So I am going to disagree with Joseph Fielding Smith

[TexTechCoug]

I was reading the Old Testament Manual and studing Moses 1 and I noticed that it emphasized the when God speaks it is not God the Father, but Jehovah. It references Articles of Faith by Talmage, but Talmage only says that "generally" when God speaks in the Old Testament, it is Christ as Jehovah.

While hunting for more references I came across the definitive Church statement which is a 1st presidency addendum to a Relief Society manual from the 70's which says that God only spoke to announce Christ after the Fall. They cite Smith.

Smith cites Inspired version of the NT, John 1:19, but his interpretation is narrow, and is not how I would read the scripture.

19 And no man hath seen God at any time, except he hath borne record of the Son; for except it is through him no man can be saved.

I read that scripture to say that when God appears he always bears record of Christ, not that he only bears testimony of Christ, two very different things.

Long story short, I think that Moses actually spoke with God the Father, especially after reading Moses 1 and looking at the references. I think Smith had an odd narrow interpretation that has become pseudo-doctrine to the effect that God the Father wouldn't lower himself to interact with man in Person following the Fall.

[jay santos]

I was reading the Old Testament Manual and studing Moses 1 and I noticed that it emphasized the when God speaks it is not God the Father, but Jehovah. It references Articles of Faith by Talmage, but Talmage only says that "generally" when God speaks in the Old Testament, it is Christ as Jehovah.

While hunting for more references I came across the definitive Church statement which is a 1st presidency addendum to a Relief Society manual from the 70's which says that God only spoke to announce Christ after the Fall. They cite Smith.

Smith cites Inspired version of the NT, John 1:19, but his interpretation is narrow, and is not how I would read the scripture.

19 And no man hath seen God at any time, except he hath borne record of the Son; for except it is through him no man can be saved.

I read that scripture to say that when God appears he always bears record of Christ, not that he only bears testimony of Christ, two very different things.

Long story short, I think that Moses actually spoke with God the Father, especially after reading Moses 1 and looking at the references. I think Smith had an odd narrow interpretation that has become pseudo-doctrine to the effect that God the Father wouldn't lower himself to interact with man in Person following the Fall.

As a missionary I thought our trinity doctrine was so much more logical than the Christian doctrine. But issues like this, the Christian answer is much tidier. Both doctrines have their weaknesses.

[Donuthole]

19 And no man hath seen God at any time, except he hath borne record of the Son; for except it is through him no man can be saved.

I read that scripture to say that when God appears he always bears record of Christ, not that he only bears testimony of Christ, two very different things.

I think the "he" is man, not God, and the "him" is Christ.

[ERCougar]

As a missionary I thought our trinity doctrine was so much more logical than the Christian doctrine. But issues like this, the Christian answer is much tidier. Both doctrines have their weaknesses.

I think ours has a lot more.

[creekster]

I think ours has a lot more.

Really? DO you mean the doctrine has more weakness or that it is harder to reconcile to the scriptures.

[ERCougar]

Really? DO you mean the doctrine has more weakness or that it is harder to reconcile to the scriptures.

I'll say both. I'm headed to bed so maybe I'll get more into this tomorrow, but I actually don't think the Trinity presents many scriptural difficulties, and has about 1500 years more serious thought behind it.

(EDIT: I also don't think it's a terribly important distinction...)

[creekster]

I'll say both. I'm headed to bed so maybe I'll get more into this tomorrow, but I actually don't think the Trinity presents many scriptural difficulties, and has about 1500 years more serious thought behind it.

(EDIT: I also don't think it's a terribly important distinction...)

Hmmm. I think the trinity avoids the scriptural issues like Bahais avoid the prophet issue. It's all good!

[TexTechCoug]

The whole Trinity better than 3 separate beings went far afield from what I was expecting.

The scriptures do a much better job of supporting the Mormon concept of three beings.

Conceptually, the idea of more time and thought going into a particular theology doesn't really impress me as a particularly strong argument for the Trinity.

From an LDS standpoint Joseph Smith's 1st vision pretty much trumps all comers, well that and Stephen seeing both as he died.

[Jarid in Cedar]

The whole Trinity better than 3 separate beings went far afield from what I was expecting.

The scriptures do a much better job of supporting the Mormon concept of three beings.

Conceptually, the idea of more time and thought going into a particular theology doesn't really impress me as a particularly strong argument for the Trinity.

From an LDS standpoint Joseph Smith's 1st vision pretty much trumps all comers, well that and Stephen seeing both as he died.

Which version of said vision?

[UtahDan]

One of the things that highlights this oddity is considering who the people of the Old Testament prayed to. If the only god they knew was Jehovah (Jesus) then they prayed to him. So why do we pray to the Father?

The idea of the trinity does have some appeal. As Toscano says, there is a lot of power for many people in the idea that God himself saved his people and not that he sent someone else to do it.

[pellegrino]

Which version of said vision?

I was going to say . . .

[Indy Coug]

As Toscano says, there is a lot of power for many people in the idea that God himself saved his people and not that he sent someone else to do it.

I think the greatest power lies in the ability to empower others to become as powerful as you are, not hoarding the power for yourself.

[Maximus]

Which version of said vision?

How about this: the entire D&C supports the trinity as three separate. I don't really see anything in the Bible that supports them as being all the same physically. Christ himself said we should be one with eachother as he is one with the father (he did not ask us to be one physical being.)

[Maximus]

I'll say both. I'm headed to bed so maybe I'll get more into this tomorrow, but I actually don't think the Trinity presents many scriptural difficulties, and has about 1500 years more serious thought behind it.

(EDIT: I also don't think it's a terribly important distinction...)

1500 years during the apostasy?

[UtahDan]

I think the greatest power lies in the ability to empower others to become as powerful as you are, not hoarding the power for yourself.

Don't other Christian faiths believe that if they are saved that they receive everything the father has?