What’s wrong with this story? (From the Family Home Evening Resource Book.)
- Aaron B.
- About
- About BCC:
- Amri Brown
- Archives
- Author List
- BCC Papers
- Brad
- Cynthia L.
- google7cb0590cb8f68202.html
- J. Nelson-Seawright
- J. Stapley
- John C.
- John F.
- John Hamer
- Karen H.
- Kathryn Lynard Soper
- Kevin Barney
- Kristine
- M. Norbert Kilmer
- Margaret Blair Young
- Mark Brown
- Natalie B.
- Rebecca J.
- RJH
- Russell Arben Fox
- Sam MB
- Scott B.
- Steve Evans
- Steve P.
- Tracy
One that slipped through Correlation…
April 24, 2006 — RJH36 Responses to “One that slipped through Correlation…”
LDS Headlines- The Mormon queen of the damned - New Zealand Herald
- LDS temple in heart of historic Philly - Salt Lake Tribune
- LDS-gay dialogue - Salt Lake Tribune
- Davone Bess: Mormon, Badass - MVN.com
- Congrats to LDS - Salt Lake Tribune
- Film documents Mormon role in gay marriage debate - The Associated Press
- Mormon Times national calendar - Mormon Times
- Brothers sue Boy Scouts, Mormon Church over alleged abuse - 1590 KLIV Silicon Valley News
- All for the love of the manger - Salt Lake Tribune
- West Valley City family cites religion in fighting deportation - Deseret News
Meta
April 24, 2006 at 6:09 pm
A pair of second-hand BCC boxer shorts to the winner.
(Of course, most early Mormons would have found nothing wrong with this story.)
April 24, 2006 at 6:34 pm
I’m chalking the weirdness of this post up to your Britishness, Ronan.
April 24, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Or his expertise in the Old Testament. Methinks his education goes a bit beyond the exegesis of scripture using pictures of a bee to represent the word “be”. Unfortunately, mine does not. So I’m lost, too.
April 24, 2006 at 6:39 pm
the icon and word families
April 24, 2006 at 6:40 pm
p.s. — we have BCC boxer shorts?
April 24, 2006 at 6:41 pm
Bless his “families” … ok, how do I get the shorts? I’ve a friend’s client who sells them on the internet, so I’ll be able to make use of them.
April 24, 2006 at 6:56 pm
Joseph Smith taught that Abrahamic or Patriarchal priesthood is/was patrilineal. So Terah didn’t need to ‘give’ it to Abram/Abraham. Abraham already had it?
(The Melchizedek Priesthood is given by oath and covenant. Maybe if Terah had it he could have ordained Abraham? But, maybe the conflation of the three priesthoods into a single priesthood is the error?)
OR… maybe the error is that priesthood does not help you ‘bee’ a better person, you ‘can only bless others through it but not yourself’–as we commonly hear in Sunday School.
… trying to read your mind.
April 24, 2006 at 7:05 pm
It’s gotta be “bless his families” (plural)–as mentioned above.
April 24, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Abraham didn’t serve “Heavenly Father” all his life (from the first sentence). He originally worshipped other gods (as did his father). Abraham came around to worship He who came to be known as “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” only later in life.
April 24, 2006 at 7:08 pm
ye gods!
(there’s a hint there)
April 24, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Error number two: God didn’t tell Abraham to go away into another country, he told “Abram” to go. Same God later changed his name to “Abraham.”
April 24, 2006 at 7:13 pm
I agree with the “families” comment. It indicates that he was a polygamist, which would not pass correlation. Of course, it also shows Abraham as having a beard – and that would not pass the correlation committee wither. Not any more!
Families is also use din the Book of Mormon to show that the Brother of Jared was a polygamist – but that Jared was not. At least not at that time, because Jared only had one “family”:
Ether 1:41
41 Go to and gather together thy flocks, both male and female, of every kind; and also of the seed of the earth of every kind; and thy families; and also Jared thy brother and his family; and also thy friends and their families, and the friends of Jared and their families.
Stan Shepp
Southern Utah
Center of the Universe
stanshepp@yahoo.com
April 24, 2006 at 7:14 pm
Well, it appears there is more than one error! Still, there’s something really THEOlogically problematic here (for 20th century Mormons).
April 24, 2006 at 7:17 pm
Here is my try:
“Heavenly Father” didn’t tell Abraham to do any of these things, Jehovah did.
April 24, 2006 at 7:17 pm
Jehovah, since Talmage, is Christ, not the Father.
April 24, 2006 at 7:18 pm
Curses, foiled again. Nice, Jared.
April 24, 2006 at 7:22 pm
all his children would be “gods” not “blessed”? (d & c: 132:27)
that through Abram/Abraham all families would be blessed (not just ‘his’ families)?
April 24, 2006 at 8:09 pm
#14 is what I had in mind. What size, Jared?
April 24, 2006 at 8:33 pm
You have more than one size of second-hand boxer shorts? Are you a collector?
April 24, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Jared #19: Eww.
April 24, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Whoops. We’re all out. Sorry.
April 24, 2006 at 11:57 pm
Are these boxer shorts of the approved LDS pattern?
April 25, 2006 at 2:36 am
Heavenly Father isn’t Jehovah???
April 25, 2006 at 5:54 am
The transition from the 19th century Jehovah = Father to the Talmage reformulation Jehovah = Son was not fully effected and still has some lingering debris, as in this illustration.
Two examples:
1. When I was a missionary, we used OT prooftexts to demonstrate that God (the Father) was embodied. This is common among missionaries. But the texts we used presumable were speaking of the not yet embodied Son, not the Father. (Ignoring the spiritual embodiment, as described by Paulsen in his BYU Studies article on divine embodiment.)
2. When I was young, we were taught that we came to this earth to get a body, for this was a necessary step in our progression towards godhood. But, oops–Jehovah, the God of the OT, somehow made it to God without yet going through mortality and gaining a body.
So the transition, even after all this time, hasn’t been seamless.
April 25, 2006 at 6:00 am
(Ronan reads OT Bible story to his son)
Jacob: Daddy, who’s the Lord? Is it Heavenly Father?
Ronan: Um, er, well…
This is a mess!
April 25, 2006 at 6:37 am
Kevin, given all the different maps that have historically been offered of the Godhead (and the mess that has made of things), the formulation that I take most seriously was given in the years immediately preceding the Talmage formulation; viz., basically, that the exact biographies of the Godhead are not a matter of great importance to the salvation of the Saints.
This makes it easier to navigate the Sebellianism of Abinadi, the dual Godhead (Binity?) of The Lectures on Faith, the Adam-God theory, the Quadhead that includes Heavenly Mother, etc. Of course, it also robs us of the ability to criticize that abomination we call “The Trinity,” but that seems to me like a fair trade.
BTW, (as you probably already know) the Talmage formulation was also taught by Frederick G. Williams and a couple other apostles back in those freewheeling days when church leaders cultivated their own theologies.
April 25, 2006 at 8:59 am
I’m not sure this is really a mistake…we use this kind of loose phrasing all the time, especially with children. For example: “Heavenly father has told us not to wear multiple earrings.”
April 25, 2006 at 9:36 am
I wonder if temple attendance might help clarify the question. Elohim and Jehovah – Father and Son.
April 25, 2006 at 12:27 pm
26 Comment by DKL — April 25, 2006 @ 6:37 am -
> Kevin, given all the different maps that have historically
> been offered of the Godhead (and the mess that has made of
> things), the formulation that I take most seriously was
> given in the years immediately preceding the Talmage
> formulation; viz., basically, that the exact biographies
> of the Godhead are not a matter of great importance to the
> salvation of the Saints.
While the exact biographies may not be of great importance, the exact character of God should be. Whether Jehovah had a body or not, would seem to indicate who He was – The Father or the Son.
Joseph Smith taught the importance of knowing the character of God as follows:
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843–44, p.343
There are but a very few beings in the world who understand rightly the character of God. The great majority of mankind do not comprehend anything, either that which is past, or that which is to come, as it respects their relationship to God. They do not know, neither do they understand the nature of that relationship; and consequently they know but little above the brute beast, or more than to eat, drink and sleep. This is all man knows about God or his existence, unless it is given by the inspiration of the Almighty.
If a man learns nothing more than to eat, drink and sleep, and does not comprehend any of the designs of God, the beast comprehends the same things. It eats, drinks, sleeps, and knows nothing more about God; yet it knows as much as we, unless we are able to comprehend by the inspiration of Almighty God. If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves. I want to go back to the beginning, and so lift your minds into a more lofty sphere and a more exalted understanding than what the human mind generally aspires to.
*end quote*
Brigham Young agreed:
It is one of the first principles of the doctrine of salvation to become acquainted with our Father and our God. The Scriptures teach that this is eternal life, to “know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent;” this is as much as to say that no man can enjoy or be prepared for eternal life without that knowledge. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.4, p.215, Brigham Young, February 8, 1857)
If you want to know what Brigham said he learned from Joseph Smith, you will have to read it yourself. You certainly won’t learn Brigham Young’s and Joseph Smith’s teachings from Talmage, McConckie or Hinckley.
Stan Shepp
Southern Utah
Center of the Universe
stanshepp@yahoo.com
April 25, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Two thoughts: 1) it appears that early christians believed that Jehovah was Jesus Christ. At least this is what Justin said in his “Dialogue with Trypho”, (ca. 160 a.d.). Yet, 2) if this be the case, I have always been puzzled by who ancient Israelites prayed to. Since YHWH was their only God, Jesus declaring “before Abraham was, I AM”, and the Jews at the time of Jesus seemed to be confused as to who the Father was; it would appear to be that they prayed to Jesus. This is certainly is a tad problemic to me.
April 25, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Why problematic? Isn’t that the whole point? Isn’t that the ironic twist to the whole Christian message? Their very own God that they prayed to came down and lived amongst them and the powerful and corrupt among them had Him killed.
April 25, 2006 at 8:30 pm
But, oops–Jehovah, the God of the OT, somehow made it to God without yet going through mortality and gaining a body.
Obviously, I’m way too steeped in Adam-God “theory” to see this as a problem.
Adam-God sure seems to solve a lot of doctrinal “problems”.
April 26, 2006 at 11:48 am
What about divine investiture of authority? There are lots of scriptural accounts that are more problematic (at least in their official interpretations) – Moses 7 for example, where it is held that the speaker is Jesus Christ (for consistency presumably) in complete disregard of the text itself.
Not just mere transitive authorization (e.g. the Father told the Son who told Abraham), but a complete transparency of identity, to the point where the Son impersonates the Father to the degree that any actual identification is suspect – speaking of oneself in third person, echoing the personal sentiments of another, indeed effectively acting as an “intercom” in a third party conversation.
Perhaps the more interesting question is not the identification of Jehovah as the Son in the Old Testament, but the theological or doctrinal motivation for such identification. Jehovah as Heavenly Father sure seems to make a lot more sense. Why the apparent urge to turn Heavenly Father into an absentee landlord?
We know that Heavenly Father has committed all judgment into the hands of his Son (John 5:22), but if he acts as a bystander nearly all of the time, what exactly does he do anyway? i.e. if that were the case, wouldn’t it be more consistent to address our prayers to the Son and let the Father enjoy an (apparently) well deserved retirement? (No offense intended)
April 26, 2006 at 6:24 pm
historically this is the paper read on the subject.
Boyd Kirkland, “Jehovah as Father: The Development of the Mormon Jehovah Doctrine,†Sunstone 9:2 (Aug 1984): 36-45.
There are justified quibbles with Kirkland’s conclusions, but it seems true that this is an increasingly prominent solution.
PS, I think the problem is that Abraham and his papa look a little Semitic. They were WASP, as is well known.
April 26, 2006 at 7:28 pm
I find the sermon of Abinadi is a good thing to refer any curious children to. What’s really awesome to me is that Allah is also Jehovah.
April 30, 2006 at 2:51 pm
I see the multiple people icon as being children (sometimes the children he personally fathered, and sometimes his children, his “seed” throught the ages downward from his time . . .)
Much less of a problem than reading the icon as family or families! At least for me, anyway.
As for what’s wrong with the story, I have no idea; if it is that Abram/Abraham didn’t worship Jehovah/God until later in life, there’s no way one could know that just from reading this page. Is it supposed to be figure-out-able from just reading this page?
I’m probably being really dense, here, and it’s probably been said in the replies. Still, I don’t get it. Lol!