224 Comments »

1. Since the Prophet Joseph Smith broached this subject, I respect it. For myself, this is territory I’m not eager to explore yet. I’m comfortable with the idea/possibility that God the Father had a Father but in my opinion I don’t need to know much more about it. Frankly, that is a point where I feel we are beginning to look in mirror full of neverending and more distance images and semblances. I’m not very concerned about seeing the fine details of their appearances as I’m not even sure I’ve seen myself in the mirror all that clearly.

   Comment by danithew — May 25, 2006 @ 7:12 pm

2. Geoff: I won’t engage this discussion until you cite the actual source that is available for this sermon rather than the TPJS. You know better.

   Comment by Blake — May 25, 2006 @ 7:34 pm

3. Geoff, Blake is right. Why the heck are you using the TPJS? As far as your use of it to defend the belief that we can all become Gods qua Father, you are simply abusing the text. From the bullock account we have the discription of Christ’s relationship to the Father, then Joseph shifts gears:

   there is glory & glory-Sun, moon & Stars - & so do they differ in glory & every man who reigns is a God…Paul-says there is one Glory of the Sun the moon & the Stars-& as the Star differs &c - They are exalted far above princ. thrones dom. & angels - & are expressly decld. to be heirs of God & jt. heirs with J.C. all havg. et[erna]l. power-the Scrip are a very strange doct.-I have an[othe]r. Scrip-now says God when visited Moses in the Bush-moses was a stutt[er]ing sort of a boy like me-God said thou shalt be a God unto the children of Israel-God said thou shalt be a God unto Aaron & he shall be thy spokes. I bel. in these Gods that God reveals as Gods-to be Sons of God & all can cry Abba Father -Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods even from bef. the foundatn. of the world & are all the only Gods I have a reverence for- John sd. he was a K[ing]. J.C. who hath by his own blood made us K & P to God. Oh thou God who are K. of K’s & Ld. of Lds.

   Here, Joseph states in sequence:

   - There are many glories (sun, moon, stars, etc.)
   - Every man who reigns is a god.
   - God reveals folks like Moses to be Gods to their people and Sons of God. As sons, they can cry Abba.
   - These rulers are those who he has reverence for.
   - John (one of these) was a King (or one who can reign)
   - Jesus enables us to be Kings and Priests to God
   - God the Father is King of Kings

   This sequence does not support what you say it does.

   Comment by J. Stapley — May 25, 2006 @ 8:47 pm

4. Oh, good grief. :-) Fine, I’ll go back and use some original sources.

   Comment by Geoff J — May 25, 2006 @ 9:31 pm

5. I agree, that yes, Joseph Smith did teach that our Heavenly Father probably had a father as well. However that seems to be a new position, because in previous contexts he generally identifies our Heavenly Father as the Head, or Most High God.

   I do not think that Joseph Smith clearly taught that Heavenly Father clearly performed the same mission as Jesus Christ - in fact I find both discourses rather notable for the absence of doctrine about the Atonement. Joseph either hadn’t made his mind up or didn’t want to say.

   I do not think the question of whether Jesus Christ had a Heavenly GrandFather is all that significant. What is very significant is whether there is a Most High God or not. Brigham Young and his successors mostly say no. It is hard to tell what Joseph Smith beleived, because his opinion on that point appears to be a work in progress.

   I say yes, there definitely is a Most High God, because not only is the scriptural evidence explicitly in favor of the concept, the topology and metaphysics of an infinite backward recursion who are all alive of course makes heaven have the topology of a black hole, with no material discretion or creativity for any of them, just manifest Platonism to the nth degree - no one in charge and everyone in charge simultaneously.

   The scriptural model of the center place is a city, with a temple, with a throne and a council. With IBR there is no center, no presiding officer, just an endless series of altars to we know not what.

   Comment by Mark Butler — May 25, 2006 @ 10:02 pm

6. It is worth noting that Orson Pratt ended up concluding that we worship the divine attributes based on considerations like this. Unable to locate a divine center, or a being worthy of independent loyalty, Pratt suggested that we worship divinity itself. That was declared a heresy rather quickly of course, Brigham Young stating that he wouldn’t worship such a God.

   My opinion is that we worship God not so much for his character, as for the *expression* thereof - we worship God because he saves us. If he didn’t save, we no doubt would still *love* him, but we would have no obligation to *worship* him.

   Comment by Mark Butler — May 25, 2006 @ 10:11 pm

7. One more idea - remember when Jesus Christ blessed the Nephites and they started to worship him, and pray to him, and how Jesus Christ apologized in prayer for that?

   One of the most critical questions of Christian theology is why Jesus Christ is not worthy of such worship, whether with the Nephites or by his own account in the New Testament. He always refers people upward and claims he is of no account except as a messenger. Now is Jesus of Nazereth personally suffered for the sins of worlds without number, wouldn’t he very well deserve to be worshipped in the same way as the Father? Why the run-around - isn’t that backwards? It is almost like Jesus is delegating work to his Father instead of the other way around.

   Now of course my unorthodox answer is the reason is that the Atonement is distributed across a large number of heavenly fathers, and that when people worship and pray to Jesus they are giving the wrong person all the credit. It is our particular Heavenly Father who is the father of our salvation, Jesus Christ is just modeling the path and the pattern, first as a perfect Son, and then as a perfect Father.

   Comment by Mark Butler — May 25, 2006 @ 10:25 pm

8. Alright — original sources quotes have been added. If anything I’d say they strengthen my case.

   (I honestly think the TPJS amalgamation version captures the key points quite accurately.)

   Comment by Geoff J — May 25, 2006 @ 10:45 pm

9. Stapley (#3),

   If you are looking for evidence that Joseph taught we can become Gods qua Father (or Son for that matter) (and I know you are actually hoping there is none) you should look in the KFD not in that passage from the SitG you quoted. The evidence for that position is very strong in the KFD. That passage you quoted seems to me to be Joseph explaining that all of us (humankind) are among the those the scriptures occasionally refer to as “gods” simply because of our position in the Universe in realtionship to God. As I said in the post: “It just shows that the chain of “gods” extends below the Father of Jesus as well as above him.”

   Comment by Geoff J — May 25, 2006 @ 10:51 pm

10. Geoff: OK, good enough — and thanks for indulging my tantrum LOL.

    First, let’s focus on 3 major agreements we seem to all have: (1) There is a Most High or Head God who is the God of all other gods. That is significant because it contradicts BY’s view that there is an eternal regression of gods. (2) The Father did what the Son did and what the Holy Ghost will do — a divine being becomes mortral by taking upon himself a mortal body. Both the Father and the Son came into mortality already having the divine power to take their lives up again after they die as mortals. That too is very important because it shows that the Father was divine already at the time he was a mortal.

    With this we are almost there. The Father was divine before becoming mortal and there is a Head God of all other gods. (I also believe that the gods spoken of are all sons of God and we are among the sons of God as well).

    So the question remains, is the Father this Head God? Look at the context of both sermons. In the KFD the purpose is to show that we can know God the Father and thereby have eternal life because he has a body just like ours. How do we know he has a body like ours? Because he was once mortal in the same way Christ became mortal. So the subject of the discourse is eternal life by knowing the only true God — the Father. I submit that JS clearly begins to use “God” at the beginning of the KFD to refer to the Father (as in John 17:3 which he quotes) and whenever he refers to “God” thereafter he means the Father. Once that critical point is seen, my interpretation of the KFD follows.

    It is critical to note that Geoff’s reading of the SitG ignores the context and purpose. Note that JS is explaining how God is “one” while being very explicit that God is yet three distinct gods. So JS say:

    The Prophet read the 3rd chapter Revelation text 6th verse & made us Kings & Priests unto God & his Father to him be glory & dominion for evermore–. It is altogether correct in the translation –now you know that of late some have sprung up & apostatized & they declare that Prophet believes in a plurality of Gods–&c. & behold a very great secret they cry it has been my intention to take up this subject & show what my Faith is in the matter—I have contemplated the saying of Jesus as it was in the days of Noah so shall it be at his 2nd coming & if it rains I’ll preach—the plurality of Gods–I have selected this text I wish to declare I have always–& in all congregations when I have preached it has been the plurality of Gods it has been preached 15 years–I have always declared God to be a distinct personage—Jesus Christ a separate & distinct person from God the Father. the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage & or Spirit & these 3 constitute 3 distinct personages & 3 Gods—if this is in accordance with the New Testament–lo & behold we have 3 Gods anyhow & they are plural anyhow (Bullock Report)

    Once again “God” means “Father” as a distinct divine personage from the Son and HG. There are 3. the key passage is one found in the Bullock report that has several possible readings — and that differs from both the Laub and McIntire sources. It reads:

    if Jesus Christ was the Son of God & John discussed that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a father you may suppose that he had a Father also—where was there ever a Son without a Father—where ever did tree or any thing spring into existence without a progenitor–& every thing comes in this way–Paul says that which is Earthly is in likeness of that which is Heavenly– hence if Jesus had a Father can we not believe that he had a Father also–I despise the idea of being scared to death–I want you all to pay particular attention. Jesus said as the Father wrought precisely in the same way as his Father had done before–as the Father had done before–he laid down his life & took it up same as his Father had done before–he did as he was sent to lay down his life & take it up again & was then committed unto him the keys &c I know it is good reasoning (Bullock Report)

    The Laub Jornal indicates that JS quoted Rev. 1:3 [as he did to begin the sermon] and Psalms 82, which refers to God standing in the council of gods. However, the assertions can be read many ways. Given that it is an interpretation of Rev. 1:6, which states: “And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father, to him be glory and dominion forever.” JS consistently reads “God” to be the Father, but this throws a wrench because it says that God has a Father. Who is this Father? Well, note what JS immediately follows the above quoted words with as text:

    I want you all to pay particular attention. Jesus said as the Father wrought precisely in the same way as his Father had done before–as the Father had done before–he laid down his life & took it up same as his Father had done before–he did as he was sent to lay down his life & take it up again & was then committed unto him the keys &c I know it is good reasoning (Bullock Report)

    Joseph is referring to the birth of the Father as a mortal when he speaks of the Father’s having a father. Geoff believes that I have a contradiction here. He thinks I am saying that the Father had an early genetic Father and also a heavenly genetic Father. I am not. I am saying [and I should have been clearer in my book] that the Father had a Father just as Jesus did — in the precise same way. He had an earthly father just as Joseph was Jesus’s earthly father. However, his birth was also of divine parentage even as a mortal. Thus, the Father’s earthly mother was overshadowed and conceived in the same way. In context, that is what Joseph is saying in context.

    Look also at this passage:

    I want to read the text to you myself–I am agreed with the Father & the Father is a greed with me & we are agreed as one–the Greek shows that is should be agreed–Father I pray for them that thou hast given me out of the world &c &c that they may be agreed & all come to dwell in unity & in all the Glory & Everlasting burnings of God & then we shall see as we are seen & be as God–& he as the God of his Father- (Bullock Report)

    Here JS discusses how the Father and Son are one — they agree in one. However, we shall be like them and be one. The key here is “as the God of his Father.” Who is this God of his Father? Just as Jesus had a God and Father while he was mortal so did the Father. Who was the Father’s God? It was the other two remaining divine in the Godhead. Remember, in this text and before JS is explaining the three Gods who are one God.

    How do we know that JS is talking about the Father’s earthly sojourn? Well notice again what JS says:

    where was there ever a Son without a Father—where ever did tree or any thing spring into existence without a progenitor–& every thing comes in this way–Paul says that which is Earthly is in likeness of that which is Heavenly– hence if Jesus had a Father can we not believe that he had a Father also–I despise the idea of being scared to death–I want you all to pay particular attention. Jesus said as the Father wrought precisely in the same way as his Father had done before–as the Father had done before–he laid down his life & took it up same as his Father had done before–he did as he was sent to lay down his life & take it up again & was then committed unto him the keys &c I know it is good reasoning (Bullock Report)

    JS expressly states that he is speaking of an earthly pattern and that the Father had a Father just as Jesus had a Father. Now it is crucial to note that JS is not speaking of heavenly birth — he didn’t have any such ideas. He never refers to a heavenly mother nor of some heavenly birth. Rather, he is speaking of the Son having a father as a mortal — and also of the Father having a father as a mortal.

    Now look again at the text Geoff so badly miscalculated:

    I believe in these Gods that God reveals as Gods—to be Sons of God & all can cry Abba Father–Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods even from before the foundation of the world & are all the only Gods I have a reverence for– John said he was a King. Jesus Christ who hath by his own blood made us Kings & Priest to God. Oh thou God who are Kings of Kings & Lord of Lords (Bullock Report)

    All of the other gods of which JS is speaking beside God [the Father] are sons of God. God is the Father. He is the King of kings and Lord of lords.

    Comment by Blake — May 26, 2006 @ 7:24 am

11. Help me out on something related I’ve been wondering. Where do souls come from? Does God create our souls? Are souls continually being created, or is there a finite pool of potentiality? Do our eternal families breed in the afterlife (a rather icky thought to a confirmed bachelor like myself)?

    Comment by V the K — May 26, 2006 @ 8:26 am

12. This is all to verbose for me.

    I believe that God could have had a father, or perhaps he was the first. I believe that the pattern is what is important, where it started is perhaps not as important.

    Comment by Eric — May 26, 2006 @ 8:41 am

13. V the K - That is a good question. There are a few theories the origins of souls/spirits/intelligences. I posted on them here and then wrote a follow up post here.

    Eric - Yeah, I realize this last set of posts has gotten quite technical and too long for many readers. But I think it is important to get below the surface on these things (and Joseph thought that as well) and Blake’s book deserves serious and deep analysis and responses in my opinion.

    Comment by Geoff J — May 26, 2006 @ 8:50 am

14. Blake:
    Once again, I find your exegesis strained. Textual interpretation should include some sense of the possible intention of the speaker/writer, and it seems that unless we assume that Joseph is simply trying to fool us all, the sermon seems to teach that God had a father in more than a condescended earthly way. Otherwise, what doctrine is it that he is saying not to be afraid of? It is certainly the idea that God had a father–a doctrine that would have been quite frightening to people raised to see such a doctrine as the ultimate heresy. What would be so firgtening about teaching that God the father was absolute and did not have a father? The sense is that he is teaching the most shocking thing he could teach, and I don’t see that in your reading.
    Beyond this, I don’t see hoe God the father, having a body of flesh and spirit inseparably connected (had he not a fullness of joy?) could somehow separate the inseprable (sounds like a medieval theological conundrum, I know–can God’s body and spirit be so inseprable that even he cannot separate them?)so that he could become a mortal and be re-insprable-ized.

    Comment by Steve H — May 26, 2006 @ 9:08 am

15. I believe I’m not going to understand for a long time AFTER I’m dead. I think what we can comprehend is a minute portion of reality.

    Comment by annegb — May 26, 2006 @ 10:01 am

16. Blake: I submit that JS clearly begins to use “God” at the beginning of the KFD to refer to the Father (as in John 17:3 which he quotes) and whenever he refers to “God” thereafter he means the Father.

    This is the fatal flaw of your position. It might have worked to show that the Father of Jesus is the Head God of all other Gods and thus has no Heavenly Father of his own if Joseph had not explicitly stated otherwise. Again, Joseph said:

    “My object was to preach the Scriptures & preach the doctrine of there being a God above the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ … if Abraham reasoned thus-if Jesus Christ was the Son of God & John discussed that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father you may suppose that he had a Father also-where was there ever a Son without a Father? … Hence if Jesus had a Father can we not believe that he had a Father also?”

    -my object was to preach the Scrip-& preach the doctrine there being a God above the Far. of our Ld. J.C.- … if Abra. reasoned thus-if J.C was the Son of God & John discd. that god the Far. of J.C had a far. you may suppose that he had a Far. also-where was ther ever a Son witht. a Far. … hence if J. had a Far. can we not believe that he had a Far. also (Bullock Report)

    You ask: Who was the Father’s God?

    Joseph says it is his Heavenly Father — precisely in the same pattern that Jesus has a Heavenly Father.

    but this throws a wrench because it says that God has a Father.

    This gets at the heart of the issue here: It only throws a wrench into your desired (but untenable) model — it worked just fine for Joseph.

    Look, I want to be gentle, but someone occasionally needs to mention that the Emperor has no clothes. This whole assertion you are making that when Joseph revealed that God the Father also had a Father he really meant “the birth of the Father as a mortal when he speaks of the Father’s having a father” is utterly preposterous. Joseph is not talking about some mortal stepfather here (why would he even waste his time on such pointless nonsense if that is all he meant?). This tactic of yours frankly reeks of desperation in an attempt to defend an indefensible theological position. I know you are used to being right and I believe that you are right the vast majority of the time, but this one is looking to me like an example of the “self-deception” you wrote about earlier in this excellent book. We need to just take Joseph’s word on this one rather than try to wish his teachings away to fit a preconceived theology. (Sorry if this is too direct — I really mean it when I say you I think you are correct almost all of the time… Plus I really respect and like you.)

    Comment by Geoff J — May 26, 2006 @ 10:04 am

17. This is an excellent discussion! I have always been torn on this issue. First, it seems that the God who found Himself in the midst of spirits and instituted laws by which they could grow and progress would be the “first” God. But, I also read the texts as stating that the Father of Jesus had a father, who had a father, and on. The comment (6) that Orson Pratt finally focused on the attributes of God is correct, but Brigham went absolutely berserk about this and called him on it at least twice in General Conferences (JD). Of course, Brigham placed Joseph as the god of this dispensation immediately upon his death (and then there’s the whole Adam thing), so it all gets a bit muddled for my finite brain. I can see why current brethren stay away from the topic.

    Comment by larryco_ — May 26, 2006 @ 10:10 am

18. I want to go with Blake’s position, but it looks like I will continue to downgrade KFD and SitG to do so.

    Heavenly Father has to be the Most High God. And I can’t take any theology that throws out the Most High God idea.

    it’s good to read other people picking through the issues on this one.

    Comment by motherofAll — May 26, 2006 @ 10:37 am

19. The text Geoff most recently zero’d in on “-& preach the doctrine there being a God above the Far. of our Ld. J.C.-” (Bullock) does look hard to square with Blake’s position.

    The other thing that concerns me with Blake’s position is that it really puts a damper on the concept of deification. I am fine with the idea that there is only one Most High God and we can’t ever become the Most High, but I am less comfortable with the idea that we can never do what the Father is currently doing. That is the whole point of becoming like God, after all, is to act in his role and follow in his footsteps. Geoff made some comments about this in the previous post, asking what the difference between the sons of god and the ministering angels are.

    It seems to me that even if Blake gave up on the point about the Father being the Most High God (I am not suggesting he will), he would still be able to salvage most of the important points of his theory, and he wouldn’t do violence to the idea of us becoming like our Father in heaven.

    Comment by Jacob — May 26, 2006 @ 11:07 am

20. From a corporate investiture point of view, we very often know our Heavenly Father as “Eloheim” - literally “the Gods”. Similarly, when we are not in a context where the distinction is relevant, our Heavenly Father is the Most High by divine investiture.

    Remember, Jesus said, “I am the Eternal Father”, and “I am Alpha and Omega”. Now what does it mean to be all the letters of the alphabet?

    I suggest it means the same thing as it would be for Jacob to claim - I am Adam, and Seth, …, and Noah, and Shem, … and Terah, and Abraham, and Isaac” (so far as you are concerned, at any rate). And you too are a son of Adam, and can inherit the same privilege.

    Comment by Mark Butler — May 26, 2006 @ 1:35 pm

21. Jacob and Mark,

    I agree.

    Comment by Geoff J — May 26, 2006 @ 1:37 pm

22. I still maintain that the idea that Jesus could resurrect himself is a form of Divine Pelagianism. Jesus said “I can of mine own self do nothing”. See comment 35 in the last thread.

    His power to do so should be construed similarly to his power to call down a legion of angels. The same goes for any other mortal person, whether Jesus, his Father, or the Most High, as well as other righteous persons - no one resurrects themselves any more than anyone saves themselves, or exalts themselves.

    God himself could not be exalted without our *collective* cooperation. Would heaven with only one person in it be heaven? Would God be a Father without any children? Could he be an Eternal Father without an endless, righteous posterity?

    Divinity is not something one has in and of oneself - it is more a matter of casting ones bread upon the waters and seeing it return after many days. A dominion that flows unto a righteous person, not outward from him. (cf. D&C 121:46)

    Comment by Mark Butler — May 26, 2006 @ 1:54 pm

23. Jacob, and others, I am not sure if Mormons see an ontological difference between us and God, but there would seem to be one. I would think, if the Father came to an earth at some point in time, already being Divine, then it is likely he must have lived a sinless life just like the Son. Whether or not he was a savior, I do not know.

    All of us that live here, have sinned. I realize that we can be forgiven through the atonement, but without the atonement, we are forever lost. So, somehow, we would seem to be dependent on our savior throughout the eternities to come. I do not see the same thing being true with respect to the godhead. How would this play into our deification?

    I am not sure why Blake tries to make the point he does, except, it does keep our doctrine more in line with what the scriptures teach. However, there dose seem to be a very negative question that is just begging to be asked. If Blake is right, then what else might the prophets have gotten wrong since Joseph Smith? Clearly, what Blake suggests is different than what I have been taught in the Church.

    Obviously, these are not questions I would ask in SS, so please do not take this as trying to make a point or start an argument. I just find such things interesting.

    Comment by CEF — May 26, 2006 @ 2:05 pm

24. CEF, One has to make a distinction between when prophets are receiving revelation and when they are practicing theology. The latter often has great influence, but rarely gets canonized. It doesn’t bother me much if prophets get theology wrong from time to time, revelation wrong would be another story.

    The KFD is not canonized in part because Joseph Smith never claimed it was a revelation - he explicitly describes what he was claiming as the conclusion of process of reasoning - reasoning that the says “tastes good”, i.e. was inspired. I believe the KFD for the same reason - it teaches a principle that is coherent with the spirit of the good and the best as taught by all the holy scriptures, so far as I can tell from the spirit within me.

    Comment by Mark Butler — May 26, 2006 @ 2:29 pm

25. CEF,

    Your point about an ontological gap is a good one. J. Stapley (who is a regular around these parts) agrees that the implication of the KFD and SitG is that there is an ontological gap and that there is only one way to be like the Father, and that is to atone for the sins of a mortal world. (Every case we know of a God qua Father included their being divine prior to a mortality after all.) Blake insists that there is no ontological gap, but the more unpacking we do of his ideas the more it seems that he agrees with the Stapley theory. That is that there are two tracks in the eternities: one for the Gods who move from one exaltation to another, and one for us, “the gods”, who can move into a secondary (sidekick?) role to the Gods but can never be full members of a Godhead.

    I will post on this two track idea soon too I think (even though I think it is false.) I think that the fact is we are led by the KFD and SitG to conclude one of two things — either this two track theory is accurate, or there are indeed multiple mortal probations. (How’s that for a teaser?)

    Comment by Geoff J — May 26, 2006 @ 2:35 pm

26. Actually Joseph Smith (apparently) did claim it was received through the spirit of revelation, but certainly not in the same sense as the revelations in the D&C, so far as we know:

    This is good doctrine. It tastes good. I can taste the principles of eternal life, and so can you. They are given to my by the revelations of Jesus Christ; and I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life as they are given to me, you taste them, and I know that you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life. I know it is good; and when I tell you of these things which were given my by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and rejoice more and more. (KFD[SV])

    Comment by Mark Butler — May 26, 2006 @ 2:35 pm

27. Well, I radically disagree with the two-track theory, and with multiple mortal probations. The difference, as I see it between my Christology and Geoff’s, is that I do not see Jesus Christ as a person as radically advanced in progression above Moses and Abraham. I think that soteriological exceptionalism is based on a simple misunderstanding of what Christ and his Atonement represents - i.e. belief in salvation by a single figure per world instead of a very large number of anointed sons and daughters to god who are the fathers and mothers of the salvation of their posterity by comparable principles, first in this life, and then in the world to come.

    Where as I understand it, the motivation for MMP is so that in some future life we can be born as a Savior to an entire world, and the one after that be the Heavenly Father to an entire world. On my view, salvation is such a collective enterprise we can become like the person of the Father in not endless lifetimes after we lay down this mortal life, but indeed initiate our eternal parenthood unto our lineal and adopted posterity within years, if not hours.

    Comment by Mark Butler — May 26, 2006 @ 2:45 pm

28. CEF,

    It is unfortunate that the word “ontological” has been around for so long, and yet one can never use it without defining what one means. I personally don’t think the two-track theory Geoff mentions (#25) would require an ontological difference between God and man. Likewise, I don’t see the sinless life of Jesus as requiring an ontological difference between him and us. It could be that I am using the word ontological differently than you are.

    It certainly would be an odd twist to interpret the KFD as requiring an ontological gap since the lack of an ontological gap seems to be one of Joseph’s biggest points in the sermon. This is the point of Joseph saying that God is “an exalted man,” is it not?

    As to your negative question of what else prophets have gotten wrong, it would have to be a lot in regard to the speculative parts of our theology. There has been lots of disagreement among the prophets themselves on some of these issues, and everyone can’t be right at once when there are disagreement. The idea that our prophets don’t know everything doesn’t bother me in the least (in fact, it seems inevitable), but you are right that lots of people who attend SS would find it upsetting. Most everyone who participates here is fully accustomed ot the idea, however.

    Comment by Jacob — May 26, 2006 @ 3:17 pm

29. Mark: I do not see Jesus Christ as a person as radically advanced in progression above Moses and Abraham. I think that soteriological exceptionalism is based on a simple misunderstanding of what Christ and his Atonement represents.

    This is one of the big drawbacks of your solution. The exceptionalism of Jesus is all over in the scriptures. The name of Christ is the only name under heaven whereby man can be saved, etc. I know you account for many (if not all) of these scriptural assertions with your radical name/role substitution idea, but it seems totally implausible that any of the Book of Mormon prophets themselves understood their own statements as you interpret them. Which either means (1) their statements were correct, but they themselves misunderstood them, or (2) their statements were incorrect and they simply lacked a full understanding. Option (1) requires a mode of exegesis I don’t buy into and (2) can’t possibly be your view since making sense of the Book of Mormon is one of your driving forces. I’m sure I’ve missed a (3) which you can fill in for me.

    Comment by Jacob — May 26, 2006 @ 3:28 pm

30. Jacob- It certainly would be an odd twist to interpret the KFD as requiring an ontological gap since the lack of an ontological gap seems to be one of Joseph’s biggest points in the sermon. This is the point of Joseph saying that God is “an exalted man,” is it not?

    You make a good point Jacob, but (there is always a but isn’t there :) ) I will be real short here because I realized I am taking this in a direction that is not in line with the original thread. Two quick points.

    First; I am not sure how one can be sinful and totally dependent on an atonement by someone else to place one in heaven, and be the same in a real sense, (my definition of ontological) as someone who has never sinned.

    Robinson makes the point that our forgiven sins are like canceled checks, they are still ours, but the atonement of Christ covers them, we are justified through Christ which allows us into heaven. Even Blake makes the point that the atonement is infinite in a sense of duration of time.

    Second and a little more bothersome, is that Pres. GBH would not embrace the idea that we can become like God. Two ways to see that. Either he did not want to talk about it at all at that time, or he meant just what he said. I am a little in the dark as to which one I am going to embrace as the truth.

    No need to respond to this as I am way off topic.

    Comment by CEF — May 26, 2006 @ 5:18 pm

31. CEF,

    The ontological gap question is pretty relevant to the post it seems. Geoff’s new post on the topic (see #25) is sure to assume the impossibility of progression outside our current environment–given his teaser–so I’ll make a quick response here:

    you said: I am not sure how one can be sinful and totally dependent on an atonement by someone else to place one in heaven, and be the same in a real sense, (my definition of ontological) as someone who has never sinned.

    Jesus being totally sinless is an evidence of his being very much farther down the road of progression than we are. Depending on how you think he got there, it may, or may not, require a ontological gap. I never lose at tic-tac-toe, but my 6 year old does frequently–this does not mean we are ontologically different.

    The same sort of argument can be made for our dependence on Christ. If we were arguing that we depended on God for our very existence, that would make a stronger case for an ontological difference, but Mormonism has generally rejected that idea. When our dependence is manifest as a need for help from one who is more advanced than we are, it is easier to explain it without an ontological gap. I was dependent on my mother as a baby, which didn’t make us ontologically different, and the atonement could be viewed in a similar way. Again, it depends on ones theory of atonement. The part of the KFD where Joseph says that (paraphrasing) “God found himself in the midst of spirits who were less intelligent, and saw fit to institute laws by which they could advance like himself” implies a difference in advancement but not a difference in ontology.

    Comment by Jacob — May 26, 2006 @ 5:50 pm

32. Jacob, I like your reasoning, I am sure it has some merit. And here is that but again.

    Your son will eventually get to the point on his own to where he will never loose at tic-tac-toe either. It will be a natural progression and learning. However, I will never get to the point where I will be sinless even given an eternity to do so. But you have me wondering.

    The only way I can see us as even close to being the same as God, would be if there is a real reason that the GA’s use the word earn in relation to our Exaltation. If somehow we start out as ontologically the same as God, but through our earth life we change so as to need some help to return back home, and through a process of learning and progressing, perfecting ourselves to where we have earned the Celestial Kingdom, them maybe you have a point. Other wise I am not sure I can hold to your point.

    Personally, I would not want to embrace the above though. I think it goes too far against the current understanding of the scriptures.

    Comment by CEF — May 26, 2006 @ 6:48 pm

33. Jacob (#29),

    Yes I believe that in some cases, some prophets (and their translators) did not understand the full import of the concepts they were teaching, but that the best ones did and chose their words accordingly. Isaiah is a really good example of a careful word chooser. Remember what Christ said about Isaiah, e.g. that “all things that he spake *have been and shall be*, even according to the words which he spake”?

    So a good prophet is well aware of the multiple layers of meaning that can be attached to simple concepts, studies the ones used in the past, and chooses new words accordingly, attempting to carefully integrate the same senses and semantic overtones, such that he may not only not do violence to the higher level harmony, but indeed enforce it even unawares.

    We are much too stuck on proper names and the Greek identification of God as the ONE, without considering what oneness entails. Mormonism has made great progress in de-one-izing the concept of heavenly fatherhood, but virtually none in de-one-izing the concept of heavenly son or saviorhood. As far as I can tell the *only* reason is is compatibility with conventional Christian orthodoxy of the sort that wants to put Jesus on a pedestal, rather than truly be like him.

    The Hebrew perspective of the Messiah is much more like a righteous son, prince, and examplar, and not some sort ground-of-all-being superhuman manifestation. On my view, to exalt Jesus *as a person* too high destroys his whole message. It is an excuse for mediocrity, among other things.

    Most of the paradoxes with regard to scriptures that assign radical capabilities to Christ can be properly understood as applying to divine sonship (and daughterhood) in general, and this is the origin of the doctrine of the name. Jesus Christ did not come down for us to glorify him personally - he came down for us to glorify his *name*. The name of Christ is a symbol for the path and process to exaltation and for all those righteous disciples, the *Anointed* ones who enter into it.

    So we say Christ suffered for the sins of all mankind. Yes absolutely - but not Jesus of Nazareth personally, but rather all those who suffer in his *name*. And the Father hath committed all judgment into the hands of the Son? Yes, but not Jesus Christ alone, but all righteous fathers everywhere, who one day will preside over *and judge* their righteous posterity.

    And Jesus as the gatekeeper, the one and only means to salvation? Yes - salvation is only obtained by taking our proper place in the heavenly family, that our salvation is in part contingent on the salvation of those family members who have gone before us, and hence we become (if we are righteous) the gatekeepers of heaven to those that follow.

    The name of Jesus Christ as the only means whereby salvation cometh. Absolutely. There is only one kingdom of heaven, and taking upon ourselves his name, and taking his yoke upon us, is the only way we may claim an eternal inheritance.

    In any scripture we should consider whether the word ‘Christ’ means
    (1) Jesus of Nazereth
    (2) Anointed son or daughter of God
    (3) All anointed sons and daughters collectively

    That is what Christ means - “the anointed” in Greek. Same with Messiah in Hebrew. If it weren’t for early Christians trying to shove Jesus back into “the ONE”, this would have been obvious a long time ago. There are some non-LDS scholars who have written about the same aspect in Paul’s writings, but I have lost the references, unfortunately.

    Comment by Mark Butler — May 26, 2006 @ 7:13 pm

34. Here is Paul:

    For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)

    I do not think the original intent of “without sin” was intended to mean that Jesus was morally impeccable from the day he was born. There are several scriptures that refer to “perfect” men, that do not mean the same thing either.

    What the scripture means (or should mean) is that Jesus arrived at a state by the beginning of his ministry where he was morally blameless for all practical purposes, where he was tempted severely “in all points” and resisted. Also that he did not deserve what was done to him in the crucifixion, any more than a unblemished lamb.

    Personally, I think the idea of Christ as a hyper-Docetist moral superman diminishes his attractiveness as a moral exemplar. Same thing with the odd theory that Peter didn’t really deny him. A person who moved from grace to grace, that perhaps had to overcome some early weaknesses is a much better example, one the same principle that a rags to riches story is more compelling than the heritage of the silver spoon.

    Along the same lines I think the idea that Jesus had any special capabilities just because he had a divine father is similarly untenable - in a modern context it reeks of eugenics.

    Comment by Mark Butler — May 26, 2006 @ 7:27 pm

35. Jacob re: #19: The text Geoff most recently zero’d in on “-& preach the doctrine there being a God above the Far. of our Ld. J.C.-” (Bullock) does look hard to square with Blake’s position.

    Jacob, note carefully that I don’t deny that there was a God of God the Father; it is the timing during which God had a God above him that I insist must be seen in perspective. Geoff insists that there was a higher God from all eternity — and he ignores that there is a Head God altogether! However, in context JS follows this statement about a God above God the Father immediately by speaking again of the Father becoming mortal in the same way that the Son became mortal. JS undoubtedly realized that if the Father became mortal, there must have been a God to hold the world in its orbit while the Father was mortal (remember he begins the KFD by noting that God holds the world in orbit). So the context makes it very compelling from my perspective to see that JS is speaking of the the Father’s earthly sojourn when he speaks of the God above God the Father — notwithstanding Geoff’s grandstanding.

    Moreover, it is virtually certain that Geoff bases his view on a mistatement contained in the Bullock Report. Geoff quotes this in #16: “-my object was to preach the Scrip-& preach the doctrine there being a God above the Far. of our Ld. J.C.- … if Abra. reasoned thus-if J.C was the Son of God & John discd. that god the Far. of J.C had a far. you may suppose that he had a Far. also-where was ther ever a Son witht. a Far. … hence if J. had a Far. can we not believe that he had a Far. also” (Bullock Report) Geoff should have had the courtesy of quoting the entire passage: “our text says the apostles have discovered. that there were Gods above– God was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ–my object was to preach the Scriptures–& preach the doctrine there being a God above the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Bullock Report) This says that “God” was the Father of Jesus Christ. It doesn’t say what Geoff quoted at all. Second, the statment about the BofA says: ” learned it by translating the papyrus now in my house—I learned a testimony concerning Abraham & he reasoned concerning the God of Heaven–in order to do that said he–suppose we have two facts that supposes that another fact may exist two men on the earth–one wiser than the other–would show that another who is wiser than the wisest may exist–intelligences exist one above another that there is no end to it–if Abraham reasoned thus” (Bullock Report)

    However, we know that Bullock seriously mispoke. First, if there is no end to the gods above the Father and the go on father to father infinitely, then there is no Head God and JS states emphatically and repeatedly in the KFD and SintGrove that there is a Head God spoken of in Gen. 1:1. Second, JS is quoting the Book of Abraham and we know that it says no such thing. Instead, it says: “These two facts exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than them all. (Abr. 3:19) So we know Bullock misquoted the Book of Abraham. We know that the Book of Abraham speaks of a God who is more intelligent than all intelligences though they vary among themselves in gradation of intelligence. We know that the Head God called the gods together in council — a view already taught in Book of Abraham 3:23-28. We know that there was one “like unto the Son of Man” who was called by God — and this one who was called is clearly Christ. The role of the Head God is that of the Father who sends him.

    So I stick with what JS said, all of the gods of whom he spoke were sons of God who give glory to the Head God, the Father of the sons of God: “I believe in these Gods that God reveals as Gods—to be Sons of God & all can cry Abba Father–Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods even from before the foundation of the world & are all the only Gods I have a reverence for– John said he was a King. Jesus Christ who hath by his own blood made us Kings & Priest to God. Oh thou God who are Kings of Kings & Lord of Lords” (Bullock Report)

    So Geoff, so you accept that the Father was divine before becoming mortal? Do you accept that there is a Head God of all other gods? Do you accept that in context when JS speaks of a God above God the Father he immediately puts it in the context of the Father becoming mortal in just the way that the Son did? Do you admit that the Son and HG were both divine before receiving bodies and the Father received a body in the same way they did?

    Mark: If you are sure that Jesus isn’t really different than us regarding the power to resurrect, then I invite you to go to a cemetary and start resurrecting people. I think you’ll find that the divide is pretty large.

    Finally — ALL — it is time to get clear on what you mean by an “ontological divide”. Ontology refers to the kind of existnece, necessary or contingent, that all that exists has. Clearly there is no ontological divide between God, the sons of God and humans on my view. Clearly the sons of God have the capacity to become everything that the Father is on my view. What we cannot do is change the past or the fact that we have not made the same choice that the F, S and HG have made from all eternity to be in a relationship of indwelling unity. That is the only difference.

    Comment by Blake — May 26, 2006 @ 8:09 pm

36. Blake,

    I generally agree with your argument regarding the existence of a head God. However your analogy with regard to the power of resurrection is off base. The issue is whether Jesus could have resurrected *himself* without the assistance of any other, not whether he could resurrect another.

    Here is what Brigham Young had to say on the subject:

    “Did he [Adam] resurrect himself, ” you inquire. I want to throw out a few hints upon the ressurection as it seems to come within the circuit of my remarks whether it ought to come within the circuit of my remarks or not. I beleive we have already accknowleged the truth established that no person can officiate in any office he has not entered into been subject to himself and legally apointed to fill. That no person in this kingdom can officiate in any office ordinance he himself has not obeyed; consequently no being who has not been ressurrected possesses the keys of the power or ressurrection. That you have been told often. Adam therefore was resurrected by some one who had been resurrected. (Brigham Young, October 8, 1854 discourse)

    Again from the same sermon:

    The man who was martyred in Carthage Jail, State of Illinois, holds the keys of life and death to this generation. He is the president of the resurrection of this dispensation. and he will be the first to rise from the dead. When he has passed through it, then I reckon the keys of the ressurrection will be committed to him. Then he will call up his Apostles. You know I told you last conference I was a Apostle of Joseph Smith; And if faithful enough, I expect Joseph will resurrect the Apostles; and when they have passed through the change, and received their blessings, I expect he will committ to them the keys of the resurrection, and they will go on resurrecting the Saints, every man in his own order.

    Comment by Mark Butler — May 26, 2006 @ 9:34 pm

37. Blake,

    I remained amazed that you are clinging to this painfully strained position still…

    Geoff insists that there was a higher God from all eternity-and he ignores that there is a Head God altogether!

    What on earth are you talking about here? I concede that there likely is a divine person who is the Head God; but since there were innumerable worlds before ours and each likely had a unique different Godhead/Presidency I assume that he is innumerable generations ahead of the Father of Jesus Christ.

    Moreover, it is virtually certain that Geoff bases his view on a mistatement contained in the Bullock Report.

    So when the report disagrees with a preconceived theological notion it must be misstated?

    This says that “God” was the Father of Jesus Christ. It doesn’t say what Geoff quoted at all.

    Of course “God” is the Father of Jesus Christ. God the Father of Jesus Christ is the God appointed to this world by the Head God according to Joseph. He is who we call God here on earth. Of course He speaks to us for the Gods with whom he is One, going all the way back to the Head God.

    So Geoff, so you accept that the Father was divine before becoming mortal? Do you accept that there is a Head God of all other gods?

    Yes, I believe the Father was an exalted man prior to coming to another mortal probation to be a savior. And yes, I accept that there is a Head God - it just isn’t the Father of Jesus.

    Do you accept that in context when JS speaks of a God above God the Father he immediately puts it in the context of the Father becoming mortal in just the way that the Son did?

    No. I think this is a massive stretch on your part to try to make a clear statement by Joseph say exactly the opposite of what he actually said. He is saying that the Father became a mortal there in the same way the Son became mortal here. That is clearly implying to me a divine pattern that every inhabited planet follows — that is a God the Father is in charge and a God the Son atones. The message is that prior to this world, God our Father atoned for the sins of a previous world in the role of the Son/Savior. His Heavenly Father moved on to another higher exaltation while God our Father moved into the role of God the Father for this world. The already-exalted person Jesus accepted the role of God the Son for this world.

    Do you admit that the Son and HG were both divine before receiving bodies and the Father received a body in the same way they did?

    Yes. It seems reasonable that a person in the role of Holy Ghost would be the mostly likely candidate to be the Son and Atoning savior of the next inhabited world. Jesus of course would be God the Father for that world.

    This is the direction Joseph was going. It is all there in his last few sermons. This is basically what all of his closest friends and associates taught from 1844 on as well. Joseph himself made it clear that in private he was much more explicit in his teaching than in the public discourse we have access to. I believe we can trust the prophets and apostles who knew Joseph best on this subject.

    Comment by Geoff J — May 26, 2006 @ 9:52 pm

38. Blake: Clearly the sons of God have the capacity to become everything that the Father is on my view. What we cannot do is change the past or the fact that we have not made the same choice that the F, S and HG have made from all eternity to be in a relationship of indwelling unity. That is the only difference.

    So is this contradicting what you said previously? Do you believe now that exalted persons among us can move in to the role of a God the Father for a future inhabited planet? That is what “becoming everything the Father is” entails in my opinion. That is what I think Joseph was teaching and it is clearly what his successors thought he meant. But it is at odds with what you have said about it recently.

    If we can never be in the Godhead as full participating members then there is an unbridgeable gap of some kind whether you call it “ontological” or not. If we cannot ever be a God qua Father for future inhabited planets then you are somewhat in the Stapley camp which I have been calling the “two track” school of thought.

    Comment by Geoff J — May 26, 2006 @ 9:59 pm

39. Blake,

    You have convinced me that the scriptures (D&C 121, Abr 3) teach that there is one Most High God and Joseph Smith goes right along with this idea by speaking of a Head God. I have been going over your comments rather carefully with my Words of Joseph Smith open.

    Blake: We know that there was one “like unto the Son of Man” who was called by God-and this one who was called is clearly Christ. The role of the Head God is that of the Father who sends him.

    I think you are intending this as an explanation of Joseph’s statement that “the heads of the Gods appointed one God for us” (WJS pg 379). So, you are saying that the God appointed for us is Christ, right? In the KFD, you have argued that God always refers to the Father, are you suggesting he followed a different course in the SitG?

    Now, the main text being debated is the one saying that “god the Far. of J.C had a far.” You got after Geoff for not quoting the whole passage, but then you quoted from a totally different place in the sermon. Geoff is quoting from WJS pg. 380 and the “full quote” you added is from WJS pg. 378. Anyway, here it is without any of the ellipsis Geoff added in the post to shorten it:

    if J.C was the Son of God & John discd. that god the Far. of J.C had a far. you may suppose that he had a Far. also–where was ther ever a Son witht. a Far.–where ever did tree or any thing spring into existence witht. a progenitor–& every thing comes in this way–Paul says that which is Earthyly is in likeness of that which is Heavenly–hence if J. had a Far. can we not believe that he had a Far. also–I despise the idea of being scared to death–I want you all to pay particr. attent. J. sd. as the Far. wrought precisely in the same way as his Far. had done bef–as the Far. had done bef.–he laid down his life & took it up same as his Far. had done bef. (WJS pg 380)

    A couple of things. First, this quote doesn’t just say that the Father of Jesus had a God, it says that he (the God of the Father of Jesus) had a Father as well:

    John discd. that god the Far. of J.C had a far. you may suppose that he had a Far. also

    You are arguing that the statement following this (about Jesus doing what the Father did by laying down his life and taking it back up) puts this into an earthly context, thus, the Father only had a God above him when he was mortal. Further, you used the part about the Earthly being in the likeness of the Heavenly to bolster your argument of an earthly context (#10).

    The “earthly in likeness of the heavenly” comment is intended to show that the same thing we are used to on the earth (never a son without a father, everything coming in this way) is indeed true of the heavenly as well. He is saying, quite clearly I think, that in heaven there is never a son without a father, just like what we are used to on the earth. This reading fits perfectly with the statement before it about Jesus having a Father, Jesus’ Father having a Father, and even that Father having a Father (really, all those are in the text).

    Then, after that, there is a break in his thought as he says he despises being scared to death. The statement you use as context for the stuff coming before comes after that break. I don’t see it as providing the context for the stuff before, which all seems to hang together quite well in saying that there are many levels of Gods in between Jesus and the Most High God.

    Comment by Jacob — May 26, 2006 @ 10:35 pm

40. Geoff: Joseph himself made it clear that in private he was much more explicit in his teaching than in the public discourse we have access to.

    You have this one exactly backwards. From the SitG:

    I am bold to declare I have taut. all the strong doctrines publicly–& always stronger that what I preach in private (WJS pg. 378)

    Clearly, the bolded “that” is supposed to be the word “than”. It is obvious from the first half of the sentence that Joseph was intending to say that he always taught the strong doctrines publicly, and that his public teaching was always stronger than what he preached in private. The historical context, with all of the criticisms of his private teachings makes the case even stronger that this is what he would be saying, but it is clear enough just from the quote.

    Comment by Jacob — May 26, 2006 @ 10:44 pm

41. Danithew said:

    “I’m not eager to explore yet. I’m comfortable with the idea/possibility that God the Father had a Father but in my opinion I don’t need to know much more about it. Frankly, that is a point where I feel we are beginning to look in mirror full of neverending and more distance images and semblances”

    I think the mirror concept is utterly important here. Yes, we are looking into a Mirror when we look at God, and God looks into a mirror when he looks at us. This is what the KFD seems to be talking about. We should be able to utilize everything we know about our own lives to derive information about Father’s past, and everything we know about Father to derive information about our own future. How simple! How grand!

    Taking all the statements into account, there seems to be an indication that only one being is exalted on each planet-cycle. Some may consider this Highly Speculative, and I may be leaving out multitudes of details we don’t know about yet, but here goes: This time round, Jesus Christ worked out his exaltation, which will be concluded (or commenced, however you look at it) when he lands himself in an Adam-Ondi-Ahman of his own planet. (If that phrase indeed translates to ‘The place where Adam was made God’, but you get the point.) We aren’t there yet, because we’re still in this other stage entirely. We know the Father did before what the Son did this time, so we would be mighty arrogant to expect that we get to skip that and go straight to work as Adams and Eves, respectively. No, I think the pattern shows evidence that each of us will get to serve as Savior on a planet that we help to form perhaps serving underneath Jehovah, Michael, and Jesus in this work, and that Jesus will be placed into that Garden and Made the God of that planet, and that we will get to serve as Savior. Jehovah, Michael, Michael, and Jesus will be the creative trinity for many planets (as many as there are worthy couples?) and thus each person on the path to exaltation gets to be a Savior. But that planet will be populated by Jesus’s spirit offspring, not ours. The next cycle, Michael, Jesus and You will be the creative trinity, and then You will be placed into the Garden and will fall into a deep sleep. You will be God of that planet, and Spiritual parent of those being placed on that Planet (perhaps your children from the world you served on as Savior will serve in the other offices reserved for Ancients like Lucifer and Christ, and perhaps that is where notions of “First-Born” or “Only Begotten” really differ the Savior from ourselves) and only after going through this have you attained Exaltation so far as our current manner of understand perceives it.

    Comment by Jeff Day — May 26, 2006 @ 10:49 pm

42. Oops. Good catch on that public/private thing Jacob. You are right.

    Comment by Geoff J — May 26, 2006 @ 10:57 pm

43. Mark Butler said:

    One of the most critical questions of Christian theology is why Jesus Christ is not worthy of such worship, whether with the Nephites or by his own account in the New Testament.

    I think, Mark, that you are far more enlightened than most people in Christian theology, and most people in the LDS Church for that matter.

    Many Latter-day Saints do Worship Jesus (erroneously, in my opinion). In fact, In a ward I recently attended the Bishop opened the meeting with “I know we’re all here to Worship the Savior, but I wanted to mention first that …” All I could do was hang my head and wait for it to pass.

    You’re darned right that Jesus taught against this. I blogged about it a couple months ago at http://blog.kingsolomonslodge.org/2006/04/help-stop-heresy-of-jesus-worship.html and I also found on Carla Golden’s blog “Spiritually Speaking” an article following the same lines, (and she’s not Mormon)

    I think it is a terrible thing that has crept into the Church, not just the Mormon Church, but the Christian Church at large. Worship needs to be given where it is Due. After Christ has completed the process of gaineding his Exaltation, then he will be worshipped on that World, and after we have completed ours, we will be worshipped on our World. But to jump the gun, especially when he has rejected it and attempted to redirect worship to the Father, is not a good thing.

    It is true that Heber C Kimball I believe said something along the lines of it would even be true to say that Brigham is his God, as far as that goes, but even though we believe in gods many, there is only one God which we Worship and with whom we have to deal, the Father, the Ancient of Days.

    The Church of Rome and the Dark Ages skewed this, and made Jesus the object of Worship and Mary the object of Prayer. It has never been completely repaired within Christianity, and so there are multiple targets of Worship (I don’t believe anyone can fully mind-meld with the Trinity notion enough to use that as an excuse.) The Jews would see this as breaking the first of the ten commandments. I see it as idolatry.

    Part of the confusion comes with the false idea that Jehovah is Christ. Since many Latter-day Saints believe this, they are equating Worshipping Christ with worshipping Adam’s Father (a being higher in the hierarchy than Our God). It is true that Adam and his immediate children did worship Grandfather, (Brigham said this much), and I cannot say it would be immediately “wrong” to do so. However, I think they are still focusing on the “Jesus” concept and not the Grandfather concept, but even if they were, to do so is kind of like going to your stake president when your bishop could suit an issue just fine.

    I see this as a major divisor in the Church, that is largely invisible (thank goodness, lest it would cause rifts of some worse kind?) but there are clearly different types of worship going on towards different entities, and each group could easily see the other as heretics in violation of the law.

    I think the Adam-God position is most correct, and I believe hearing a mixed message like “We’re here to worship the Savior” followed immediately by a talk by another member of the Bishopric speaking of “Worshipping God the Father” demonstrates that the confusion is far greater than a difference between AG believers and “Mainstream”, it is a concept that splits even the Mainstream into groups. Some might even switch back and forth as they go :)

    Comment by Jeff Day — May 26, 2006 @ 11:06 pm

44. Jeff (#41),

    Brigham would have approved of the theory you outlined. The problem is that later prophets have explicitly and unequivocally stated that Brigham was mistaken in his Adam-God teachings. That doesn’t mean that we must now reject every doctrine that Brigham taught — but I do think we should reject the notion that says a person, Adam, who lived on this planet is God the Father of Jesus. I like what Nibley called it: The Adam-God misunderstanding.

    This brings up a major problem we have in dealing with the KFD and the SitG: Sooner or later someone links them to Adam-God and then gobs of Mormons immediately dismiss all of it. The problem is that they throw out the baby with the bathwater. We can reject the more extreme and openly denounced portions of the Brigham’s extensions of the KFD and SitG (like Adam-God) but still explore the non-denounced ideas in the original sermons and in the teachings of those who knew Joseph best.

    Comment by Geoff J — May 26, 2006 @ 11:13 pm

45. Geoff (#44),

    I hear what you are saying. However, I don’t think the rejection of Adam-God was quite as unequivocal as you say. Bruce R McConkie seems to have been the most outspoken against it, and he openly renounced some other things he had taught (concerning blacks and the priesthood), and quite frankly, I think he put his own personal theories and speculations based on the solid tradition which had been established by James E. Talmage and George Q. Cannon, ahead of what has been revealed. This is similar to the position Orson Pratt took, in defending his own scriptural ideas against those that the Prophet had pronounced. The other statement that comes to mind, is that of Spencer W Kimball, he denounced some Adam-God Theory. I know of nothing called the Adam-God “Theory”, for when Brigham proclaimed it, he SAID it was a Doctrine, and that our salvation depended upon it. Kimball was warning people of techniques used to drag folks into polygamist cults. Brigham, well, I guess he was dragging folks into a polygamist cult, but that isn’t the point I intended to make. He was pronouncing it for Jew and Gentile, Saint and Sinner. It wasn’t a recruiting technique, it was simply a truth that he proclaimed. Brigham was far from the only person who taught and accepted Adam-God, and from reading your other posts throughout the greater Bloggernacle, I am sure you are well aware of this. I would say we need to look at what Joseph taught, and what is canonized. And the canonized scripture DOES teach Adam God, look at D&C 27:11 or D&C 107:54 and compare that to Daniel 7:9-14 especially verses 13 and 14, and even look at the footnotes in the current edition of the scriptures.

    Denouncing the “Adam-God theory”, whatever that is, cannot put off the simple reading of canonized scripture. I think we are dealing with another issue similar to the meaning of the “Manifesto” to the Saints between 1890 and 1910. It was intended to sound strong, but was understood, by at least a few, (even if God knew it and the one speaking it didn’t), that it didn’t mean precisely what it sounded like.

    Didn’t mean to hijack the thread here, but I believe it was Joseph’s Doctrine, as Brigham claimed, and therefore it is intimately connected with the KFD, you cannot understand one fully without the other. They are the same truth.

    Comment by Jeff Day — May 26, 2006 @ 11:29 pm

46. You make some reasonable arguments, Jeff. But you are correct that I want to keep this thread on track so I ask all following along to shelve Adam-God issues for now. The issue I want to stay on here is if Joseph taught that the Father of Jesus has a Eternal Father of his own or not. In addition I would like to further discuss the question of whether the Father acted in the role of atoning Savior during a previous mortal probation. Blake thinks the answer to both is no; I and others think the answer is yes to both.

    (Perhaps I’ll post on the issues/qualms I have with A-G in a future post.)

    Comment by Geoff J — May 26, 2006 @ 11:59 pm

47. CEF: I will never get to the point where I will be sinless even given an eternity to do so. (#32)

    Why do you say that? Do you mean that you will never be able to get rid of the fact that you were sinful at some previous time? Certainly that is true (since you are sinful now). Even so, the Mormon doctrine that you can become like God is based on the claim that you can someday reach the level of perfection to which Jesus had already attained when he came to the earth. Dealing with your objection about “earning” exaltation would lead to a big discussion of soteriology, but I don’t want to get to far off thread topic. Let me just say that I do think we can become celestial and that our own choices will be partly responsible if we do, but I would never say we “earn” exaltation. It sounds to me like you are conflating salvation and perfection, but I can’t be sure.

    Comment by Jacob — May 27, 2006 @ 12:00 am

48. Jacob: Re: #39. Pay particular attention this time. Note that JS returns to the fact that the Father became embodied just as Jesus as the explanation of the Father having a Father:

    if J.C was the Son of God & John discd. that god the Far. of J.C had a far. you may suppose that he had a Far. also-where was ther ever a Son witht. a Far.-where ever did tree or any thing spring into existence witht. a progenitor-& every thing comes in this way-Paul says that which is Earthyly is in likeness of that which is Heavenly-hence if J. had a Far. can we not believe that he had a Far. also-I despise the idea of being scared to death-I want you all to pay particr. attent. J. sd. as the Far. wrought precisely in the same way as his Far. had done bef-as the Far. had done bef.-he laid down his life & took it up same as his Far. had done bef. (WJS pg 380)

    Geoff: You are way out there my friend. First, you fail to accept or note that the quotation from the BofAbr. is muffed in the Bullock account and it changes the meaning. Second, we don’t ever fly off to some part of the universe by ourselves that God hasn’t quite gotten to yet to beget new children and populate it. The notion is fairly straightforward: We join as as one with the Godhead in such a way that whay one does, all do; what one knows, all know; what one wills, all will. That is the kind of unity that exaltation consists in and it is the opposite of the ultra-individualistic view you adopt. I think I get now why so many Christian regard Mormons as not merely heretic but also lunatics.

    Comment by Blake — May 27, 2006 @ 12:39 am

49. Re; the Father atoning. First, JS was very clear in a poem written in February of 1843 (one year and not two before the KFD as Geoff asserted):

    He’s the Savior and only begotten of God
    by him, of him, and through him, the worlds were made,
    Even all that career in the heavens broad.
    Whose inhabitants, too, from the first to the last,
    Are sav’d by the very same Savior as ours,
    And, of course, are God’s begotten sons and daughters. (Time & Seasons 4 Feb. 1843)

    All the worlds are created by the same God — the Father through Christ. All are saved by the same Savior. Since this poem is based on Joseph’s vision of the heavens, it is the most reliable source we have of creation and salvation.

    Now for the view that the Father and other “gods” also atoned and saved others on other worlds. It isn’t based on any express statement but on an implication from JS’s statement that the “Father wrought in precisely the same way as the Son.” However, we cannot take this kind of comparison too far or it falls apart. Did the Father have a mother named Mary? Did he have a brother named James? Did he eat exactly what the Son did on the very same comparable days of his life? Did he wear the same clothes? Of course not. What JS was clearly saying is that the Father’s mode of embodiment, his appearance, and his power to take up his own life again are the same. It cannot be stretched to say that the Father must do exactly every identical thing that Christ did. Frankly, the argument is ludicrous.

    In any event, given a choice between JS’s statements to the contrary in a speech and the scriptures based on visions and the voice of God, I’ll go with God.

    Comment by Blake — May 27, 2006 @ 12:52 am

50. Well, I happen to have the impression that Bruce R. McConkie opposed A/G, and flip-flopped on his position of Christ as Mediator in prayer(*) because he was a silent advocate of a name of Christ doctrine similar to the one I have outlined here. Much of this impression comes from listening to a Know Your Religion fireside in the late 1980s in which Joseph Fielding McConkie hinted at that idea very strongly. Of course I doubt either would agree with other aspects of my filial fabric soteriology, while mortal anyways.

    Elder Oaks wrote a book on the “Name of Christ” doctrine, but he doesn’t come to any radical conclusions - that he documents for us, of course.

    Comment by Mark Butler — May 27, 2006 @ 1:19 am

51. (*) http://ldsscience.blogspot.com/2006/05/contradicting-bruce-r-mcconkie.html

    Comment by Mark Butler — May 27, 2006 @ 1:51 am

52. I was trying to figure out what you folks meant by “the name of Christ” doctrine, and I have grasped it. How does Christ differ from Moses, and Abraham? I think my explanation of that is a simple one. Christ is [at least] one MMP cycle ahead of the rest of us. He is thus superior to any Human, because he has already overcome the sinful nature of the flesh in a prior mortal probation, and was able to live on Earth this time free of sin.

    Comment by Jeff Day — May 27, 2006 @ 2:25 am

53. I just wanted to summarize where I believe the discussion has taken us: (1) It is clear that there is a Head God — there is no infinite regression of gods. (2) The Father was divine before becoming mortal. (3) Joseph clearly spoke of a council of gods that consisted of the sons and daughters of God. (4) Joseph was clear that God the Father had a God above him. I read him to say that the Father is the Most High God, the Head God. I read him to say that the Father had a God above him only when he was a mortal and learned from his experiences in the same way that Christ did. Others read him to say that the Father has a father, who has a father, who has a father, without limit.

    Now (1) is important. This Head God is the Most High God, the God of all other gods spoken of in D&C 121 and most intelligent of all spoken of in B of Abr. 3:19. However, such a view is inconsistent with an eternal regression of gods. So Geoff came up with the ad hoc hypothesis that there is a limit to the gods above the Father, but there is an end to it with the Head God. In the alternative, perhaps there are Head Gods for every earth. Both views contradict Joseph’s clear statements in scripture that the Father created all the there is through Christ. It is clearly contrary to the view that Jesus is the savior of all of these worlds as Joseph stated in the expansion on his vision set forth in #49 above.

    (2) is also important because it entails that the Father did not become God through the mortal embodiment of which Joseph spoke. I believe that the Father has always been God from all eternity except during the time that he was mortal. If Joseph said that he refuted the notion that God had always been God [which is a questionable report of what he said]], he was saying nothing more than that the Father was at one time mortal and thus wasn’t not always God. At one time he was like us and had a God above him. Any other reading contradicts numerous statements by Joseph thorughout his life and scripture.

    (3) is even more important. It is fairly clear to me that Joseph stated in the SintGrove that the other gods of which he spoke were not god “above” the Father except during his mortal sojourn; but sons and daughters of God in the council of gods who are subject to the Most High God.

    I reject the notion that we slough off our bodies and become mortal (subject to death) again after this life. However, we do continue for all eternity to have new experiences that lead to our growth and learning.

    The disupte regarding (4) is momentous. I emphatically reject a reading of Joseph that ingores prior scriptural statements and his own visions and revelations. He learned from them; he didn’t abandon them. Geoff’s reading of (4) requires a rejection of Joseph’s own revelations, the Book of Mormon and the entirety of the biblical revelation. I submit that my reading is consistent with the very fragmentary reports and journals of Joseph’s statements and is preferred for these reasons.

    Comment by Blake — May 27, 2006 @ 9:41 am

54. Blake (#48): Pay particular attention this time. — LOL, nicely done.

    Your comment #10 above is a fairly detailed analysis laying out your position, and I’ve read over it many times (I even paid attention several of the times). In that post, you used the quote from #39 and #48 twice (so I won’t quote it yet again). The first time, you followed the quote with:

    Blake(#10) Joseph is referring to the birth of the Father as a mortal when he speaks of the Father’s having a father.

    Yes, this is true. However, you are leaving out an important part of the text. Allow me to replace the “Father’s Father” with the “Grandfather,” just to make it clear who I am talking about, nothing more. The text says that the Father wrought in precisely the same way as the Grandfather had done before, he laid down his life and took it up as the Grandfather had done before. This doesn’t square well with your conclusion that:

    Blake (#10) Who was the Father’s God? It was the other two remaining divine in the Godhead.

    Are you saying the two remaining diving beings in the Godhead laid down their lives and took them up before the Father did? Indeed, you did say this. The same problem is evident in your comment following the second time your used the quote:

    Blake(#10) JS expressly states that he is speaking of an earthly pattern and that the Father had a Father just as Jesus had a Father.

    Yes, the Father had a Father just as Jesus had a Father. But Jesus had the same Father on earth that he had in heaven after laying down his life and taking it up again. You only want to accept half of the similarity, saying that the Father had a Father when he was on earth, just as Jesus did, but that the Father does not have a Father in heaven the way Jesus does. The text does not support this distinction, and your use of “earthly pattern” to support such a distinction adds to what is in the text rather. The earthly/heavenly statement follows a statement about there never being a son without a father, and is followed by “hence if J. had a Far. can we not believe that he had a Far. also.” It was clearly there to argue that our earthly experience with sons coming from fathers applies to the heavens as well. It was clearly not there to say that the Father only had a Father in an earthly context. I think that is a blatant misuse of the text.

    Comment by Jacob — May 27, 2006 @ 10:05 am

55. Blake,

    By the way, arguing that part of the Bullock report of the SitG is unreliable might be a stronger position than trying to make this passage conform to the theory you are proposing. You are already arguing we should reject the part on Abr. 3 as a mistatement, so it is not too much of a stretch from there to reject the part we’ve been quoting (since it follows the Abr. 3 stuff and even builds on the logic of the Abr. 3 stuff). Of course, you could justify this by arguing that the preponderence of the evidence is against Bullock (implying that he likely misunderstood what Joseph was saying), just as you have done in #53

    Comment by Jacob — May 27, 2006 @ 10:21 am

56. Jacob. Good points. Let me clarify that it is obvious on its face that the various reports differ, that whether an (s) should be added at the end of various words is inconsistent and that Bullock clearly buffs the references to B. Abr. and Ps. 82 — the Laub Journal is better on that account. So I in fact regard the written reports as unclear at best and just unreliable for the particular wording at worst.

    However, as far as particular wording goes, note that you have the earthly/heavenly comparison backwards even as it appears in the text. The text says: Paul says that which is Earthyly is in likeness of that which is Heavenly-hence if J. had a Far. can we not believe that he had a Far. also. The text says that that which is earthly is patterned after the heavenly; not vice versa as you would have it. It is the earthly that is patterned after the heavenly, not the heavenly patterned after the earthly as your view appears to require. In any event, it is certainly open to the construction that JS is comparing the fact that the Father had a heavenly father just as Jesus did while Christ was on earth. And yes, there is the dissimilarity that Christ’s Heavenly Father is the same father (except for Joseph), but as I stated in #49, it couldn’t possibly be the case that they must be identical in all respects — only in the respects indicated.

    Comment by Blake — May 27, 2006 @ 10:48 am

57. BTW Jacob, it is clear that JS could have clarified the text by speaking of a heavenly grandfather just as you have done. He didn’t. He could have. It seems to me that your transposition does violence to the text because JS certainly could have adopted such wording but didn’t — precisely because that wasn’t his view.

    Comment by Blake — May 27, 2006 @ 10:54 am

58. Blake: So I in fact regard the written reports as unclear at best and just unreliable for the particular wording at worst.

    You can also use the fact that we have many more accounts of the KFD than we do of the SitG. Bullock is the only one to give a lengthy account of the SitG. The Laub report and the third one (can’t remember the name right now) are _very_ short by comparison. The KFD on the other hand, has several good sources with multiple accounts of the same phrases for comparison.

    I do have the earthly/heavenly correct, and it is just as you said it above. The earthly is patterned after the heavenly, which is why he says we can use our knowledge of fathers/sons on earth to understand how things are in heaven. Even though one is in the likeness of the other, the conclusion is that they are the same in this way, which means you could use it in either direction. Because our first hand experience is with the earthly, we are supposed to use the similarity to infer things about heaven from our knowledge of the earth. The text is unambiguous (but you must include the sentences before, which you left out):

    where was ther ever a Son witht. a Far.-where ever did tree or any thing spring into existence witht. a progenitor-& every thing comes in this way-Paul says that which is Earthyly is in likeness of that which is Heavenly-hence if J. had a Far. can we not believe that he had a Far. also

    He says: You have never heard of a son without a father, or a tree that sprang into existence without a progenitor, and every living thing on earth is like that. Paul says the these earthly things are in the likeness of that which is in heaven, hence we can conclude that sons in heaven had fathers just like what we are used to on earth.

    It is not that heaven is patterned after earth (that would be backwards), but because earth was patterned after heaven, they are the same–allowing us to infer things about heaven from this earth which was patterned after it.

    It would not have made Joseph’s point clearer to use my transposition of Grandfather for Father’s Father simply because Joseph was talking about everything having a Father and my trasposition obscures this by relating everyone to Christ. In that sense, it is a bad transposition, but it gets tiresome trying to write things clearly when we have the Father, the Father’s Father, and the Father’s Father’s Father in the text. I was merely trying to shorten those names to something where we could all still tell who we were talking about.

    Comment by Jacob — May 27, 2006 @ 11:43 am

59. Oh, and I should have said: Since the point under debate is whether or not the Father had an Eternal Father, my transposition was particularly unfair because it looks like I am trying to sneak my view into the text. This implication didn’t occur to me when I did it (I was just trying to disambiguate who I was talking about), but I see now it was entirely unjustified. You are right to call me on it.

    Comment by Jacob — May 27, 2006 @ 11:50 am

60. Jacob: What is equally striking to me about the SintGrove is that the other reports, especially and the crucial wording about the Father having a father, having nothing! I would think that if such a controversial subject were being taught they would take particular note. That is just puzzling to me.

    Comment by Blake — May 27, 2006 @ 11:55 am

61. Jacob re: #39. I said in a previous post: We know that there was one “like unto the Son of Man” who was called by God-and this one who was called is clearly Christ. The role of the Head God is that of the Father who sends him.
    You then commented. I think you are intending this as an explanation of Joseph’s statement that “the heads of the Gods appointed one God for us” (WJS pg 379). So, you are saying that the God appointed for us is Christ, right? In the KFD, you have argued that God always refers to the Father, are you suggesting he followed a different course in the SitG?

    Actually, the notion of the head God sending one like unto the Son of Man, who is clearly Christ, comes from BofAbr. 3: 27. There is in Abr. 3:23 God who stood in the midst of intelligences, and “one among them that was like unto God,” who is Christ in 3:24. Since Joseph refers to the Book of Abraham in both the KFD and the SintGrove, I think that we can look to that text to see what Joseph was saying. There, the head God is the Father and the one sent is the Son. The other gods are all gods below this God who are sent by him and who are in the council of gods. Since the Bullock report muffs these particular citations, my thinking was that the text of the BofAbr. itself would be more reliable as a guide to Joseph’s thought since he clearly relies on it for his exposition.

    Comment by Blake — May 27, 2006 @ 12:06 pm

62. I’ve heard a convincing argument that the one who was like unto the Son of Man was Michael. I’m not married to the idea, but it seems plausible.

    Comment by J. Stapley — May 27, 2006 @ 12:36 pm

63. J. Stapley (#62),

    I think you should look closely at Daniel 7. One like unto the Son of Man is specifically mentioned there, in connection with his relation to Michael (The Ancient of Days). I don’t think it is saying that Michael came unto Michael. Michael being the Ancient of Days is clearly established by Joseph, without any stretch of logic whatsoever.

    Blake,

    I think your position is problematic. You are trying to accomodate Joseph’s plain words to wrap them around something he didn’t actually say. I once held positions similar though not identical to yours, but after reading more source material I eventually came around to accepting what they said as they said it. It is our first and natural instinct to try to solve it in ways similar to how you are, but it sure helps to take a breath of fresh air, read the scriptural materials (including sermons) available with no preconceived notions and simply line out what they actually said. Once you have this, look at your problem areas, you will find few, but they are far easier to solve by an extension of their ideas than it is to do this the other way around. The Head of the Gods? I think that is referring to the God who was the highest leader of this Council of Gods, who brought the other Gods into existence. But I do not think this means he brought all other Gods into existence, only the ones lower than him in the ancestry, and not all directly, but through a process of lineage. I have no problem with the Head God of the Gods having a God above him. If you read Joseph’s text plainly, with or without Brigham and Heber’s later statements to back it up, I think it supports the conclusion that every being who can father offspring also has a Father of his own, so far as we know about. Will we ever find the generation where Gods began to be? I think that’s a rhetorical question, and the answer is No. Or, if there is, its possibly extremely far back, and then there would be evolutionary processes involved and high speculation that was never discussed.

    I believe that by taking what the Prophets have actually said, instead of merely questioning them, we can start off on a higher ground, and from there we have so much more to explore. If you try to slice and dice it to fit a preconceived idea, you may find yourself stuck with that being as far as you can go in theological advancement.

    Prayer, done in the correct order, upon the source material is a vital tool here, as well and can unlock the heavens to your understanding.

    Comment by Jeff Day — May 27, 2006 @ 2:27 pm

64. Heavenly Father = Man of Holiness (Moses 6:57), Ahman (JD 2:342)
    Jesus Christ = Son Ahman (D&C 78:15,20)
    Jesus Christ = Son of Man (Matt 8:20, etc.)
    => Jesus Christ = Son of Man of Holiness

    Person like unto the Son of Man ->
    Person like unto the Son of Man of Holiness ->
    Person like unto Jesus Christ

    i.e. not Jesus

    Michael - Hebrew for “(who is) like unto God”

    plausibly equivalent to Person like unto Son of Man (of Holiness)
    Best candidate for person “like unto the Son of Man”

    Comment by Mark Butler — May 27, 2006 @ 2:28 pm

65. It is quite true that the D&C identifies the Ancient of Days as Adam or Michael in three different places. However that leads one of two additional alternatives:

    1. The person like unto the Son of Man is neither Christ nor Michael (Adam), but rather somebody like Joseph Smith

    2. The Ancient of Days is a different Adam/Michael, possibly Heavenly Father.

    Note that Adam is often known as our “first father” (Isaiah 43:27)
    Adam also means “Man” in Hebrew

    So Adam could also be the name of Heavenly Father, or in particular the Most High. Son of Man -> Son of ‘Adam’ -> Son of First Father
    First Father / Most High is logically equivalent to Ancient of Days as well.

    My opinion is that the Most High is the First Father and Ancient of Days, possibly the First Adam on the First World, but more likely in my opinion the first spirit Father, the Man of Holiness who presides over all eternity, (although they could be the same). Note that when the Most High gained a body he must have prayed to a Father who he technically outranked.

    Comment by Mark Butler — May 27, 2006 @ 3:00 pm

66. It is very clear in the BofAbr. that the one like God and the one like the Son of Man is Christ because of his salvific mission. Christ referred to himself as the Son of Man constantly — and he is identified as being God throughout the NT and LDS scriptures. The mere fact that “Michael” mean “like God” hardly