Comments on: JEF Sunday School Lesson #1

By: Carol Walters

Carol Walters — Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:58:27 +0000

Jim’s comment on verse 23 assumes that Moses’ testimony of this event is not had in the Old Testament because it was withheld because of wickedness. I have always assumed it was not had because it was lost after Moses clearly testified of it, in the same way that other plain and precious things were removed from the scriptural record, either inadvertently, or deliberately by “the wicked” for their own purposes.

By: Jim F.

Jim F. — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:01:40 +0000

BrianJ: I take it that the question is one of certainty: we are certain that the Father appeared to Joseph in the Sacred Grove. We are not certain that he appeared to Moses.

By: BrianJ

BrianJ — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 03:52:09 +0000

I realize that I have come to this post late and so I risk not being answered, but I have a question. Elder Scott, in the Oct. 2005 General Conference (â€œTruth Restored,â€? Sunday AM session), makes a comment about God the Father appearing to Joseph Smith. He refers to this visit of the Father to a mortal as the “only one supernal, singular instance of which we have knowledge that God the Father Himself appeared in person”. Does that give importance to the discussion of who appeared to Moses? Do you draw a distinction between “appear in vision” and “appear in person”? Do you think this is merely Elder Scott’s interpretation?

By: Julie in Austin

Julie in Austin — Mon, 02 Jan 2006 22:17:16 +0000

Re #8–

Amen and amen.

By: DavidH

DavidH — Mon, 02 Jan 2006 20:17:49 +0000

David Paulsen seems to think, or at least implies, that it is the Father speaking, as he uses this chapter, and the later creation account, to disprove allegations that Joseph taught modalism in the early church, i.e., Paulsen uses it to prove that Joseph thought that God and Jesus were to separate beings.

“God then appears again to Moses and shows him many earths and their inhabitants. The narrative continues:

“‘And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. . . . And by the word of my power, haveI created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth. (Moses 1:31â€“32)’

“In this passage, God clearly confirms that his “Only Begotten Son” was an active agent in creation, and he reiterates this point in the creation narrative that follows:

“‘And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; . . . by mine Only Begotten I created these things; . . . And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so. . . . And, I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them.(Moses 2:1, 26â€“27)’

“As indicated by the plural pronouns, God is here obviously addressing a second person, his Only Begotten Son, or our Savior Jesus Christ, as the narrative has already made clear. He continues this address: “And I, the Lord God, said unto mine Only Begotten, that it was not good that the man should be alone; wherefore, I will make an help meet for him” (Moses 3:18).

By: Jim F.

Jim F. — Mon, 02 Jan 2006 18:52:25 +0000

I share the annoyance. However, for what is, I assume, a good discussion of some of this, see David Paulsen, “The Earliest Mormon Understanding of God: Modalism and other Myths,” Farms Review. I’ve not read it, but David is a careful thinker and clear writer, so I don’t hesitate to recommend it.

By: Russell Arben Fox

Russell Arben Fox — Mon, 02 Jan 2006 17:34:06 +0000

“I find this kind of question an annoyance, one of a number of doctrinal and pseudo-doctrinal hangups that donâ€™t seem to justify the intensity with which some people espouse them.”

That’s a good way to put it, Jonathan; I couldn’t agree more. It seems to me almost more paranoid than anything else that various church curricula and members and leaders become fixated on certain points of quasi-doctrine as crucial to understanding our own faith’s contribution to Christianity.

By: Jonathan Green

Jonathan Green — Mon, 02 Jan 2006 16:57:15 +0000

When I taught this lesson a couple Olympiads ago, I suggested to the class that the confusion resulted from our having only the text of the conversation, and not the sound, or the images, or all the rest of what was a multisensory experience that apparently didn’t leave Moses confused as to who was speaking to him.

Mostly, though, I find this kind of question an annoyance, one of a number of doctrinal and pseudo-doctrinal hangups that don’t seem to justify the intensity with which some people espouse them: that the dove that descended on Christ was not a dove, that Gethsemane was more important than Golgotha, that the rock upon which Christ would build his church was not repeat not Peter, and pretty much anything having to do with blood in the afterlife.

By: Jim F.

Jim F. — Mon, 02 Jan 2006 06:34:30 +0000

RobertC: Thanks for the reference to your notes. They are helpful (as is the whole Feast Upon the Word site). I share your peeve and I’m equally mystified by the insistence of the manual. As David H pointed out and as you know well, verse 6 says “thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten.” I don’t understand how to make sense of that if Christ is speaking. Of course, not a lot about the Gospel follows from “I don’t know how to make sense of that.” It is a comment about me rather than about doctrine.

I should probably edit the questions so that they refer simply to “God” rather than to “the Father.” That would take care of the possible conflict with the manual without trying to resolve the question one way or the other.

By: Robert C.

Robert C. — Mon, 02 Jan 2006 05:41:17 +0000

Thanks for the thoughts. Interesting that the manual makes this claim so unequivocally without really supporting the claim:

“Class members should understand that Jehovah, not Heavenly Father, appeared to Moses in this vision.”

The manual then cites Talmage discussing Jesus as our spiritual father and divine investiture of authority, but that’s it.

Although I agree that the distinction isn’t that important, I think it’s a good example of how there are mysteries about the Godhead that we don’t understand. It’s a pet peeve of mine when members talk condescendingly about other faith’s conception of the trinity, as though the LDS conception is cut and dry without any mystery to it….

If anyone’s interested, I wrote up some notes of what I read and found on LDS teachings of Jehovah as Christ at: http://feastupontheword.org/User:RobertC/Jehovah_and_Father .