much simpler because it eliminates most contradictions.

Yes, I am very aware of Divine Investiture and its approved ambiguity in creating loopholes in Doctrine. By saying that, I don't mean that it implies one paradigm is true, and another false. From different perspectives a pyramid can appear to be in the shape of a triangle, from directly above, it could be a square.

But in this case, it creates a LOGICAL contradiction in the two allegedly compatible and important doctrines - is Jehovah the spiritual Being incarnated as Jesus or not?

Or was Brigham wrong in making Jehovah the biological father of Jesus?

Who was the "stand in" for Jehovah then in your paradigm?

An Unknown male God?

Again, for me this is an error resulting in mixing science with religion.

But it might all be a story.

Fine with me!

But at least the paradigm/ story should be logically consistent. 

Think of a movie using the same actor as both Jehovah and Jesus as this is portrayed.

It wouldn't work without an explanatation of who the "real" father is.

Brigham's script doesn't work.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

How the Word was made flesh has more to do with Jesus being born in the flesh on earth.  But I think the opening post is more concerned with the other sense that Jesus was 'begotten" of the Father, as it says in Hebrews, "when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him" (Heb 1:6).  How is it that Jesus is the "firstbegotten" (prōtótokon)?

The early Christians had some interesting things to say on this topic.  Ignatius even goes so far as to classify those who "introduce God as a Being unknown" and "suppose Christ to be unbegotten" in the category of "not Christians, but Christ-betrayers".  (Fun times )

Yes!  Dang it, I need more scripture study to balance the philosophy stuff. 👍

Or better yet, stay true to Wittgenstein and stop even pretending that two different language games can be logically resolved.

I've got it, but I know it ain't in my pocket

 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That's one reason I tend toward monotheism.

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, I am very aware of Divine Investiture and its approved ambiguity in creating loopholes in Doctrine. By saying that, I don't mean that it implies one paradigm is true, and another false. From different perspectives a pyramid can appear to be in the shape of a triangle, from directly above, it could be a square.

You sound like a Bahai who is practicing as a Mormon.  That's not a bad thing. 

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You sound like a Bahai who is practicing as a Mormon.  That's not a bad thing. 

Or like the monotheism of Kabalistic Judaism, the ten Sephiroth, attributes of God's personality that are highly interdependent. Each are just different "Aspects" of God. It's a very interesting idea, a little better explanation of the sort "tether" that binds the triunion of the Trinity when they each have independent wills. Not my favorite concept, but one possible interpretation of reality I can't disprove. What if all of us, as originally uncreated "Intelligences", are just aspects of God's own mind? Thus, can't put down monotheism absolutely, in that case.

"There was Eru, the One... the Ainur, the Holy Ones, were the offspring of his thought" (J. R. R. Tolkien – The Silmarillion)

Edited December 16, 2023 by Pyreaux

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No wonder Catholics see the Incarnation as a mystery.

Maybe @MiserereNobis can give us a hand.

It's a mystery...

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You sound like a Bahai who is practicing as a Mormon.  That's not a bad thing. 

Shhhh! 🤨

Nah, actually I strongly am Christian and see Christ as THE paradigm for human perfection by overcoming this world. 

It's an experiential thing for me. 

When I speak to God and he with me, I experience ONE person. I just don't get why such a Being would need the help of two more "assistants"

Bahai wants us to have LOTS of "Christs",-  for me the whole idea is to find the ONE who actually can handle the job!

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

What if all of us, as originally uncreated "Intelligences", are just aspects of God's own mind?

AND we see "HIM" as a Father figure, because we only see ourselves in a dark mirror for now?

We look out at the world but only see our own perceptions/experience in that mirror?

Works for me!

[Calm]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's a mystery...

Well said.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Well said.  

I think it is SO beyond us, and it can only be verified anyway, why bother?

All I I know I the tremendous effect as a belief that it brings.

Life changing 

[JLHPROF]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

When I speak to God and he with me, I experience ONE person. I just don't get why such a Being would need the help of two more "assistants"

Because it's an eternal principle that all truth be established by two or more witnesses.  God is truth (among many other things).

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think it is SO beyond us, and it can only be verified anyway, why bother?

'The Scriptures inform us that “This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."  If any man does not know God, and inquires what kind of a being he is,–if he will search diligently his own heart–if the declarations of Jesus and the Apostles be true–he will realize that he has not eternal life; for there can be eternal life on no other principle.' -Joseph Smith

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Because it's an eternal principle that all truth be established by two or more witnesses.  God is truth (among many other things).

'The Scriptures inform us that “This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."  If any man does not know God, and inquires what kind of a being he is,–if he will search diligently his own heart–if the declarations of Jesus and the Apostles be true–he will realize that he has not eternal life; for there can be eternal life on no other principle.' -Joseph Smith

I do not disagree with that way of seeing it.

I live a different paradigm; the words "God is truth" make no sense to me. If they work for you, that's wonderful and God bless you!

Edited December 17, 2023 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Shhhh! 🤨

Nah, actually I strongly am Christian and see Christ as THE paradigm for human perfection by overcoming this world. 

It's an experiential thing for me. 

When I speak to God and he with me, I experience ONE person. I just don't get why such a Being would need the help of two more "assistants"

Bahai wants us to have LOTS of "Christs",-  for me the whole idea is to find the ONE who actually can handle the job!

I think we all are, once sufficiently one (or reconciled) with Him by grace, God's "assistants." Some assistants, such as Christ and the Holy Ghost, are further along in that "oneness" (John 17) than I am. Did I just say, "I am?" I am assisted, all assistants have assistants, and all have assistance, even the Most High.

I think there are different kinds of religious/spiritual experience that can be construed as ONE person, depending on the arrangement of particular participants (and unfortunately, sometimes things) comprising the oneness. The one is the one to which we belong, rather, the one that we are, and evolves for better or worse. The light of Christ, for example, is in a plant whose use can bring us together or apart, depending on how we use and become one with it, and by extension, the light of Christ.

[teddyaware]

On 12/16/2023 at 6:41 PM, mfbukowski said:

Shhhh! 🤨

Nah, actually I strongly am Christian and see Christ as THE paradigm for human perfection by overcoming this world. 

It's an experiential thing for me. 

When I speak to God and he with me, I experience ONE person. I just don't get why such a Being would need the help of two more "assistants"

Bahai wants us to have LOTS of "Christs",-  for me the whole idea is to find the ONE who actually can handle the job!

In actuality, God the Father cannot exist and function as God the Father unless he exists and functions within an interdependent Godhead consisting of three separate and distinct personages known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Remove Christ from the Godhead and all that’s left is an impotent lone personage who’s unable to save his own creation, totally powerless to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Unless the resurrected Father carries out his plan of salvation through his firstborn spirit son, who’s divine spirit must needs be clothed with an unglorified body of of flesh, bone and blood, and through means of this incarnation on this fallen planet atone and die for the sins of the world while residing within that unglorified body until giving up the ghost, the Father would be as powerless as a pile of rocks to save and exalt anyone. Unless there is a presiding Godhead consisting of three interdependent and distinct personages, each fully functioning within his own distinct role — the Father serving in his essential and indispensable role as God the Creator, the Son in serving his essential and indispensable role as God the Redeemer, and the Holy Ghost serving in his essential and indispensable role as God the Testator — there would be no God and all things would vanish into nonexistence.

The Christ is the “Word of God’s Power,” meaning that without the personage of God the Redeemer serving at his side of the Father, doing what the Father is unable to do because his resurrected body is immortal and glorified, he would be as powerless as a pile of rocks to save anything or anybody. The Book of Mormon is in dead earnest when it most solemnly testifies that “if there be no Christ there be no God.” The Godhead is a divine Presidency, and the notion that a one personage Godhead is all that’s needed to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man is repeatedly contradicted in the scriptures and by the words of the prophets.

Edited December 18, 2023 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think we all are, once sufficiently one (or reconciled) with Him by grace, God's "assistants." Some assistants, such as Christ and the Holy Ghost, are further along in that "oneness" (John 17) than I am. Did I just say, "I am?" I am assisted, all assistants have assistants, and all have assistance, even the Most High.

I think there are different kinds of religious/spiritual experience that can be construed as ONE person, depending on the arrangement of particular participants (and unfortunately, sometimes things) comprising the oneness. The one is the one to which we belong, rather, the one that we are, and evolves for better or worse. The light of Christ, for example, is in a plant whose use can bring us together or apart, depending on how we use and become one with it, and by extension, the light of Christ.

AND of course we are all one in purpose as is the Godhead. That is a great advance over the idea of "one substance".

I agree with you!

But HOW we are one with God doesn't explain WHY One God needs to include 3 persons.  THAT is my question.

Yes I would hope and pray we would ALL be one with God in bringing to pass the immortal and eternal lives of ALL OF US!

But WHY do we postulate three persons in one God to start with?

Because the phenomena at Jesus' baptism?

That there were apparently 2 Beings "there" somehow at the same "time" and one present by his "sign" still doesn't answer the question imo.

Maybe we should just let it go as a mystery.

We don't have to know everything now, anyway    🙂

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

The Christ is the “Word of God’s Power,” meaning that without the personage of God the Redeemer serving at his side of the Father, doing what the Father is unable to do because his resurrected body is immortal and glorified, he would be as powerless as a pile of rocks to save anything or anybody. The Book of Mormon is in dead earnest when it most solemnly testifies that “if there be no Christ there be no God.” 

OK! Now we're getting somewhere!

That makes sense to me, but taking that into consideration, how is "Jesus" supposedly also "Jehovah" ?

All was allegedly created by the Word, and the power, the action, the hands, of Jehovah, yes?

So Jehovah produces the blueprints and Christ is the contractor?

And what is the reference for that scripture please?

I see  glow on the horizon... 

Concepts vs. worded directions?  

There COULD be something workable there, just as I am searching for words right now.

There is a world out there, but describing it is another matter.

Words make things practical...

Edited December 18, 2023 by mfbukowski

[jonah747]

On 12/16/2023 at 10:39 AM, webbles said:

Are you talking about his pre-existence birth or his mortal birth?  Because I'm not sure how President Hinckley's quote has anything to do with this question.

Before his coming to earth.

[jonah747]

On 12/16/2023 at 10:57 AM, ksfisher said:

The quote you’ve cited from President Hinckley refers to Joseph Smith.

I was asking more specifically about the first LDS prophet who taught Jesus was the
first spirit child born to heavenly parents.