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!

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.

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)

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”.

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