By the way, this blog is great. I’m so happy to find it.

Tom

The first thing to say by way of a possible answer is that if it is Christ speaking of himself, then he does so because he is functioning as a messenger: he says what the Father would have him say, as if he were the Father.

The second thing to say would be what Robert C has said.

And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

Why does Christ refer to himself in the third person in this way? That point of view seems to reveal more about the nature of the godhead than most people consider when reading this chapter. I’ve heard explanations as varied as “they’re one in purpose” to “you’ve got to understand the concept of divine investiture.”

I know we feel doctrinal clarity about their separate identities of the godhead, but the merged point of view in the scriptures makes those separate identities a little more complex.

Not sure what to make of this, but it is something to think about for sure.

Yes, I’ve studied them some, but that project has taken back seat to a few others. The best resource without question is Faulring, Jackson, and Matthews, Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible, published in 2004 by the RSC at BYU. It is a transcription of the entirety of the JST manuscripts. Of course, it runs $100….

At any rate, it is, in many ways, the only source.

The best book to date on the JST is Robert Matthews’s “A Plainer Translation”, which was written decades ago now. It is heavily “doctrinal,” but it contains the best basic history of the JST project and provides some helpful analyses. I’m waiting to see some more productive work done—and if I need to do so, to get some of my own productive work done on it. :)

But perhaps I could add this: as I noted earlier, I’m less concerned about the actual personage speaking than I am about what is said. If someone with authority from someone else speaks in the name of that other person, then it seems that we can refer to the event as the authoritative person speaking.

An over-simplified example: a priesthood bearer gives a blessing to person Y; Y says, “The Lord promised me that X.” Someone talking about that event could legitimately speak of the Lord (rather than the priesthood bearer) making the promise. He or she could ask “What did the Lord [rather than the priesthood bearer] promise Y?”

I suppose that’s why I’m not particularly concerned with who the actual speaking personage was yet why I think it makes sense to say that it was the Father since the text identifies the speaker as the Father.

Incidentally, one of the reasons I said that I think we are still so far out from even beginning to study the JST is because we actually have two very different manuscripts for what is now the Book of Moses. Some of the differences are startling, and the version we have now is the product of an intertwining of the two manuscripts that was undertaken by the Reorganized Church.

Of course, what we actually have in the published version of the Book of Moses is canon, while the manuscripts are not. But I think we would do well to take a look at the manuscripts when we’re trying to make sense of these kinds of issues.

This is a simple statement, but I like it. In church I often hear members talk about how confusing and illogical the Protestant/Catholic view of God is. However, as you point out, understand the God of Mormonism is no cakewalk either. I think members think God is easy to understand because of the clear doctrinal issues like his body, emotions, etc. As we see from this discussion, there is still much to do in term of developing a clear consensus on a Mormon view Christologicalically.

Understanding the nature of God and how He works is not easy task (to state the obvious)

A few summary thoughts of mine:

1. I absolutely agree that this issue ought to be pretty low on the radar screen, in terms of things to quibble about. We had a fantastic Sunday School lesson on Moses 1 today, and I’m so glad this issue didn’t even come up. Much better things to talk about.

2. I am in full agreement with Jim, Robert, Joe, and others about the need to take the text seriously and not be lazy by plugging in boilerplate answers from elsewhere.

3. Jim’s comments have caused me to return more closely to the text, and this has been helpful for me, and caused me to challenge my previous view. (Interestingly, I used to read Moses 1 as the Father and then became “enlightened” on my mission from all the James Talmage.) I think there are good reasons to consider the possibility that this is the Father. This throws some things out of whack for me, theologically (related to some things Kirk has mentioned), but I’m certainly open.

4. That being said, I question whether letting “the text stand in its unicity” (in Joe’s terms) is (a) possible concerning Godhead questions and (b) actually points to “the Father” (or the Son). I’ll tackle (b) first. Clearly, if we are concerned with the text’s identification of the person first and foremost, then the most obvious label is “God.” That’s the name used over and over again. If I were teaching this lesson (or others), I would simply refer to “God” or “the Lord” or “the Lord God.” In this sense, I have no problem referring to God without distinguishing the Father or the Son. But this is why I was surprised that Jim made the distinction. If we look at the text alone, “The Father” is used only once and not in a way that unambiguously points to the being’s identity (v. 24).

This leads me to point (a). To say this is “the Father” seems to be bringing in theological interpretations about the Godhead from elsewhere. Now, this may not be as heavy handed as relying on Talmage and McConkie. I admit that “the Father” is the more obvious choice, at face value, but the only reason I can say that is because of some kind of theological understanding about the Godhead, which comes from outside the text. Moreover, if we consider all of the Book of Moses as the text, there is at least one reason to wonder if Godhood identifications can be taken at face value–in Moses 5:9, the Holy Ghost says, “I am the Only Begotten of the Father.” I suspect others here are not going to “let the text stand in its unicity” and say, “Well, the Holy Ghost must be the Only Begotten.” Moreover, assuming that cross-referencing scriptures can help us interpret a text, the verses Kirk C. cites (D&C 29:1 coupled with 29:42) at least should give one pause about jumping to the conclusion that this must be the Father.

5. So, my conclusion (for now): Godhood issues are complex in Mormonism, and Moses 1 is good evidence of that. Whether it’s the Father or the Son probably is not all that important (though I probably tentatively lean with the Son for theological reasons). Considering the complexity and the unimportance, I think there is wisdom that the third-person references in the Moses chapters are always “God,” “the Lord,” and “the Lord God.” Considering this, I still question Jim’s use of the term “the Father” (while remaining open that it could be the Father).

Thoughts?

However, I still think who is speaking matters! :p

Don’t we only assume—for all the same reasons we assume the Son is speaking in Moses 1—that the Father speaks nowhere else? Why, for instance, do we assume that it is the Son and not the Father who does the speaking in the Garden? Nephi, for one, reports words he claims he heard directly from the Father (which he clearly distinguishes from the Son) in 2 Nephi 31. I’m just not sure I see this being so unique a story. Certainly, I think it important to recognize that we assume its uniqueness without getting to work on other texts.

But perhaps it is unique. (I certainly wouldn’t be offended by that!) But if so, why is that important? (That’s not to say that it isn’t. That’s to ask why it is.) What difference does it actually make about how we read this text?

And if it is unique, why have people been so apt to dismiss the possibility that the Father speaks uniquely here (as in the manual)? Why not let the text stand in its unicity?

At any rate, while I don’t think we’ve really begun, as a people, to study texts like the Book of Mormon and the D&C, I think we still decades away from even possibly beginning to think about beginning to study the JST. Though I am interested to know what this recent (enormous) commentary on Moses 1-6 has to say about all this. Anyone purchased it?

As I said in #16, I think it makes a difference. If this is The Father speaking then is the ONLY account in scripture (or otherwise) that we have of The Father personally preaching to a prophet (or anyone) rather than simply announcing Christ.

To me that is very theologically significant, because it begs the question, “why?” Why would The Father talk to Moses and not Adam, Enoch, JS, Peter, or any other prophet? Any interpretation of The Father as speaker in Moses one must deal with this question.

And Joe, I had not taken into accounts the dates of sec. 19 and Mos. 1. This might make me reconsider, or at least think deeper, on the Endless issue.

I found myself reflecting particularly, during the lesson today, on this question of the name “Endless.” I was struck by the proximity in time between the reception of D&C 19 only a few months before Joseph received (or “translated”) Moses 1 (March 1830 and June 1830). I wonder if this proximity is suggestive at all. I think the two passages certainly need to be thought about side by side.

I was also struck by the rhetorical question “is not this endless?” to which Jim draws attention. That almost seems to mark this passage as being a kind of inversion of D&C 19. There, no rhetorical question could have worked because the explanation of “endless” is so unanticipated; here, no explanation of a divine play on words is apparently necessary, since I rhetorical question can be asked. There is much to think about here.

Re: much of the discussion:

The same silly debate about the Father vs. the Son here came up in our classroom, though it was ousted pretty quickly by our very skilled teacher. In the end, I don’t see the force of the question, unless it is to make sure we all feel pretty comfortable with interpretations offered by past authorities. As Jim says, I’m not sure I see what difference it makes to me, and I’m not sure I see what difference it would have made to Moses.

Good question. I have not actually thought about it until right now though. But I will take a crack at it! A thought from off of my head is that endless does not mean “never ending,” it is simply a title for God (as it is in Moses). God says in D&C 19:12, “endless punishment is God’s punishment,” or in other words, “God’s punishment is God’s punishment.” I see the punishment as beyond our comprehension, just as Moses could not understand the things of God.

Down in v15 of section 19 God tells the people if they will not repent they “know not” how hard will be their sufferings.

However, one thing about D&C 19 that strikes me is the only time “eternal” has a capital E is at the end of v10 when it actually refers to the name of God. It is lower case in the rest of the section. Maybe this takes away from my argument some?

Again, I have not really thought this out. I am just kind of thinking out loud. But interesting question nonetheless.

What if that was all we had? Would will still have the Gospel? Sure we would. However, the full account gives as a clearer view of what is going on. We understand the Gospel differently because of the appearance of The Father.

I am not sure exactly who is speaking, but I lean towards The Father. However, after chapter one it sounds more like the Son. So I have a theory (but I am not stuck on this) that maybe the Father AND the Son are talking with Moses in chapter one. I don’t see chapter one as much of a teaching chapter by God, I think that comes in chapter two, and beyond. Chapter one seems to announce and describe the relationship Moses has to the Son. However, I do realize for this to be true, that there is much more to the text than we have.

Why would they both appear? I’m not sure. But maybe because of the Law Moses would enact, and the movement he would start. The Father and the Son appeared to both Adam/Eve and JS. So why not Moses? All three were prophets of dispensations that would have profound effects on future generations. It would not at all seem theologically strange to have both appear to Moses in this light. I am right? I have no idea :)

In any case, I find this text curiously ambiguous.

#10, Robert, I am looking forward to reading Ranciere’s The Ignorant Schoolmaster. It should be greatly edifying!

If we simply take Joseph Fielding Smith’s interpretation of the verse as absolute and final, what is gained by reading the text for ourselves? The Church has recently warned against taking any single statement by its leaders out of context as an authoritative, final statement of doctrine—see here. I admire your respect for prophetic statements, and I think it is important to study these statements, but surely such study shouldn’t be used as an excuse not to study, pray and ponder the scriptures for ourselves, as I think is being suggested by Jim et al.

In all of the scriptures, where God is mentioned and where he has appeared, it was Jehovah who talked with Abraham, with Noah, Enoch, Moses and all the prophets…. The Father has never dealt with man directly and personally since the fall, and he has never appeared except to introduce and bear record of the Son” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:27; both quotes cited in The Pearl of Great Price, 73-74). This ability and authority of the Savior to speak as if He were the Father is defined by the First Presidency as “divine investiture of authority” (see James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, 421; citing a First Presidency statement dated in 1916).

I think these great elders and prophets of the church have answered that question. We should have no doubt who was speaking.

Kirk #8, this danger of “gaining a following” is a topic we will be addressing in reading Ranciere’s The Ignorant Schoolmaster. The trick, it seems, is to respect the individual autonomy and intelligence of those you are teaching and serving, in such a way that you are anxious to help others think and act for themselves because you sincerely believe that they can teach you something.

This actually relates to your comment in #7 about “endless.” If we thinking in terms of “endless” possibilities, then we, as teachers or leaders, never hold all of the answers. God’s kingdom is endless precisely because it is continually growing and being built, which means that it significantly depends the participation (or non-participation—which makes God truly mourn, cf. Moses 7:28) of each and every one of us, as his children.

(Also, since you’re interested in politics, compare these ideas with the participatory democracy movement—this is basically why Ranciere is interested in democracy, because of its egalitarian ideal that respects the intelligence and capability of each and every individual; also, this idea of viewing the infinite potential of others lies at the heart of Levinas’s—and Heidegger’s—critique of much of Western metaphysics….)

According to Draper, Brown and Rhodes (2005)the textual basis for the claim is in the use of ‘I am’ in vs 3, as a dramatic reiteration or echoing of the name of Jehovah: ‘I am the Lord God Almighty…’; ‘I am without beginning of days …’, though they belatedly acknowledge that this may be a grammatical rather than a theological rendering.

Despite this Jim’s point seems a fair one: the Father declares Moses’ status as a likeness to His son: ‘…thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten’ (vs 6); later Satan declares ‘I am the Only Begotten…’ (vs 19), Moses discerns the difference between Satan and ‘the God of glory’ whom he has beheld (vs 20)and calls upon Him, receives strength (in similitude of the Only Begotten) and in the name of the Only Begotten casts Satan out. The logic of the text is that the God of glory that Moses beholds and converses with is the Father, not the Only Begotten.

If I read the text according to what it most clearly says, without introducing theological assumptions into it that I bring in from someplace else, then it seems to me that the Father is the most likely person speaking here.

In v19 Satan starts ranting and raving, and in v20 Moses “began to fear exceedingly.” Satan works on fear. Although Moses had just talked with God face to face, there is something that is still scary about not following Satan. In our lives, we can have a testimony that fails us if we fear mobs or fall to peer pressure. It’s scary not to follow God, but sometimes we might feel more fearful not to follow Satan. Satan only needs to pressure you by fear once to do something before you are hooked, then he no longer needs fear. Good old fashion temptation works just fine after that.

In 4:1, Satan wants all the honor himself. This comes today often in the form of church callings. People often lean on Bishops, Stake Presidents, etc. for friendship, doctrine, and many other things. Although this is good in some cases, it is bad if they start to gain a “following.” Satan wanted a following that honored and revered him, and it is easy for us to fall into the same trap if we are in leadership callings. We can demand “honor” and “respect” from those we are supposedly serving. There is something that does not work when thinking about a servant demanding things from those he serves.

Everything spoken about here is of an eternal nature, therefore the title of Endless. The name of God always seems to correspond with what is going on in scripture at the time. God asks Moses a rhetorical question to let him know that even if he answers correctly, he can still not understand all things about Him. The same goes for us, we can learn about God, and give all the right answers, but we still do not “comprehend” the eternal nature of God.

From the Gospel Doctrine manual: “… Jehovah, not Heavenly Father, appeared to Moses in this vision. Jehovah was the premortal Jesus Christ and the God of the Old Testament. He is one with his Father in purpose and represents him in power and authority. His words are those of the Father, and sometimes, as in Moses 1:6, he speaks in the first person for the Father.”

Elder McConkie: “The God here involved was the Lord Jehovah, though his words were those of the Father; he was, of course, speaking by divine investiture of authority.” (Promised Mesiah, p. 601)

Still, I appreciate the questions. Too many teachers in the Church try to teach without asking questions. Gospel Doctrine class should not be lecture based, but discussion based.

Thanks for these questions.

I’m intrigued by your reference to God as “the Father” in this chapter. I’m curious why you do so. Might I be incorrect in my assumption (and biblical teaching) that the Father has never revealed anything personally, except to introduce and endorse His Son? And that even when “God” refers to His Only Begotten, this is actually the Son speaking on behalf of the Father?

Are you familiar with Dennis Packard’s book about how to study the scriptures? Your methodology (of asking frequent, pertinent questions about what is contained in each verse) seems somewhat similar to his (or vice versa; I’m not commenting on chronology here, nor do I think it is important). If you are familiar with it, I was just curious what you think about it.