Archive for category: Needed Reformation

The Church should continually work to UNDO the Nicene Creed, instead of creating their own version of it as we sometimes do. Allowing space for MULTIPLE working orthodox Christologies, which help us LEAD greater Christianity into more knowledge instead of simply alienating ourselves from them.

Joseph Smith restored at least TWO seemingly distinct Christologies, just as the early pre-Nicene Church had. The first of these was at least on the surface similar to the standard Nicene view, where the Father was “a personage of Spirit,” and the Son “a personage of Tabernacle.” (See Lectures on Faith) Christ being “both the Father & the Son” (Ether 3/Mosiah 15). Even Joseph Smith’s early 1832 & 1835 accounts of the first vision aligned with this view, mentioning only ONE divine being existing ‘on the right hand of God’ (see D&C 76:20–23, Acts 7:55–56, Heb 12:1–3, Eph 1:21, Luke 22:69).

Later in Joseph’s life, he restored an expanded, more complex view of the Godhead similar to many of the pre-Nicene sects of Christianity. This included expanding his account of the First Vision to include the more complete two visible divine beings. As well as the ideas on the progression of Gods. This mirrored the expanded social-trinity Christologies held by many first and second century Christian Jews & Egyptians mystery schools which taught various views of God, just as valid as the views which won out in the Nicene Creed.

WE SHOULD HAVE FAITH THAT THIS WAS BY DESIGN! Joseph’s job as a restorer was not necessarily to completely solve these early Church disagreements and paradoxes, but to restore them and let the church body relook & solve them as God continually reveals himself until the Last Day when the rifts between all Western Religions are healed. But instead of holding space for these multiple views & their complexities/nuances, the church has more or less created its own Nicene Creed, or idol, defining a particular orthodox (and often inconsistent) view. WE NEED TO REFORM THIS, and lead the way in helping greater Christianity relook at the many ways the Hebrew prophets, scriptures and early church fathers saw the Godhead. And take care not to turn our Western conception of god into a rigidly carved idol.

14 Ye shall correct the Gentiles in their ways, for, lo, they have corrupted themselves …in matters pertaining unto the powers of the living God [sefirot/dynameis/emanations] they have corrupted themselves, in that they say I am not one. Lo, I Am One, saith the LORD. JHWH is my name. I have none other. My Spirit is holy and my tabernacle is Saviour. I am Saviour, and beside me there is no god. There is no other path but mine. I split not asunder. Thou shalt not be instructed of the churches, but thou shalt instruct them, for indeed have they corrupted themselves before me; and my spirit shall come upon you to teach the nations. (Book of Ben Kathryn, 46:14)

.

[TLDR SUMMARY: THE ORIGINAL GOVERNMENT OF GOD WAS SIMPLE. A KING’S COURT (PHAROAH’S COURT). FATHER-SONs-SERVANTs. Each of these echelons had multiple ‘modes’ of communication (sefirot/dynameis). Divine Presence, divine Word, the divine Name, the divine Angel, the divine Mantle, the divine Face/Arm/Hand/etc and finally the divine Spirit (or communal/astral projection). ONE God manifesting in body & spirit, father & son. Its that simple. All are ONE COURT. Each act in the name of the KING YHWH. With the mixing of Egyptian (modalism-ish) & Babylonian/Greek (trinitarian-ish) cultures these concepts became convoluted. And occasionally used wrong. Especially in how Spirit & Word or other ‘modes of communication’ are mixed up or convoluted with the BEINGS who send them. Specifically SPIRT or HOLY GHOST being convoluted with Father, Son or Servants. ‘Modes‘ are not beings or persons or personages, but are sometimes convoluted as so (Especially divine Spirit). More importantly, Because the titles are tied to glories or levels of the divine court. (father-son-servants or celestial-terrestrial-telestial). Then if you try and tie father or son or spirit to a personage you will confuse the terms after they ascend or condescend. (such as Christ being father AND son). The terms are fluid, and must be interpreted as changing fluid titles. This is why the Theosis or ascension/condescension of god (the gods) was only taught in the inner court, because the uninitiated would confuse the terms when they didn’t understand their fluid archetypal nature. Because the concepts have such a long assorted history — any attempt to simplify and standardize the complex concepts in a rigid way will ultimately fail.]

Godhead Reform

In the following book/article, I’d like to make the argument that the LDS church should follow the example of Joseph Smith and our scriptural canon, to keep our TWO separate Christologies separate. One public, one sacred/secret–church theology & temple theology–following how the Jews and Egyptian systems taught these things. Teach publicly the traditional godhead (or reformed trinity) taught in our scripture, the lectures on faith and Joseph’s early teachings on god. But keep it separate from our Temple Theology or temple Christology or teachings on god Theosis and the mysteries of God — both of which should be recognized as speculative, fluid and idealized. In the following article, I will lay out the scriptural basis for those TWO Christologies or Godheads, and then use an abundance of apocryphal texts to make a case for their separation.

Traditional Godhead of LDS Canon

The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s canonized Lectures on Faith contain Christologies which uniquely challenge Nicene Christians, while at the same time being quite similar in a way that seems to meet traditional Trinitarians where they are. Joseph Smith explicitly taught that the Father is defined as “a personage of Spirit” and Christ is presented as BOTH the Father AND the Son.

In Lectures on Faith, originally part of the Doctrine & Covenants we read,

“There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things… They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power… The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, [or son of man] being in the form and likeness of man… He is called the Son because of the flesh… He, being the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father, possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit that bears record of the Father and the Son. These three are one.. (Lectures On Faith 5:2)

Similarly, the Book of Mormon lays out a Godhead or Christology more compatible (or palatable) to standard Trinitarian view with many verses about Christ being BOTH the Father and the Son. A concept often befuddled by D&C 130:22 and traditional/cultural LDS views of God established later by Brigham Young.

14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son… 16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh. (Ether 3:14–16)

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. 2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father AND THE Son— 3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son— 4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. (Mosiah 15:1–5)

14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side… that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world. (3 Nephi 11:14)

27 …verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one. (3 Nephi 11:27)

And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father! (1 Nephi 11:21, 1830 edition)

And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world… (1 Nephi 11:32, 1830 edition. See also 1 Nephi 11:18, 11:40, Mormon 7:7)

These are VERY IMPORTANT distinctions. As the words of Joseph Smith in the Lectures on Faith and Book of Mormon also agree much more closely with what the revelation of the LORD’s Jewish prophet Jachanan Ben Kathryn says concerning how the gentiles have corrupted the true understanding of the Godhead, presumably through their creeds and confused platonic thinking. The Jewish prophet Jachanan Ben Kathryn suggests the gentile trinitarian dispensation has been incorrect in their view of God, as JHWH is the God of the Old Testament and is Israel’s only god, and came to earth to show His people the only way to the father.

4 Ye shall correct the Gentiles in their ways, for, lo, they have corrupted themselves; in things old and new they have corrupted themselves, in that they say I am not one. Lo, I Am One, saith the LORD. JHWH is my name. I have none other. My Spirit is holy and my tabernacle is Saviour. I am Saviour, and beside me there is no god. There is no other path but mine. I split not asunder. Thou shalt not be instructed of the churches, but thou shalt instruct them, for indeed have they corrupted themselves before me; and my spirit shall come upon you to teach the nations. (Book of Ben Kathryn 46:14)

Theosis & The Progression of Gods (LDS Temple Teachings of the Godhead)

The last two years of Joseph Smith’s life, and then under the leadership of Brigham Young, the Church changed the view of the Godhead taught in the Book of Mormon and in Joseph’s Lectures on Faith to restore/introduce the progressive theosis concepts taught in Joseph’s King Follet Discourse & Sermon in the Grove and the Temple. It was during this time that Brigham introduced the now denounced Adam-God Theory and to began to push out the more traditional view of God held as the base theology earlier in Church history. I believe this ‘standardization’ of the more speculative aspects of the nature of God was not unlike the early church’s mistake in codifying the trinity at the Nicene Creed. (only in reverse)

In fact, just as the Nicene creed corrupted Christianity by expelling Nestorians, Monophysites or others who did not align with the rigid Trinitarian dogma, Brigham codified our current view of the ‘Godhead Doctrine’ which is actually much closer to the Nestorians and Monophysite view than the Nicene trinity, and added his view into the Temple Recommend interview as a test of orthodoxy. (Pushing out Nicene trinitarian beliefs.) It’s almost as if Brigham (and perhaps God through Brigham?) was trying to REVERSE the damage done by the Nicene creed, but WENT TO FAR THE OTHER DIRECTION.

But I believe we need to recognize that this speculative Christology is just that, and just as Brigham’s Adam-God theory went TOO far into speculation, so also D&C 130:22’s statement that “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as any mans… [and] the Holy Ghost… is a personage of Spirit” was NOT A REVELATION, was written ONLY according to William Clayton’s memory of what he THOUGHT Joseph said in conversation with a small group at Ramus Illinois on April 2, 1843. (JS Papers rendition) That Willard Richards ‘Journal’ account comes only from William Clayton’s account (JS Papers rendition). And that it DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS what Joseph Smith carefully laid out in his canonized Lectures of Faith, speaking of the Godhead.

The idea of whether God the Father has a corporeal body is a contentious one. And regardless of whether its true we should note that Joseph seemed to be careful NOT to say that God the Father has a body of flesh & bone in either the King Follet Discourse or the Sermon in the Grove. Much like the Lectures of Faith, he calls him only a ‘personage’. Using the same language as Hebrews 1:3 and the Nicene Creed. (hypostasis, translated as ‘being’, ‘substance’ or often ‘personage’).

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. (JS. Sermon in the Grove, June 1844)

God… hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son… Who being the brightness of [God’s] glory, and the express image of his person[age] (hypostasis), and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high [highest divinity]. (Hebrews 1:1–3)

They pray unto me [my person] because I am with them… And now Father, I pray unto thee for them…that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one. (3 Nephi 19:22–23)

This language refutes the Nicene Creed’s, which condemns as heretics those who hold that Christ “is of another substance or essence” (hypostasis) than the Father; but still carefully stays within the language used by Hebrews chapter 1. We should be doing the same today as our base theology. Yet still holding space for all the views of the godhead without dogmatically condemning either classic Trinitarians or the more speculative aspects of our expanded Theosis & progression of Gods doctrines. We need to relook at D&C 130:22’s statement that “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as any mans… [and] the Holy Ghost… is a personage of Spirit“, realizing it WAS NOT A REVELATION. It may or may not be a true statement of Joseph Smith, but either way I do not believe it was ever meant to be canonized by Brigham and should remain in the realm of speculative Temple Theology and therefore the tradition of mysticism. NOT MAINSTREAM DOCTRINE.

Even Joseph Smith’s 1838 late account of the first vision is careful NOT to say the Father had a body, but again uses the careful terminology of the lectures on faith of “two personages” standing in vision before him (before he “came to himself sprawling on his back”). With the first quoting from Matt. 3:17, Matt. 17:5 & 3 Nephi 11:7. In fact, given the obvious allusions to Matt 17:5 it’s entirely possible that Joseph leaves out the detail that the first ‘personage’ might have been somewhat obscured in a cloud of the “light above the brightness of the sun” (JS-H 1:16–17) in the same manner of Matt 17:5’s language. This would better explain why in his earlier 1832-1835 accounts of the first vision, he mentions only one being.

5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. (Matt 17:5)

We as an LDS people need to repent, and turn to Jewish peoples to help us understand the ancient concepts of goodhood progression and God’s ‘powers/modes, ’emanations’ or ‘spirits’. (sefirot/dynameis) We should explore the new “Jewish” ideals of godhood taught by authors like Blake Ostler (books/youtube), Dan McClellan (books/youtube), and Margaret Barker (books/youtube), but at the same time we should NOT get weighed down or attached to speculative dogma that puts narrow definitions on the nature of God which lead to division just as the Nicene Creed did!

What is well established in LDS & Biblical scripture is that GOD has a council, and that he has invited us into a unity with that council.

God as a Divine Council (Kings Court) of King/Sons/Servants

1 God (Elohim) has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods (elohim) he holds judgement. (Psalm 82:1) I AM the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of Egypt (Psalm 81:10 – YHWH thy Elohim)

19 Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD (YHWH) sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left. (1 Kings 22:19)

6 For who in the skies above can compare with the Lord? Who is like the Lord among the heavenly beings? 7 In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared he is more awesome than all who surround him. (Psalms 89:6–7)

The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (Psalms 110:1, Matt 22:44, Acts 2:34)

21 And there came forth a spirit [to the divine council], and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him. (1 Kings 22:21)

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God [bene elohim-of the council] came to present themselves before the LORD (YHWH), and Satan came also among them. (Job 1:6)
4 Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?… when the morning stars (kowkbe) sang together and all the sons of God (bene elohim) shouted for joy? (Job 38:4–7)

7 And the Lord God (YHWH of the Elohim) formed man (ā-ḏām) of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (Spirit); and man [the Son of God, Luke 3:38] became a living soul… 22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us [an Elohim]… 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; (Gen 2:7, 3:22 & Gen 6:2)

Remember the days of old…When the Most High [El Elyon] apportioned the nations.. and fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods. (Duet 32:7-8) [70 nations/stars or sons of God. as per Dead Sea Scrolls]

32 According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter into his eternal presence and into his immortal rest. (D&C 121:32)

The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (Psalms 110:1, Matt 22:44, Acts 2:34)

Sing praises to God, sing praises! Sing praises to our King, sing praises! For God is the King of all the earth (Psalms 47:6–7)

…he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Tim 6:16, Rev 17:14)

“Rosh—the head, Sheit—grammatical termination… “The head one of the Gods brought forth the [council of] Gods.” That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council… The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world.” (Joseph Smith, King Follet Sermon).

4/7.11. And God shall have a Council and throne… 04/7.12. And God shall rule on his throne, for it is his; and his Council shall rule with him; in My name [YHWH] they shall have dominion over angels [terrestrial glory] and mortals [telestial glory] belonging to the earth. 04/7.13. And God shall appoint Chiefs under him who shall go down and dwell on the earth with mortals; and the labor of these Chiefs shall be with mortals [in telestial glory] for their resurrection. And these Chiefs shall be called Lords [Adonai, not YHWH], for they are Gods of land, which is the lowest rank of My commissioned Gods. (see Oahspe, Book of Jehovah, ch.7)

MAN:33:14 Later, Osireh went up into the Sacred High Place [of heaven] and there learned the ordinances for the wellbeing of man. He was given the rules for safeguarding the Sacred Mysteries, and he was also shown the workings of the Great Law. When he came down he chose the best of those about him and appointed the Council of Light, which numbered twenty-four… MAN:33:25 Such was Pharaoh, a god below gods, a man above men… the narrow channel between God and man, one whose task was to reveal God to men. The family of Pharaoh was, in the first place, chosen by the Council of Light. (Kolbrin, Book of Manuscripts)

See also excerpts on The Zoroastrian Book of Creation. (Domenico Thrope Translation, Oxford Press. Found in my article ‘The Cosmology or Times and Seasons (& Biblical ‘Weeks’ Prophetic Calendar)‘

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us” (John 17:21)

ONE thousand years after King David’s Psalms and 1500-2000 years after the Egyptian Book of Manuscripts, the Greek Platonist Maxiumus of Tyre (Lebanon/Palestine) clarifies the exact same rhetoric of that given in the Psalms that not only the Israelites, but the general belief in the Northern Levant was that of a head God who ruled over a court of lower gods (referred to as sons of God).

“The one doctrine upon which all the world is united is that one God is king of all and father, and that there are many gods, sons of God, who rule together with God.” (The Dissertations of Maximus Tyrius, ~150 AD)

“In such a mighty contest, sedition and discord, you will see one according law and assertion in all the earth, that there is one God, the king and father of all things, and many gods, sons of God, ruling together with him.” (The Dissertations of Maximus Tyrius)

“Apollo, Helios, and Dionysios are the same, and there are many who simply reduce all the gods to a single power” (Dio Chrysostom, ~70 AD)

“God [being too elevated to relate to this base-material world]… needs the daimons, immortal beings dwelling between heaven and earth, mediators between human weakness and divine omnipotence” (The Dissertations of Maximus, Tyrius, XIV, 8)

Note that The transformation of Egyptian and Greek ‘daimones’—originally neutral or beneficent intermediary gods—into evil “demons” primarily occurred during the rise of Early Credal Christianity, with the process starting in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE and culminating in the work of Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE). In post-Nicene philosophy, Christ was the only mediator god, and was made cosubstantial with god to solve the ‘one god problem’ and all others were divided into camps of angels or demons.

.

My Theory

Now with the basics of my reform ideas out of the way, I’d like to spend the rest of this Book/Article, explaining my Theology or Christology of the Godhead.

As you’ll see I have my own revisionist explanation of how Joseph Smith saw the Godhead, and how the different levels of the heavenly court are organized and how Jesus literally became Father, Son & Holy Spirit (condescending and re-ascending). But again to be clear, I think we should move away from imposing rigid views on this topic. Whether they be mine, Brigham Young’s or anyone else’s. We should be free to speculate and steer clear of creating our own ‘Nicene Creed’ type definitions which define orthodoxy on this difficult to understand topic. We need to enlarge the Christian tent to include all ‘good’ versions of ‘ism’.

But to summarize my view, the Godhead is set up much like a typical KINGS COURT. With ‘roles‘ of king (FATHER), his sons (SON) and Servants. These three levels of the court use many different ‘modes‘ of communication with their subjects. (sefirot/dynameis) These modes of communiqué include the divine Presence, divine Word, the divine Name, the divine Angel, the divine Face/Arm/Hand and finally the divine Spirit (or communal projection). I believe New Testament writers were influenced by Neoplatonistic thought to make the Spirit or Holy Ghost a third (lesser) member of the Godhead in a way that’s only half true and very confusing. Spirit or Holy Ghost is better described as God’s foremost mode of communiqué. An Egyptian concept (ka) of a thought-form that shared the mind of an individual (see Kolbrin quotes below). It was also a dualistic reference to the invisible Highest God behind the King. And because of this dualism was easily confused.

I believe we should follow Joseph’s definition of ‘The One True God’ distinguished in D&C 76’s Three Glories of God. There, he defines the unity and separation of God in the same way that he defines the ‘One True Church’. (see my article here). An assembly or collective of completely unified but separate individuals spanning different glories, roles or hierarchies. Father, Son & Servants.

So in general terms, instead of ever talking in terms of persons or personages or essence we should divide God only into three levels of GLORY of equal beings according to the Celestial, Terrestrial & Telestial glories which D&C 76 suggests the Godhead oversees (and condescends into). Thus Father, Christ & Servants are not individual personalities, to be worshipped through a personality cult. But titles of Glories full of EQUAL beings whom we worship in obedience and emulation. In terms of divine progression however, they are personalities AND glories that we can trace out and follow with one progressing into the other.

92 And thus we saw the glory of the celestial, which excels in all things—where God, even the Father, reigns upon his throne forever and ever; 94 They who dwell in his presence are the church of the Firstborn; and they see as they are seen, and know as they are known, having received of his fulness and of his grace; 95 And he makes them equal in power, and in might, and in dominion. 96 And the glory of the celestial is one [wherein dwells the fullness of the Father v.92], even as the glory of the sun is one. 97 And the glory of the terrestrial is one [wherein receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father. v.77], even as the glory of the moon is one. 98 And the glory of the telestial is one [wherein is the Holy Spirit but not the presence of the Son v.86], even as the glory of the stars is one; (D&C 76:77–98)

Compare this with the glory and oneness of God taught in the bible.

“…and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14)
“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” (John 17:5)
“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us” (John 17:21)

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord (YHWH) is one.” (Duet 6:4/Mark 12:29)

“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5, 1 Cor 8:6)

And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. (3 Nephi 11:27)

In other words, The Father, Son & Holy Ghost are archetypes or symbols of ONE God who manifests across different ‘glories’ or levels of eternal beings. Completely unified in heart, mind and spirit, but separate in glory, function and only sometimes individuality. The term LORD God (YHWH Elohim, and sometimes Spirit) would be synonymous to the Egyptian terms (quoted in the Kolbrin below) ‘Head God’, or ‘God of the Gods’, or ‘Father of the Gods’ or “the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods” of D&C 121:32. It is NOT a term referring only to Jesus, but can apply to BOTH the Father AND/OR the Son, AND/OR even the Spirit — as the Son & Spirit are both modes of communication of the Father. (As in a king giving his title or name & even a piece of his consciousness to a son or servant which allows that being to speak in His Name).

So even though the VAST preponderance of usage of YHWH in the bible seem to point to the ‘Father’ role — Jehovah/YHWH is not explicitly the name of the Father OR Son, but is a title of BOTH the Father and the Son (Mosiah 15:1–5, Ether 4:7), and even sometimes also the Spirit or Angel of the LORD or any one of many emanations/titles given in scripture. YHWH is the title given to ALL echelons or ‘glories’ of the ONE God. Which is why the ancients combined the title with the plural word for god (Elohim), to stress the composite nature of the unified deity. This becomes more clear from scriptures like those below where YHWY is applied to nearly all aspects of God, as well as from the many Egyptian texts seen later in this article from the Kolbrin.

In fact think how silly it is to rigidly suppose that the word Elohim is the rigid, proper name of the ‘Father’, when so often the term refers to the god’s of other nations or to the ‘role’ of Jehovah as a god.

ELOHIM AS A ROLE NOT AN INDIVIDUAL (YHWH AS ELOHIM)

“I am YHWH your Elohim, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” (ex 20:2)
“You shall love YHWH your Elohim with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” (Deut 6:5)
“Know therefore that YHWH your Elohim, He is God (El), the faithful God (El), who keeps His covenant…” (Deut 7:9)
“Return, O faithless sons, I will heal your faithlessness. Behold, we come to You; for You are YHWH your Elohim.” (Jer 3:22)
“You shall have no other gods (elohim) before me.” (Ex 20:3)
“They went and served other gods (elohim) and worshiped them, gods (elohim) whom they had not known and whom he had not allotted to them.” ( Deut 29:26)

YHWH/JEHOVAH AS PRIMARILY THE FATHER

8 “But now, O Jehovah (YHWH), thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.” (Isaiah 64:8)
6 “Do ye thus requite Jehovah (YHWH), O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee?” (Deuteronomy 32:6)
22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord (YHWH) God Almighty and the Lamb (Christ) are the temple of it. (Rev 21:22)
11 “I (Jehovah/YHWH) am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.” (Jeremiah 31:9)
“I thank thee, O Father, Lord (YHWH?) of heaven and earth…” (Matt 11:25, see also John 10:30, 17:11-23, D&C 20:28; 121:28)
“The LORD (YHWH) said unto my Lord (Adonai)…” (Psalms 110:1)
“The LORD (YHWH) hath said unto me, Thou art my Son…” (Psalms 2:7)
“Yet it pleased the LORD (YHWH) to bruise him…” (Isaiah 53:10)

YHWH/JEHOVAH AS SON

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I AM [YHWH]!” (John 8:58/Ex 3:14)

“He [the Father] also says [to the Son]: ‘In the beginning, LORD [YHWH], you laid the foundations of the earth…'” (Heb 1:10) — as applied to “”In the beginning you [YHWH] laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens” (Psalm 102:25)

“…that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow… and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord [Kyrios/YHWH].” (Philippians 2:10–11)

YHWH/JEHOVAH AS SPIRIT

“Now the Lord (Kyrios/YHWH) is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty… even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” (2 Cor 3:17–18)
“Whither shall I go from thy [YHWH‘s] spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy [YHWH‘s] presence? (Psalm 139:7)
“Who hath directed the Spirit of Jehovah (YHWH), or being his counsellor hath taught him?” (Isaiah 40:13)

YHWH/JEHOVAH AS ANGEL & ‘WORD’

“By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath [Ruach/Spirit] of his [YHWH‘s] mouth (Psalm 33:6)
“And the angel of the LORD (YHWH) appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire…When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush” (Exodus 3:2–4)

YHWH/JEHOVAH AS ANGEL WITH DIVINE NAME

20 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way… obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. 22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak… 25 And ye shall serve the Lord [YHWH] your God, (Ex 23:20–25. compare Ex. 34:889)

THE FATHER IS THE SON

“For unto us a child is born, unto us A SON is given… and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The EVERLASTING FATHER, The Prince of Peace.” (Isa 9:6)

And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being THE FATHER AND THE SON (Mosiah 15:1–5)

YHWH AS NOBODY BUT YHWH

5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 6 That they may know… that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:5–6)
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deut 6:4, Mark 12:29)

IDENTITY PARADOX/PROLEPSIS

In these scriptures, if one holds to a strict view that “Jehovah = Jesus” and “Elohim = Heavenly Father” distinction, these passages create a significant identity paradox where the speaker appears to be talking about themselves as a separate person.

[PAY CLOSE ATTENTION HERE:]

Now here’s the radical part of my theory. Its deeper than simple “Divine Investiture of Authority“. The personality/personage of Jesus/Yeshua, played the role of Father, Son AND Spirit. As a celestial FATHER-level being who condescended one level to become the SON and a second level to become the SPIRIT. Organizing the other beings of those levels to also become SONS and servants/SPIRITS. In other words, YHWH or Jesus before coming to earth was the FATHER-god of Israel. (or LORD God). He then condescended and came to earth as a terrestrial human becoming the SON-god, where he organized his followers to also become SONS of god and carry on the work of the SON. Between his death and Resurrection he descended into Hell or the telestial spirit realm as the SPIRIT or Servant of god, where he also organized his followers to become SERVANT-SPIRITS of god and carry on his work of the HOLY SPIRIT. After which he arose to ascend back to the highest realm to again become a celestial FATHER. In this framing, then its natural for each united level or glory of god (celestial-terrestial-telestial, father-son-servant) to speak in the name of, or as, any of the other godhead members. They can all operate as ‘modes’ (as in modes of communication) to each of the other roles or levels of beings. This is why in the New Testament, Christ is said to be EACH of the god-head members. FATHER, SON & SPIRIT. Its also why Christ said that unless he died the Spirit could not come to his disciples.

CHRIST AS SPIRIT/HOLY GHOST

-“Now the Lord is that Spirit” (2 Cor 3:17)
-“the “last Adam” (Christ) became a life-giving spirit” (1 Cor 15:45)
-“if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Romans 8:9)
-“for if I go not away, the Comforter [Spirit] will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.” (John 16:7)
-“quickened by the Spirit… by which [Christ] went and preached unto the spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:18–19)
-“from among the righteous [in the spirit world, Christ] organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead.” (D&C 138:29–30)

So YHWH or the unseeable, Invisible ‘God’ (Col 1:15, John 1:18, 1 John 4:12, Koblrin), relates to mankind through a symbolic set of emanations/roles and modes, such as God’s Son, His Spirit, His Angel, His Word, His Voice, His Council. Which Christ and his apostles (and Joseph Smith) simplified into a system of THREE levels or glories of THREE actual beings. Father – Son – Holy Ghost. With the Spirit or Holy Ghost representing both the highest invisible aspect or Breath of God as well as the lower active force or mode OR embodied/spirit world representative of God.

No one has ever yet seen God [at any time]. [But] The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known. (John 1:18 BLB)

13 …In that [resurrected] body thou shalt see God and live, and thine eyes shall see beauty. 14 But with thine eyes thou shalt not see God as he is. Therefore understand why he came and walked [as Son] amongst us as we are. 15 No creature, my son, yea, not the angels of heaven, have seen God as he is. There can no creature endure the glory of God as he is. (Nabion, Instructions to the Prophet. Chap. 19:13-15)

Additionally, once Christ is seated back in God’s throne (Rev 3:21), unembodied Man/Adam gets elevated to the status that Christ had BEFORE his incarnation, atonement and ascension. So in the framework of progressive Theosis or deistic progression of Man, Adam becomes the next future Christ as Christ becomes ONE again with the father. Thus the ‘Michael’ (Adam) of Revelation 12:7–8 is specifically the one referred to (in association with mankind) as sitting in Christ’s throne of Revelation 3:21).

MICHAEL AS ROLE OF HOLY GHOST (SERVANT/MESSANGER)

Joseph also said that the Holy Ghost is now in a state of Probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same on a similar course of things that the son has. (JS, Aug 1843 sermon & June 1844 sermon)

It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. (Brigham Young, JD Vol 1, p.50, 1852 )

Michael, the seventh angel, even the archangel, shall gather together his armies, even the hosts of heaven…For Michael… shall overcome him who seeketh the throne… (D&C 88:13–115)
[ie. NOTE that Michael/Adam is the Lord of ‘hosts of heaven’, most valiant in the coming war in heaven (just as Christ was in the last round) and shall ‘overcome him who seeketh the throne’, after the Millennium in the next cycle.]

21 To him that overcometh (ie. Michael/mankind of Rev. 12:7–8) will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Rev 3:21. See also Jude 1:9, Daniel 10:13)

Note that the ONLY way the statement “the Holy Ghost IS NOW in a state of Probation” makes sense is if either the Holy Ghost was alive (as Joseph Smith or someone) in 1843, or far more likely, if the Holy Ghost is an Archetype title that refers to the entire class of beings who have descended into mortality in this dispensation from higher realms to fulfill the function of the Holy Ghost.

With this reasoning, it may have been God the Spirit–or Michael/Adam as an archetype of Man–who appeared with Christ and testified of Christ in the First Vision. THIS would also explain why Brigham Young bungled things and confused him with God the Father. (Based on misunderstanding Joseph’s teachings of this concept) Because the Second Being of the First Vision (Adam) refers to Christ as ‘my son’ in a progeny sense and not because he is literally God’s spiritual father, but because acting as the Spirit or Holy Ghost, Michael’s job is to BARE WITNESS of the son (1 John 5:6–8), and in a more literal way, Adam is Christ’s genetic father simply as the father of all living. It’s also why Michael is the ‘third member of the Godhead‘ (below Christ) in the LDS temple ceremony and helps create the earth.

So one of many ways to look at the godhead is as follows (realizing these archetypes are fluid & changeable!)

• 0. The Most High God or Spirit of God: FATHER/SON/SPIRIT. Amalgamation of the Three. The invisible mover. (1 Tim 6:16) The ONE god (encompassed by, and Source of, the three). Unknowable SPIRIT. El Elyon (Gen 14:18–20, Psalm 57:2, 78:35). Outside of Time. This ‘first’ or highest member of the Godhead is symbolically made the same as the ‘last’ or lowest. As taught in the Gospel of Philip & Egyptian manuscripts of the Kolbrin, the Holy Spirit “is above and below“, “First and Last“. He/She is the “Great Spirit” of Oahspe. The impersonal, unknowable Law of God which pervades the universe of D&C 88:8–12, D&C 88:45–50, D&C 84:45–46. The “intelligent infinity” of The Law of One. This ‘first, highest’ essence or substance is often called or equated with the Father John 14:10 (both scripturally and almost universally by traditional Trinitarians) Trinitarians personify this essence and call it the Highest God, Mormons’ do NOT personify it, and call its god’s power, priesthood or spirit. BOTH ARE TRUE. (basic logic holds that the highest god is neither white nor black, giant nor pygmy, Homo Sapien nor Neanderthal. But unearthly, unknowable, before all & above all earthly creatures.)
• 1. The King-God the Father, Father God or Head God: This is the LDS Celestial Glory of unified embodied beings. The Head God of the Hebrew & Babylonian council of gods. The ‘head’ of the Gods of Joseph Smith King Follet Discourse. The 5th density of beings in The Law of One. The Orion Chief placed over earth of Oahspe. The God of all other Gods of D&C 121. He who Jesus sits on the right hand of (you cant sit on the right hand of an unknowable incorporeal being) and the One Jesus will take the place of. The Father of Jesus who speaks from heaven. (Matthew 17:5, Matthew 3:17, 1 John 5:7, 3 Ne 11:7). But also the pre-incarnate Jesus who is Father & Son (Mosiah/Ether/etc)
• 2. King’s Son-God the Son: This is the LDS Terrestial Glory of beings (operating in the name of the King/Father). The 7 or 12 ‘Sons of God‘ of the Hebrew & Babylonian council of gods. (D&C 76:58/Romans 8:14) The Law of One 4rth density beings. This is the aspect of God which condescends to becomes mortal. ie. Jesus. (also Israel, Psalm 82:6/D&C 35:2) These are also Celestial beings (God the Father) when they have condescended to become Mortal. Also the Angel of the Lord when operating at a corporal level (touchable). Job 1:6, 1 John 3:2
• 3. The Kings Servant-Holy Ghost or Spirit of God or Michael/Israel: This is a convoluted representation of the LDS Telestial Glory of beings–in other words, The Church in the Telestial/Prison level of the Spirit World (operating in the name of the King/Father). Also Celestial beings when operating as ministering Spirits (thought forms) on a non-corporal (not touchable) level. (1 Peter 3:18–20, D&C 129:2–6, D&C 88:3) Also the 70 ‘Servants of God‘ of the Hebrew & Babylonian council of gods. Because of their incorporeal nature, this ‘last’ or lowest member of the Godhead is symbolically made the same as the ‘first’ or highest. (D&C 84:8-13) In one important sense, it is also Michael–but only after Christ descends to ordain him while in the tomb and the ascends to the Father’s throne. In this context it’s important to note that ‘Michael the archangel’ literally translates to ‘the head Servant‘.

Understanding The Spirit or Holy Ghost as an Egyptian Ka

To really get the way the Sprit of God or Holy Ghost functions in Hebrew Scripture as an archetype or member of the Godhead, you need to first understand the Egyptian concept of a Ka/Spirit from which the Hebrew concept sprang.

The Egyptian concept of the Ka was often defined as a “likeness” or a spiritual “double” (kꜣ) that inhabited the body but could exist independently, and provides a compelling historical parallel to the evolution of the Holy Spirit as a distinct, yet consubstantial, member of the Godhead. In this framework, just as the Pharaoh possessed a Ka that acted as his divine “likeness” to execute his will on earth, the early Hebraic “Angel of the Lord” or Ruach functioned as a localized extension or mode of Yahweh’s presence, maintaining a “one, yet separate” ontological status. This transition likely influenced the Johannine and Pauline theology of the Paraclete, wherein Christ promises to remain with his followers through a spiritual “double” or “Spirit of Truth.” This Spirit effectively operates as Christ’s divine Ka, functioning as his representative agent that carries out his bidding and maintains his presence within the Church after his physical ascension, bridging the gap between a singular Godhead and its active, multi-personified influence in the material world.

In function however, the Church in the Spirit World (or in other words the Spirit’s or Ka’s of the righteous in heaven) effectively acted as Christ’s Ka. Thus there is a direct correlation between the ‘Church of the Firstborn in Heaven (led by Michael and the title or archetype of the Spirit or Holy Ghost). Note that Hebrew words & names like Michael (Mî-Kā-’ēl), meaning “[One] Who is like God,” or “in the likeness of God” preserve the Egyptian semantics and concept of Ka, promulgating into Hebrew the Egyptian belief that the Ka was the essential image or “likeness” that allowed a mortal to represent a deity’s presence.

.

Jewish/Egyptian Emanations of God
(communications from each member of kings court/council)

So the Jewish concept of God was one of ONE single God or HEAD GOD with Sons & Servants constituting ONE COUNCIL or KINGS COURT OR GODHEAD surrounded by various emanations or faces or modes of communication (sefirot/dynameis). Three tiers of beings manifesting one invisible essence (see Egyptian Kolbrin verses below). One Head God or Father, with multiple Sons of God acting in concert (Jesus being the Head of the Sons), and numerous Servants acting below the Sons constituting the Church acting as God’s Ka or Holy Spirit.

Although the terms for God are widely convoluted in biblical literature, in Jewish Mysticism God is understood as Ein Sof (The Infinite), an utterly incomprehensible, transcendent being or essence that exists beyond all description, but interacts with the universe through ten distinct modes, emanations or “attributes” (as in modes of communication) known as the Sefirot. These Sefirot—act as channels, or “filters,” through which divine energy descends and reveals itself in the created world without in any way dividing or changing the perfect unity of God. While these emanations, particularly the final one (Malchut or Shechinah), represent the immanent Divine Presence active in the world, they are not separate deities and ONLY THE TOP FOUR are considered independent beings (in Christian thought). All are rather instruments of divine will, often likened to light radiating from a single, unchanging source. (Depicted in ancient scripture and Egyptian artwork as wings, arms, hands, scepters, subgods & beasts coming from the one central Sun.)

Biblical Intermediaries (Targumim) or Modes of Communication

Before the Gentile Church arrived, Jewish scripture and tradition (the Targums and early mystical writings) already had a “Complex Monotheism with a host of intermediary beings and modes (sefirot/dynameis) through which the ONE god communed and communicated with man.” This is likely what the Book of Ben Kathryn suggests Messianic Jews will “restore/correct”:

A few examples (see more complete list above).

The Memra (The Word)

In ancient Aramaic translations of the Old Testament (Targums), whenever God interacts with the physical world, he does so through his Memra (The Word). The Memra is God, yet it is how God “steps out” of eternity into time.

Jewish Correction: Instead of the Greek Logos (which became a philosophical concept), the Hebrew Memra is God’s active, creative voice.

The Shekhinah (The Presence)

Jewish thought identifies the Shekhinah as the indwelling, “feminine” presence of God on Earth. In a Jewish “Trinity,” the Holy Spirit isn’t just a third “person” in a list; it is the Shekhinah—God’s actual, felt presence in the Temple and the heart.

The “Angel of the Lord”

The Old Testament is full of “The Angel of the Lord” who speaks as Yahweh, accepts worship as Yahweh, and is called Yahweh, yet is sent by Yahweh.

The Jewish Insight: This isn’t a “split” in God; it is God’s Messenger-Self. It is the “Face of God” that can be seen, while the “Essence of God” remains hidden.

.

Jewish Syncretisms

Israeli prophets and mystics often appropriated the gods of surrounding cultures in a process known in scholarship as syncretism (the blending of beliefs) or interpretatio graeca/hebraica (reinterpreting foreign gods through one’s own cultural lens). Or simply appropriating their names to suggest the God of Israel was their Head or the true Power behind their concepts.

In many cases, the biblical writers didn’t just “copy” these figures; they engaged in polemic. They would take a famous attribute of a foreign god (like Baal’s ability to ride the clouds) and “attribute” it to Yahweh to argue that Yahweh, not Baal, was the true master of the storm, and the true concept upon which their god was based. This use of polemic syncretism can lead to confusion when bible scholars try hard to harmonize EVERY instance or use of God’s names & titles to a single framework for the concept of God. This is the primary reason why doing so, is an excercize in futility and simply leads to confusion and division. [add examples in footnotes]

Here is a list of prominent examples where Jewish mysticism and biblical texts appear to have appropriated or reframed figures or parallel concepts from surrounding cultures (Canaanite, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian).

How the Traditional Trinity (or sometimes LDS Godhead) is “Wrong”

If we as LDS people create an entire philosophy around our doctrine of the Godhead, much as the Catholic and Christian ‘professors of religion’, we too stand the chance of being condemned under the umbrella of the divine words to Joseph Smith. “

“I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (Joseph Smith—History 1:19)

Maintaining a more fluid Jewish/Israeli perspective on the nature of god, that avoids this condemnation means:

1. Stop counting. Traditional Trinitarianism gets bogged down in the math & separateness of beings. They codified and credalized the definition and nature of Father, Son and Spirit. And they ostracized those whose views were outside that human line. This emphatically should NOT have been. NO CREDE of belief should be made on the nature of God. His nature is mystery, and only his ONENESS and unity should be definitively theologized.
2. Remove the “Greek Masks”: The word “Person” (persona) comes from the theatre—it implies a mask worn by an individual or personality. Jewish culture prefers the term “Spirit“, “Name” or “Face” instead of any debate on “personhood” of the Godhead. God has many “Names” (Elohim, Yahweh, El Shaddai), many faces and spirits, but they are all part of the same “One” invisible & indivisible God. Spending too much time philosophizing on these titles and natures in ways that are dogmatic, divisive or matter-of-fact will only lead to division and condemnation.
3. Humanity as the Bridge: A Jewish/Israeli view sees the Messiah (the Son) not as a “divine substance” or personality cult that must be ‘known’ (ie. understood) for eternal life, but as a more fluid symbol who just like the Jewish temple was revealed as an archetype for revealing the One God in a relational instead of academic way. (THIS IS KEY). A Temple, which incidentally and importantly, was NOT TO BE BUILT IN STONE in the first place– but because of Israel’s desire, they were given a temple, priesthood and king because they wanted to be like other nations, contrary to God’s initial commands. Israel as children of God was supposed to be the true temple & priesthood. And thus it is with all of God’s true followers.

.

Summary of Some Scholarly Views

Early Israel (as expressed in early scriptures like Psalm 82:1, Job 1:6 & Job 38:4–7) had a view similar to that of the Egyptians from which they sprang or Babylonians as laid out in the Kolbrin & The Bundahišn Zoroastrian Book of Creation. Which was that there was an invisible formless god, made manifest through a head god of a king’s court or divine council of God, ‘Sons of god’ and Servants/governors or luminaries. (Pharaohs and leaders being very Sons of god). However, this view was reformed by Moses/Elijah/Akhenaten/etc. Teaching a stricter form of monotheism which was only temporarily taught in Egypt, but institutionalized in a persistent manner in Israel by Hezekiah, Josiah & Ezra. This view was standardized and institutionalized and convoluted by the Deuteronomists.

The Kolbin seems to support the idea that Ezra ‘combined’, in a way, the concepts that the Northern Kingdom and common Rabbi’s had for God (El) and that which the Priests of the temple had of God (YWHW), and almost in a compromise or Syncretism settled on a combination of the two as LORD God (YHWW El).

SOF:4:3 The congregation with Amos were the Children of Light and the people were Kenim [kohanim] who worshipped Yawileth [YHWH], and Galbenim (rabbanim) who worshipped Eloah [Elohim]. But Amos taught the people to walk in the light of Truth and said, “To each of you his own god, but above any god which can be named is something that cannot be named, and you shall know it as The Supreme Spirit.” (The Kolbrin, Sons of Fire, 4:3)

Summary Table: The Path to Strict Israelite Monotheism

LDS scholars such as Dan McLellin and Blake Ostler have been reconnecting LDS concepts to the original Hebrew texts and ancient interpretations to create new, less rigid frameworks for interpreting the God Head. Blake Ostler effectively argues that Joseph Smith followed early gnostic ideas taught in the Apocryphon of John & Tripartite Tractate to equate the Hebrew concept of ‘Spirit’ with Greek and modern concepts of ‘Mind’. By calling the Spirit “the Mind,” Joseph Smith solved the philosophical problem of ‘How can two separate physical beings (Father and Son) be “one God”? He suggests, They aren’t one in body, but they are one in Logos or Mind/Spirit. Thus the Holy Breath or Spirit of God is an emanation which invisibly unifies otherwise separated entities. Much like the wind unifies the movement of trees or waves from the sea unify rocking boats or waves from a tuning fork unify humming bells, God’s mind or SPIRIT, or even the telestial class of SPIRIT beings act to unify the beings of the divine council. (Father, Sons, Angels, Cherub, Seraph, ects)] This logic follows the gnostic ideas of the Gospel of Phillip were it says “”The Father” and “the Son” are single names; “the Holy Spirit” is a double name. For they are everywhere: they are above, they are below; they are in the concealed, they are in the revealed. The Holy Spirit is in the revealed: it is below. It is in the concealed: it is above.” (3rd century, Gospel of Phillip of the Nag Hammadi Library)

Below is a summary of the views of Blake Ostler, Dan McClellan & Margaret Barker on the concept of LORD God or unity of God in the bible. We should lean on new renewed ancient “Jewish” ideals of godhood that are starting to be taught by authors like Blake Ostler (books/youtube), Dan McClellan (books/youtube), and Margaret Barker (books/youtube), but at the same time we should NOT get weighed down or attached to dogma that puts narrow definitions on the nature of God which lead to division!

• Dan McClellan (Historical-Critical): Focuses on Evolution. He argues that Yahweh and El were originally two different gods in a pantheon (Father and Son/Subordinate). Over centuries, they merged into one single character. He views “LORD God” as a linguistic fossil of that merger, not a reference to two distinct living persons in a Godhead.
• Blake Ostler (Philosophical/LDS): Focuses on Unity of Will. He accepts the historical distinction but argues it represents a “Social Trinity.” To him, Yahweh (the Son/Jesus) is the God of Israel who speaks for and embodies Elohim (the Father). “LORD God” is the title of the Son acting with the Father’s full authority.
• Margaret Barker (Temple Theology): Focuses on Restoration. She argues that the first Christians weren’t inventing something new; they were returning to the “First Temple” theology where Yahweh was the High Priest/Son of the High God (El Elyon). She believes “LORD God” refers specifically to the Son (the Angel of the LORD) who manifests the invisible Father to humanity.

.

Ancient Texts & Channeled Scripture on the Godhead

The Law of One on the Unity of God

The Law of One may be one of the most elegant descriptions of a social trinity which harmonizes some of the arguments made by the above authors on plurality vs unity of God. In its opening chapter it summarizes what it says was the view of some of the higher beings who reveal God to mankind. Beings who have been exalted to a state of unity called a ‘social memory complex’ or a type of group consciousness that no longer dwells in a physical or spiritual world bound by time.

1.7 Ra: Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to yourselves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.

That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.

In truth there is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

May we enunciate this law in more detail? (Law of One, Session 1)

1.1 We, too, have our place. We are not those of the Love or of the Light. We are those who are of the Law of One. In our vibration the polarities are harmonized, the complexities are simplified, and the paradoxes have their solution. We are one. That is our nature and our purpose… We are not a part of time and, thus, are able to be with you in any of your times.

1.5 Ra: The identity of the vibration Ra is our identity. We as a group, or what you would call a social memory complex [or exalted group-consciousness], made contact with a race of your planetary kind which you call Egyptians.

Also of interest are the verses in the ancient Egyptian scroll section of the KOLBRIN which explain how the Egyptians (and Hebrews by extension) actually saw the distinction between The Most High God and lower emanations of God.

The Kolbrin (specifically in the Egyptian scrolls like the Scroll of Masters and the Scroll of Creation) explicitly makes the claim that Egyptian “polytheism” was a misunderstanding by the uneducated masses, whereas the priesthood understood all “gods” to be facets of a single, supreme Creator.

This concept is often referred to in the text as the “One God of the Secret Name” or the “Hidden One.”

Key Verses and Concepts from The Kolbrin

While the book is divided into many small verses, the most direct explanation of this “Monotheism behind Polytheism” is found in the Egyptian Book of the Masters:

1. The Many as Attributes of the One: The text states that the “gods” are merely names given to the various powers and attributes of the Supreme Being.“Men speak of many gods, but they are only names for the powers of the One. The many are but as the fingers on a hand or the beams from a sun.” (Paraphrased from the Scroll of the Masters).
2. The “One without a Second”: In the Scroll of Creation, the text describes a singular, eternal source that existed before everything else.“In the beginning, there was only the One, the Uncreated, the Self-Sustaining… He is the Hidden One, whom no man knows by his true name, for to name Him is to limit Him.”
3. The Priesthood vs. The People: The Kolbrin explains that the “images” and “idols” were used as teaching tools for those who could not grasp the abstract nature of a single, infinite God.“The wise know that God is one, but the foolish need many images to focus their wandering minds. Thus, the attributes of the One were given form, that the ignorant might have something to grasp.”

The following (and many more ancient Egyptian Kolbrin scrolls) can be searched out at this link.

CRT:1:3 Before the beginning, there was only one consciousness, that of The Eternal One whose nature cannot be expressed in words. It was The One Sole Spirit, The Self Generator, which cannot diminish, The Unknown, Unknowable One brooding solitary in profound pregnant silence. CRT:1:4 The name which is uttered cannot be that of this Great Being (Tao, v.1) who, remaining nameless, is the beginning and the end, beyond time, beyond the reach of mortals, and we in our simplicity call it God. CRT:1:5 He who preceded all existed alone in His strange abode of uncreated light, which remains ever unextinguishable, and no understandable eye can ever behold it. The pulsating draughts of the eternal life light in His keeping were not yet loosed. He knew Himself alone; He was uncontrasted, unable to manifest in nothingness, for all within His Being was unexpressed potential. (The Kolbrin, Creation Scroll 1:3-7)

SOF:4:3 The congregation with Amos were the Children of Light and the people were Kenim [kohanim] who worshipped Yawileth [YHWH], and Galbenim (rabbanim) who worshipped Eloah [Elohim]. But Amos taught the people to walk in the light of Truth and said, “To each of you his own god, but above any god which can be named is something that cannot be named, and you shall know it as The Supreme Spirit.” (The Kolbrin, Sons of Fire, 4:3)

MPR:2:1 There is but one God, the High God, the Designer, the Creator and Ruler of the Earth and the Lord of the Kingdoms of Light and Darkness. Everlasting, All Powerful and beyond the understanding of men. The Great Dweller in Everlasting Pregnant Silence, Unseeable, Unknowable. MPR:2:2 By a command He created man, and in His indulgence permitted the gods to be fashioned. He is the Source of all that is, the Father of Fathers, the Mother of Mothers, the One Who preceded the sun. The sun is not God, though His creation, for its brightness bestows light and life upon the Earth… It is the instrument of the High God, His furnace fire of life. The sun is removed from man at night time, but the True God is always with him. Man never walks alone; he is never unescorted. MPR:2:3 To this God alone give praise, Self-Created, Maker of Heaven and Earth, Founder of the Kingdoms of Light and Darkness… (Kolbrin, Morals & Precepts. Scroll of the Nature of the True God)

MAN:33:7 … Before creation commenced there was the One Father/Mother Being and from this Divinity came the heavenly Twins. From these were born three, and the three became many. MAN:33:8 The Originating Divinity is called many names among men, and in Egypt His names are hidden in other names. Among the Chosen Ones, He is called The Craftsman Creator, but men and women name Him differently among the people. Likewise, some say ‘Him’ while others say ‘Her;’ it is all alike, for these are no more than the words and distinctions of mortal man. Heaven is the sphere of God, the true abode of His Spirit in essence. There is the Heaven above, which is the High Heaven, and the Heaven below, which is the reflection of the High Heaven. The true Centre of God is in Newit.

MAN:34:44 The new form of worship introduced by this Pharaoh [Nabihaton] was simple enough… Behind the symbols and ceremonial, the Pharaoh worshipped the [ONE] Spirit behind the Sun, the Spirit of Light and Life as a direct, fully conscious member outflowing from The Great God Behind All. The king, however, being cut off in the midst of his instruction, perceived the road but dimly… [and revealed Sacred Mysteries, kept hidden by the Enlightened Ones and the Twice Born to the common masses.] (Manuscripts 34, Annexed Scroll Two)

GLN:2:14 “Men call on many gods, though above all there is but One; yet whatever they call Me, I will hear them, for I am The God Above Names, The God Embracing All Names. Whatever men believe, if it serves Good, it serves God. But gold necklaces are not for sheep and outward forms of worship must suffice for the spiritually undeveloped. The rituals of men may often be empty ceremonials, but they may also guard the Great Mysteries behind them.” (Scroll of Gleanings, Kolbrin)

MAN:11:15 Men say, “There are many gods, therefore which among them shall we worship? We cannot know.” They are confounded by their own foolishness, for choice is easy… MAN:11:16 The pillars of all wisdom [counsel or emanations of God] are numbered as the fingers upon a hand… MAN:11:17 The Earth at his feet, the Heavens above, The Great God of gods or the unreal gods of men…

OGS:8:21 … Great Gods, old and new, hasten the day! (There is but One God, but men view Him differently, through their own deceptive eyes, in many aspects, and He appears to them to be many).

SOF:19:10 The barbarians make images of God to make Him more understandable. Are we much better, who make images of Him in our likeness within our thoughts?

SCL:10:8 O Watchers, announce to the Lords of Light and to the Lords of Darkness that I am one, who has penetrated the Mystic Veil but is destined to return to the Realm of Heaviness. O Watchers, announce that I am now a self-knowing everlasting spirit. O Father of the Gods, who is above all, issue the decrees of fate, which ensure that henceforth, I live a life of service, that I may live purposefully when I return to fulfil my destiny.

GLN:2:14 “Men call on many gods, though above all there is but One; yet whatever they call Me, I will hear them, for I am The God Above Names, The God Embracing All Names. Whatever men believe, if it serves Good, it serves God. But gold necklaces are not for sheep and outward forms of worship must suffice for the spiritually undeveloped. The rituals of men may often be empty ceremonials, but they may also guard the Great Mysteries behind them.”

GLN:8:6 “ You say your God is approachable by anyone. Does this enhance His stature? Which is greater, the ruler who judges disputes between swineherds and listens to their complaints, or the ruler who appoints effective officials to deal with swineherds? Surely the former rules amid chaos while the latter rules with efficiency. Do not both of us believe, as all men believe, that there is One Great God above all gods, but we believe that being so great, this Being is beyond approach by mere mortals. Only in this do we differ, you and I.” GLN:8:7 Hurmanetar [Gilgamesh] answered her, saying, “I know him not as He is; all I know is that He exists.
GLN:10:7 God answered Hurmanetar, saying… GLN:10:8 “You call upon Me as the Father of the Gods, nor do you err in this. Yet I am the Hidden God, the God of Secret Manifestation, the Wronged God, the Betrayed God, the Disappointed God. I am the God who sought to give love Divine to men by making them My heirs, making them partakers of divinity, co-creators with Me.

GLN:11:16 ‘There are three great spheres, and that containing the Earth is held together by the Great Glow outflowing from the God of Gods. That part of the Great Glow, which is light and contains life is called Manah, while that which is heavy and contains the flesh of things of the Earth is called Manyu.”

GLN:11:17 “The One Who is the God of Gods is so great that He cannot be defined in the speech of men. Neither can they conceive Him in their thoughts, for He is beyond their understanding. Mortal man has limitations; therefore,let men conceive Him as they will. It is of no importance, providing their conception serves both His purpose and the glorification of man.” GLN:11:18 “Man is not yet great, and until he becomes so it is well that he worship the many Godforms conceived within his thoughts, providing they be such as tend to raise him above himself. Nor do ritual and worship do harm of themselves, unless they, too, thickly overlay the truth so it is buried from sight. Ritual and outward forms of worship can be aids to purification of thought and provide a kind of sustenance for the Lord of the Body. What are the Lesser Gods beloved by unawakened men but thought-conceived friends and guides? Yet, this is a dangerous path men tread, balanced between light and darkness. Therefore, when man wanders towards the abyss of darkness, reveal a little more light, that he may see and so return to the path. Beware, too, lest he follow gods that are false guides and would lure him into the quicksand of carnality, or into the wilderness of ignorance.”

MAN:33:7 … Before creation commenced there was the One Father/Mother Being and from this Divinity came the heavenly Twins. From these were born three, and the three became many. MAN:33:8 The Originating Divinity is called many names among men, and in Egypt His names are hidden in other names. Among the Chosen Ones, He is called The Craftsman Creator, but men and women name Him differently among the people. Likewise, some say ‘Him’ while others say ‘Her;’ it is all alike, for these are no more than the words and distinctions of mortal man. Heaven is the sphere of God, the true abode of His Spirit in essence. There is the Heaven above, which is the High Heaven, and the Heaven below, which is the reflection of the High Heaven. The true Centre of God is in Newit.

MPR:2:1 There is but one God, the High God, the Designer, the Creator and Ruler of the Earth and the Lord of the Kingdoms of Light and Darkness. Everlasting, All Powerful and beyond the understanding of men. The Great Dweller in Everlasting Pregnant Silence, Unseeable, Unknowable… MPR:2:17 He is the Creator, in whose Spirit image and likeness, you were fashioned. His laws ordained your present estate and circumstances upon Earth. The power of your intellect is His promise of godhood, and the marvels of your body are the works of His hand. His soul communes with your soul, and the consciousness He shares with you is the source of your life… MPR:2:24 He sits enthroned in the universal centre, and the divine rays, which flow from His presence, hold all forms in stability. He moves His finger in the nightskies, and the stars dance along their pathways. He walks upon the wings of the wind and encompasses all the kingdoms of Heaven and Earth… MPR:2:32 However, for men in general, the Undiscovered God is not apparent. He has no man-made image in His likeness, and He stands in obscurity behind the great alcove beyond the temple within the Place of Flame. Yet, He makes Himself known in subtle ways, for He cannot remain unmanifested to the truly spiritual, any more than a river can remain hidden, for it dissolves away the ground, in which it is concealed. So will the Great God spring forth in the midst of material things and, dissolving away their solidity, shine forth to the sincere seeker… MPR:3:17 The gods of the North and South provide food for the body of man, but it is the God of All Ages, who provide sustenance for the soul. As the body has its particular foods, which nourish it, so has the soul. As the body is impoverished by lack of proper sustenance, so is the soul.

An example of quotes from 300’s BC from Greek historian theopompus showing their tradition of considering stars or zodiacs ‘gods’ as well as ‘attributes gods.

They have also many stories to relate concerning the gods, for example that Horomazes… created six gods, the first three deities respectively of good-will, truth, and orderliness, the others of wisdom, wealth, and a good conscience. By the latter rivals as it were to these were formed of equal number. Then Horomazes extended himself to thrice his stature as far beyond the sun as the sun is beyond the earth, and adorned the heaven with stars, appointing one star, Sirius, as guardian and watcher before all. He made also other twenty-four gods and placed them in an egg, but Areimanius produced creatures of equal number and these crushed the egg . . . wherefore evil is mingled with good. At the appointed time however Areimanius must be utterly brought to nought and destroyed by the pestilence and famine which he has himself caused, and the earth will be cleared and made free from obstruction, the habitation of a united community of men dwelling in happiness and speaking one tongue. Theopompus further reports that according to the magi for three thousand years in succession each of the gods holds sway or is in subjection, and that there will follow on these a further period of three thousand years of war and strife, in which they mutually destroy the works of one another. Finally Hades will be overthrown, and men will be blessed, and will neither need nourishment nor cast a shadow. And the deity who has accomplished these things will then take rest and solace for a period that is not long, especially for a god, and moderate for a sleeping man. To this effect then is the legendary account given by the magi. (Plutarch ca. 100 A.D. Cumont, ii, p.33-36, De Iside et Osiride, ch. 46. Theopompus lived in the 4th c. B.C.)

Connection to Historical “Henotheism”

Your observation actually aligns with a real-world Egyptological concept called Henotheism or Monolatry.

• The “Ba” of God: Many genuine ancient Egyptian hymns (like the Great Hymn to Aten or the Hymns to Amun) describe the various gods as the “Bas” (manifestations or souls) of a single, hidden deity.
• The Kolbrin’s Perspective: The Kolbrin takes this a step further by framing it as a “Secret Wisdom” that was lost or corrupted over time.

This perspective in the Kolbrin is very similar to the “Hermetic” traditions that emerged later, which also claimed that ancient Egyptian religion was a deeply philosophical monotheism hidden behind a mask of animal-headed deities.

Example of the aspects of God taught in the Egyptian Temple Ceremony, as described in the Kolbrin Egyptian Texts.

SOF:2:1 These things must not be entrusted to common folk; neither must they be degraded by disclosing them to such as would profane them… SOF:2:2 This is one among the Lesser Mysteries, the Ritual of the Twice Born. It is a ceremony to regain spiritual vigour and to restore spiritual power, whereby a Chosen One dies and rises again. It is a grim undertaking fraught with danger. It is not for the spiritually weak or for the faint-hearted. Not all survive to walk again upon the friendly ground of Earth. SOF:2:3 Only the older men who had completed the three cycles of seven years were accepted… SOF:2:4 The Tree of Life has many branches, and that which is initiation…began in that far away glorious period before the days of wickedness.
SOF:2:9 when Ramsis built the Great Temple of Ra-amen, it contained within itself both temple and shrine of the All Highest God. Also, there were Caverns of Initiation underneath. In the hall of the temple, which faced East and West…In the ceiling above the candidates was the symbol of the sun, and from it extended seven hands. This represented the sun of life, dispensing the vitalising forces of life from their fount within the circle of creative consciousness. Behind the priest were representations of the ten rays of power that flowed out from the All Highest God when He created Earth, and which became the attributes of His Spirit. They are: Love, Foresight, Wisdom, Insight, All Knowledge, Strength, Resolution, Justice, Mercy and Courage. SOF:2:10 Between the Devoted Priest and the wall behind him was the triangular representation of the three Sublime Essences – Supreme Spirit, (embodied) Soul Spirit and (pre-existent) Forming Spirit – the three parts of Spirit ever in unity.. The entrance to the sanctuary was in the East, and above this was a representation of the Great Eye, the secrets of which cannot be written. Before the Devoted Priests was a hidden doorway, and this led down to the Marriage Chamber. In this chamber were performed the rites known as The Marriage of the Soul.
SOF:2:12 Cut on the walls were representations of Life and Spirit. The candidate had studied with the priests of the upper temple for seven years and been observed by one of the Twice Born for seven years. Now, here in the antechamber, he became an Anointed One. [The rest of this chapter gives a detailed description of the Temple Initiation Ritual] (The Kolbrin, Sons of Fire, Chapter 2)

.

Scriptures from the Gnostic Pearl & Nag Hammadi Library

Here’s a few more verses from The Gnostic Bible or Expanded Gnostic Writings that echo Brigham’s

2 Father and Son are single names, but Holy Spirit is a double name. Father and Son are above, but Holy Spirit is above and below. Father and Son are personally present above, but they are present through Holy Spirit above and below. (Principles of the Covenant ch.8:2, Gospel of Phillip, Nag Hammadi)

3 The Father is the Only Begotten of the Father. The name of the Father is the Son. The name of the Son is the Father (9:3)

3 There is a name which mortals do not use unless they have been enlightened; it is the name of the Father, which the Parents have given to the Son, for the Son could not become Father unless he bears the name of the Father. Those who know this name do not use it freely, for the names of Deity are sacred, filled with power, and this name is the most sacred of all. (3:3)

3. How did the Lord Jesus reveal himself to us in this mortal realm while he taught here? He lived here as a mortal, although he revealed himself to be the Son of the Eloheim. We say he lived among us, teaching the principles of the Heavenly Father and the Earthly Mother, but this mortal existence is more death than life. While he revealed himself as Son of the Eloheim, he also declared himself to be Son of Man, for his Father is Divine Anthropos, and the Son is preeminently human, as well as divine. He embraced both humanity and divinity within himself, so that he could die as a human, but vanquish death as a God. He came from a higher plane; he was the Son of a God. In fact, he, himself, was a God before this physical realm was organized. 4. This seems difficult to understand to the mortal mind, but when we have put on the mind of Christ, it all becomes clear. There is nothing difficult to understand in the Word of Truth, but we must first put on the mind of Christ, the Holy Spirit, so that we no longer think as mortals, but as the children of the Eloheim. (Mystery of the Resurrection, Nag Hamadi Library)

.

Oahspe on the Name Jehovah (YHWH)

The Book Oahspe gives a detailed description of how the earliest prophets named the creator or highest god.

04/1.1. All was. All is. All ever shall be. The All spoke, and Motion was, and is, and ever shall be; and, being positive, was called He and Him. The All Motion was His speech.
04/1.2. He said, I AM! And He comprehended all things, the seen and the unseen. Nor is there anything in all the universe that is not part of Him.
04/1.3. He said, I am the soul of all; and all that is seen is part of My person and My body.
04/1.4. By virtue of My presence, all things are. By virtue of My presence, life is. By virtue of My presence, the living are brought forth into life. I am the Quickener, the Mover, the Creator, the Destroyer. I am First and Last.
04/1.5. I am two apparent entities, nevertheless I am only One. These entities are the Unseen, which is Potent, and the Seen, which is of itself Impotent, and called Corpor.
04/1.6. With these two entities, in likeness of Myself through them, I made all the living; for as the life is the potent part, so the corporeal part is the impotent part.
04/1.7. Chief over all that live on the earth I made Man; male and female I made them. And, so that man could distinguish Me, I commanded him to give Me a name; by virtue of My presence I commanded him. And man did not name Me after anything in heaven or on the earth. In obedience to My will he named Me after the sounds the wind utters, and he said, E—O—Ih! Which is now pronounced Jehovah, and is written thus (Oahspe, Book of Jehovah, ch.1)

.

THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND SON IS THE SAME (YHWH)

The Son” is not just a title, but the literal, physical manifestation of the Father’s “Name” (his essence and power).

“Keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me.” (John 17:11)

“What is his name, and what is his son’s name?” (Psalms 30:4)

1. In the Gnostic Bible (Nag Hammadi)

The most direct and detailed explanation of this is found in The Gospel of Truth (attributed to Valentinus, c. 140–180 AD). It contains a long, mystical treatise on the relationship between the Name and the Father.

“Now the name of the Father is the Son. It is he who first gave a name to the one who came forth from him, who was himself, and he begot him as a son… The name, therefore, is that of the Father, as the name of the Father is the Son.” (Gospel of Truth 38)

• The Logic: The Gnostics believed the Father was “The Ineffable One” (The Most High) and had no name because he was above all things. To interact with the universe, he “spoke” his own name, and that spoken word became the Son.
• The “Invisible” Father: The Son is the “face” or the “audible name” of the otherwise invisible and silent Father.

2. In the Early Church Fathers

The “Orthodox” Church Fathers also wrestled with this. While they eventually moved toward the Trinitarian definition (Three Persons, One Essence), many early writers spoke of the Son as the “Name” of the Father in a way that sounds remarkably Gnostic or “Oneness” in nature.

St. Ambrose of Milan

Ambrose was very explicit about the unity of the Name. He argued that the “Name” referred to in the baptismal formula (Matthew 28:19) is singular because the Father and Son share it.

“So, then, the Name of the Father is not one, that of the Son another… the Name of the Father and of the Son is one.” (On the Holy Spirit, Book I, 13:132)

Clement of Alexandria

Clement often described the Son as the “face” or the “Name” of the Father. He viewed the Son as the localized expression of the infinite Father.

• He taught that the Son is the “Name of God” which Moses and the prophets encountered in the Old Testament. When YHWH spoke, it was the Son (the Name) speaking on behalf of the Father.

Pseudo-Priscillian (The Treatise on the Trinity)

This 4th-century text explicitly quotes the Gnostic idea as if it were a common apostolic proverb:

“For the apostle says, the name of the Father is the Son, and likewise that of the Son is the Father.”

THE ONE LIKE UNTO & SIMILITUDE LANGUAGE

In biblical visions, the two closely related terms “in similitude of” or “one like unto” are both used respectively to represent (1) a physical resemblance, or an exact facsimile, copy or image and (2) a visionary resemblance of a human or a specific being, that is a heavenly representation of that person.

Similarities in Usage

• Visionary Representations: Both phrases are used to describe divine visions. When Daniel saw “one like unto a Son of Man,” it was a vision (a similitude of) the actual being.
• Shadow vs. Reality: Both concepts are used to describe a “type” or shadow in the Old Testament that represents a higher reality or future event (e.g., the Law of Moses as a similitude of Christ).
• Physical Form: Similitude can refer to “the form itself,” just as “one like unto” describes the form or appearance of a being. 
• Similitude often emphasizes the type/shadow relationship (a symbolic representation), such as animal sacrifices being in “similitude” of Christ’s sacrifice.
• One Like Unto often emphasizes the visual, personal resemblance of a person or divine being, especially in prophetic visions. 

Daniel 7:13: “One like unto the Son of man” indicates a heavenly figure who resembles a human (messianic figure).

Numbers 12:8: “The similitude of the LORD shall he behold” refers to the form or pattern in which God appears to Moses.

Revelation 1:13: “One like unto the Son of man” describes the glorified Christ, using similar visual language.

Abraham 3:22–27: Mentions “one like unto,” indicating a premortal, divine persons. 

Abraham 3:24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God [Mî-Kā-’ēl], and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth…
Abraham 3:27 And the Lord [Yhwh] said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man [Adam]: Here am I, send me.

3 Ne 20:23 Behold, I am he of whom Moses spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people. (3 Ne 20:23, Deut 18:15, Acts 3:22, 1 Ne 22:20)

40 He quoted also the third chapter of Acts, twenty-second and twenty-third verses, precisely as they stand in our New Testament. He said that that prophet was Christ; but the day had not yet come when “they who would not hear his voice should be cut off from among the people,” but soon would come. (JS History 1:40)

The ONE LIKE UNTO, is not necessarily saying it IS NOT the person its obviously referring to (God/Christ/Adam), it’s saying I saw a “visionary representation” of the invisible God that we’re not supposed to be able to see WITHOUT DYING! Or just ONE LIKE UNTO the prophetic figure, as in a vision of them, but not necessarily the individual themselves, likely emphasizing the archetypal nature of the persons in the visions! (Divine/Divine-Man/Man)

But note, THERE ARE THREE LIKE UNTO’S. Like unto the son of Man/Adam, Like unto Moses, Like unto God. These are all images. In other words, they are not the persons themselves BUT VISIONARY ARCHETYPES OF THE INDIVIDUALS. This archetypal nature of these beings is wrapped in the names themselves.

Remember that the Hebrew name Michael (Mî-Kā-’ēl), literally translates to “[One] Who is like God,” or “in the likeness of God” (or the One LIKE UNTO God), and preserves the Egyptian semantics and concept of Ka which means “likeness”. And the Hebrew name Adam literally translates to “Man”, so “son of Man/Mankind” is equivalent to “Son of Adam.”

3 Who [Christ] being the brightness of his [God’s] glory, and the express image of his person… (Hebrews 1:3)

43 Because he (Seth) was a perfect man, and his likeness was the express likeness of his father, insomuch that he seemed to be like unto his father in all things, and could be distinguished from him only by his age. (D&C 107:43)

.

This is a backstory in the Mentinah Archive of the Creation/Temple Drama. But what does it really add? That the Holy Ghost is an eternal, uncreated being just like the Elohim (and Michael is one of his generals?). That the new plan of using ‘spirit beings’ allowed people to progress as much in one life as hurdreds of lives under the former system. Does it say Christ was one of the Holy Ghost People or one of the Sons of the Elohim? (I think it says sons of the Elohim… he was only a few lives away from graduating telestial existence). I DONT THINK IT SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT THE HOLY GHOST GETTING A BODY? https://platesofmormon.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/volume2.pdf

128. Elohim Heavenly Father: …This new thing will bring the necessary experience together for all to receive exaltation in as little as one life more
130. Elohim Heavenly Father: Each of you must subdue your own desire for eminence for one lifetime and set self aside, submitting to the will of Elohim Heavenly Father, Elohim Heavenly Mother, the Chosen One and the Holy Ghost. Each of you must give up all that you have already created and become as one just starting out, a little child at the beginning of the long and arduous labors. Nevertheless, though you shall be as one only just embarking on the journey, because of he New and Everlasting Covenant, you may be blessed with all that I and your Mother in Heaven have.
131. Elohim Heavenly Mother: One of you will be required to take upon you all of the consecrated experience and descend to the very beginning, to condescend to give up all that you have already accomplished, to accept the aggregate of all the creative experiences into one, and then to sacrifice it all for the good of all. The result of this consecration, sacrifice and Atonement will bring about a new thing in the cosmos, a new order, a New and Everlasting Covenant. Through it, all who are willing will become like Us, even Your Heavenly Parents.
133. Narrator: But there was a lesser portion of the children of Elohim Heavenly Father and Elohim Heavenly Mother, and among this third part was one who wished to attain the Celestial Glory without subduing his own will to that of any other. And some few joined with him and were of like mind. They counseled against the New and Everlasting Covenant. He was one like unto the Firstborn of Elohim [one like unto the Son of God], having nearly completed his work and was known to all as a child of light, even Lucifer.
134. Narrator: The Spirits of the Holy Ghost People possess the bodies of the astral bodies, as well as the plants, animals, and other mundane bodies in creation and all have joy.

[Note the reference to Lucifer being the ‘one like unto the son of God]

Sermon of the Grove Controversy

There is debate and controversy as to whether Joseph Smith actually taught the concept termed ‘the infinite regression of gods’, which is whether God, the father had a father who had a father and so forth infinitely. It’s a ridiculous philosophical exercise mirroring the philosophical debate between ‘Oscillating Universe Theory‘ and ‘Initial Singularity Theory‘, which of course can NOT have provable answers and lead to the same conclusions. In regards to the LDS ‘Occilating Universe of Gods’, the question boils down to the following line in the Sermon on the Grove speech and whether the pause or coma existed before or after the word ‘above’, as that detail can change the ENTIRE meaning of the sentence.

God was the Far. of our [Lord Jesus Christ]. —my object was to preach the Scrip[tures]—& preach the doctrine there being a God above… the Fa[ther] of our [Lord Jesus Christ]

God was the Far. of our [Lord Jesus Christ]. —my object was to preach the Scrip[tures]—& preach the doctrine there being a God… above the Fa[ther] of our [Lord Jesus Christ] (Sermon in the Grove Sermon, BYU publications)

The Two Witnesses

“37 They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory. 38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? 39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized: 40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared. (Mark 10:37–40)

11 Then I asked the angel, “What are these two olive trees on the right and the left of the lampstand?” 12 Again I asked him, “What are these two olive branches beside the two gold pipes that pour out golden oil?” 14 So he said, “These are the two who are anointed to serve the Lord of all the earth.” (Zechariah 4:11–14)

3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. 4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. (Rev. 11:3–4) v. 5-10, Description of Moses & Elijah.

15 Q. What is to be understood by the two witnesses, in the eleventh chapter of Revelation?
A. They are two prophets that are to be raised up to the Jewish nation in the last days, at the time of the restoration, and to prophesy to the Jews after they are gathered and have built the city of Jerusalem in the land of their fathers. (D&C 77:15)

A Note To Those Who Hyper-Focus On These Things

Lastly, I think its VERY important to note that it is not righteousness to hyper-focus on the names, titles, particulars or stations of GOD. Does such a think bring about righteousness? Does it feed the poor, bring down the lofty and prideful? Does it prevent division and sin? The unexalted Spirits of many ancient Jews still roam the earth looking for hosts to whom they can reveal their ancient mystery cults of Gnosticism, Gematria and Kabala, and none of it brings about righteousness. It is exactly what Jacob was talking about in the Book of Mormon when he said,

14 But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.

15 And now I, Jacob, am led on by the Spirit unto prophesying; for I perceive by the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that by the stumbling of the Jews they will reject the stone upon which they might build and have safe foundation. (Jacob 4:14–15)

Beware of these Spirits and those who channel or uphold them. The kingdom of God will not come to pass because of a proper understanding of the difference between El Elyon, Yahweh/Jehovah, Elohim, Spirit, Body, Son or Father. It will come from obeying the ACTION words of Christ and the prophets.

In LDS theology, it’s quite common for leaders and teachers to use biblical examples of murder and genocide as example’s of the faithfulness of individuals in scripture^[1]. Scriptural stories such as Abraham’s attempted murder of his son, the Levites’ murders at Sinai, Nephi’s murder of Laban, or the Israelite’s genocidal campaign during the conquest of Palestine are constantly used as examples of how obedience to “god” is more important than the sixth commandment or teachings of Jesus.

These types of teaching are common among radicalized Islam and Christian fundamentalist sects and have served as the basis for numberless heinous acts of violence and brutality from the Mountain Meadows Massacre, to the Crusades and Inquisition to the current violence of Islamic Terrorism.

I believe it should be taught that all such teaching are based on distorted biblical theology. I think instead of properly viewing Old Testament violence as part of a “lower law” given to ancient Israel according to their own desires for wickedness, and done away with by Christ and the higher law of love and mercy— LDS have too often supported or even glorified the violence and brutality of the Old Testament as a way to promote obedience to religious authority at all costs.

14 But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble. (Jacob 4:14)

23 Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God; 24 But they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory. 25 Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also; 26 And the lesser priesthood continued… (D&C 84:23–26)

Reasoning

Stories from the Old Testament should not be used to justify violent, archaic and conscionably wrong practices. The Old Covenant, according to most LDS and New Testament theology, was a lower law given to individuals too evil and selfish to live the higher law brought by Christ. Thus it is not to be followed by those professing Christ’s higher law.

Perhaps one of the best examples that I’m glad I’ve never heard in Sunday School as an example of how to diligently follow the Lord or His priesthood is Exodus 32:27–29

27 Moses told them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: Each of you, take your swords and go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other. Kill everyone—even your brothers, friends, and neighbors.” 28 The Levites obeyed Moses’ command, and about 3,000 people died that day.  29 Then Moses told the Levites, “Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of the Lord, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Today you have earned a blessing.” (Ex 32:27-29)

D&C 84:23–27 teaches that because of the wickedness of the ancient Israelites, God took the Higher law away from them, and “in his wrath and anger” gave them a lower, preparatory gospel that they might actually be able to live. Christ echoes this same principle when he tells the Pharisees that certain dictates of the Mosaic law were given “because of the hardness of your hearts” (Matt 19:8, Mark 10:5). David puts forward this same logic in Psalms 81:10–12, stating that because the ancient Israelites “would not harken to my voice”, “I gave them up to their own hearts lust: and they walked in their own counsels”. Stephan went as far as to say that “God turned, and gave [Israel] up to worship the hosts of heaven” after their sin at Sinai (Acts 7:42). Paul echos the same teaching saying that after Israel “changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man”, God “gave them up to uncleanness though the lusts of their own hearts” (Romans 1:21–25).

The Book of Mormon states that because the ancient Jews were such a “stiffnecked”, “blind” and murdering people, God took “away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.” (Jacob 4:14)

Instead of glorifying Old Testament acts of violence, or using them as examples of righteousness, these acts should be seen as examples of how Old Testament prophets and people’s were given instructions to help them accomplish “their own heart’s lusts” (psalms 81:12). Instead of pretending that Old Testament Jews were blessed for their murders and genocide, we should look for ways that they were cursed.

Nephi’s Murder as a Curse

Nephi’s murder of Laban is a perfect example. If we are to hold to the historicity of this account, instead of using this murder of an unconscious man as an example of how Nephi was obedient, heroic, righteous and made the best choice, we should consider that “the Lord delivering Laban into [Nephi’s] hands” (1 Ne 3:29) was either an instruction from a lower angel (see D&C 76:86–88) or a test which Nephi failed.

Even though the text suggests Laban was a murderous thief who not only stole Nephi’s family property, but sent his servants to kill Nephi and his brothers, Nephi should have supposed that if his God was strong enough deliver Israel from the army of the Egyptians by miracles, he would be strong enough to deliver Nephi and the plates to the promised land in a way that did not require cold-blooded murder of a pathetic, wicked man as a sign of obedience. If God’s Justice called for the death of Laban, God could have accomplished this himself by illness or any one of many divine means. Does it not make more sense to teach that Nephi was being tested as to whether he would obey God’s Higher law which says, “Vengeance is mine, and I will repay?” (Deut 32:35, Romans 12:19,  Mormon 3:15; 8:20,  D&C 82: 23.) What does the following scripture say about Nephi’s murder or Israel’s genocidal takeover of the promised land?

5 But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; (Mormon 4:5)

Christ’s higher law given to deal with those who seek our lives is this: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matt 5:38–39)  Perhaps had Nephi passed this text he may have won the hearts of his brothers instead of simply exacerbating the already growing divide between them. A valid case can be made in the Book of Mormon text that continual warfare between the people of Nephi and the Lamanites was a curse or karmaic retribution that may have been avoided had Nephi been progressed enough to live the higher law and show an example of love to his brothers. Nephi murdered Laban and then his brother’s sought to murder him. Nephi’s murder is the start of long cycle of violence perpetuated in his posterity. Nephi goes to great lengths in his text to justify his killing of Laban, suggesting it was an act which constantly pricked his conscience.  And it is certainly conceivable to imagine the destruction and curse which comes upon Nephi’s people as a result of the divide between him and his brothers, was a lesson which God used to try and show Nephi the fruits of the lower law of justice verses the higher law of mercy and love. Nephi’s focus on God’s justice instead of his mercy comes back to bite him as it proves the complete destruction of his seed.

“7 O the pain, and the anguish of my soul for the loss of the slain of my people! For I, Nephi, have seen it, and it well nigh consumeth me before the presence of the Lord; but I must cry unto my God: Thy ways are just…. 10 And when these things have passed away a speedy destruction cometh unto my people; for, notwithstanding the pains of my soul, I have seen it” (2 Ne 26:1–10)

Contrast Nephi’s story with that of Jesus and the people of Ammon, who chose the higher law of laying down their own lives instead of lifting the sword to defend themselves.  As a result of these individual’s self-sacrifices, divides are healed and unified, while those who seek justice instead of mercy, tend to simply exacerbate growing divides.

In fact, note how ironic it is that the exact rationalization that Nephi received from the “Spirit” when directed to kill Laben that “it is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief” (1 Nephi 4:13), is almost word-for-word the rationalization used by Caiaphas to kill Jesus. In John 11:40 it gives Caiaphas’ rationalizations saying, “then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, ‘You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.’” (NIV John 11:49–50)

The Murder of the Levites & Conquest of Palestine (Genocide)

Take as another example the account of murder associated with the Golden Calf in Exodus 32. After coming down from Mount Sinai with the law from God which commands Israel not to kill or to make and worship human-conceived gods, Moses finds his brother Aaron is already making the people an Egyptian calf idol to worship. The text then states, that Moses, in his anger, “threw the stone tablets to the ground, smashing them at the foot of the mountain”. After this he takes the calf they made “and burned it, then ground it into powder… and forces the people to drink it” (v. 20). Finally he commands his tribe of Levites to,

Put your sword on your side each of you, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill his brother and his companion and his neighbor.”  (Ex 32:27)

Moses was likely so angry because he had just finished pleading for mercy on behalf of his people to a Lord who was threatening to destroy them (Ex 32:11–14; Deut 9:9–14, Num 16:43). In his wrath, Moses’ commands Aaron and the Levites to mercilessly slaughter everyone involved in making the calf (even though Aaron and the Levites were apparently just as at fault for the episode), after which he ordains Aaron and the Levites to the “service of the Lord” because they “obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. [for which] Today you have earned a blessing.” (Exodus 32:29)

This story serves as a segue to the conquest of Palestine, wherein Israel’s “god” essentially “commands” his people to racially cleanse the land in a genocidal conquest for territory. (Deut 20:16–18; Deut 13:7–12; Num 31:17–21; Ezekiel 9:5–6 )

For those looking for a scriptural excuse to be violent, or for leaders looking for ways to teach unquestioning obedience, these violent murders and conquests can be used as examples of obedient, righteous desirable behavior. (As it is used by LDS Apostle Jeffery R Holland in #3 of this article for instance). But for those who subscribe to Christ’s higher law of mercy, there are more consistent explanations.

We’ve already gone over how Jacob 4:14, D&C 84:23–27, Matt 19:8, Mark 10:5, Romans 1:21–25, Acts 7:42 and other scriptures paint Old Testament acts which conflict with Christ’s higher law NOT as examples of righteousness, or obedience to a violent god who later “changes” because of Christ’s atonement, but as examples of an ancient people who rejected the higher law and were thus allowed to build for themselves a god largely of their own creation (a temple or idol fashioned by human hands. see Acts 17:24, Heb 9:11,24). Twice in the New Testament, God and His revelations are compared to a mirror (see 1 Cor 13:12, James 1:23) which somehow reflect only the “part” of God’s glory that we are currenly ready for according to our own desires for wickedness or righteousness (see also Jacob 4:14).  Is it not likely that Moses and Aaron were not allowed to enter the “promised land” as a symbolic gesture showing how they, like Israel itself, failed God’s tests and reflected their own wickedness and thirst for vengeance on God? In fact, the scriptures suggest that ONLY JESUS passed all of God’s tests— symbolized by the three temptations of Jesus for food, religious prestige and political power (Matt 4:1–11).  Christ teaches the higher law by passing up ALL THREE OF THESE, choosing martyrdom before all worldly rewards.

Is it not possible that the God’s of human religion and the archetypes of religious scripture are mirrors which reveal what lies in our own human hearts more than the actual councils of an omnipresent superuniversal being?

We should be more careful in the ways we glorify violence, and use the Book of Mormon & D&C’s sound advice showing that the higher law is sacrifice and martyrdom (people of Ammon, Jesus). And through the lower law, violence and killing in self defense is permissible (Alma 43:9–15). Whereas preemptive violence is only permissible under the lower law once several attempts and mercy and peace have been made (D&C 105:38–40, 98:34-36).

34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;

35 And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord;

36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people. (D&C 98:34–36)

Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of Isaac

In closing, consider John B. Newbrough’s version of the story of Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of Issac. Like the Book of Mormon it’s one of many of New England’s 17th century channeled spiritualist texts.

24/9.10. Now after Abraham and his people had returned to Jireh, his camp, and it was night, God said to Abraham: Be steadfast, and show your people so that they may understand my words.
24/9.11. And while they were still praying before the altar, God withdrew from Abraham, and allowed the evil angels, who had followed them from Sodom and Gomorrah, to draw near the altar. And one of the angels clothed himself in a great light, and, adorned with sparkling gems and a crown, he appeared, so all the multitude of people could look upon him.
24/9.12. Abraham said: Who are you? And the spirit said: I am your God, ruler of heaven and earth! Abraham said: I am your servant; what may I do for you? And the spirit said: You shall take your only son, Isaac, and your hosts who were with you at Sodom and Gomorrah, and go with me where I will lead you, for I have a great work for you.
24/9.13. Abraham said: I will do whatever you put upon me to do.
24/9.14. So in the morning Abraham and his son Isaac, and the hosts who had been with Abraham to Sodom and Gomorrah, assembled together. And Abraham spoke, saying: Where to, O God?
24/9.15. The spirit answered, saying: Take sticks and a firebrand (torch) and come to the summit of the hill over there, for you shall restore the rites of burnt offerings. || Abraham told the people what God had said, so they began, and Isaac carried the bundle of willows, such as basket-makers use, saying: This will light the large pieces; but what will you burn for an offering, O father? And Abraham said: God will provide.
24/9.16. And when they ascended to the place, Abraham gathered logs and heaped them up, and Isaac placed the willows.
24/9.17. Then the spirit spoke, saying: What shall a man love above all things in the world? And Abraham said: God. And the spirit said: For which reason you shall offer your only son, Isaac, as a burnt offering. And it shall be testimony before your people that you will obey God even to the sacrifice of your own flesh and kin.
24/9.18. Abraham said: Show me that you are God, so that I may not err; for I have been commanded not to kill!
24/9.19. And the spirit departed away from Abraham, perceiving that he knew the higher law. And Isaac was grieved at heart, for he desired to witness what a sacrifice was. And the people, seeing a ram near at hand, went and caught it, and slaughtered it, and sprinkled the blood on the sacrifice, and they lit the fire, roasted the flesh, then took it and gave it to the poor.
24/9.20. And Abraham called the place Jehovah-Jireh, and they returned to the camp; and Abraham, being moved by God, spoke before the people.

24/10.1. Abraham said: This testimony I declare to you, regarding which, your own brethren are witnesses, that even the chosen of God can be deceived by evil angels; for they can take any name and form; and, having no fear of God before them, declare falsehood for truth and darkness for light.
24/10.2. And also, as you have seen, the evilest of cities, even as well as the purest, may be the abiding place of angels.
24/10.3. For which reason you shall not seek signs and miracles, for these may be from evil spirits, even though they show their bodies or converse learnedly. It is not in the power of man to know by words and signs, or by oaths or promises, what is truth.
24/10.4. But the Father has created one thing besides, which is His Own Light. For which reason be believing toward men and angels; and when they teach you according to Jehovah, which is life to all, and happiness to all, without sacrifice to any, they are holy.
24/10.5. If man or angel says: Visit the sick, and administer to the distressed, || follow his advice, for it is of the Father.
24/10.6. But if man or angel says: Do this, and you shall have profit, or glory, or applause, || do not obey him, for he advises for yourself and not for the brotherhood of man. He is not of God.
24/10.7. For spirits will come disguised as your fathers and mothers who are dead, professing love and profit to you. Do not believe them, except when they teach you to sacrifice self for the good of others.
24/10.8. The wicked in heart, having profited in herds, and in gold and silver, say: Behold, God has blessed me! But I say to you, they are cursed, and not of God. Has he gathered you together here because you were rich? You were slaves, and in poverty; sick, and in bondage. And he came and delivered you. Be like him, and he will abide with you.
24/10.9. If a man comes to you, saying: Behold, this is my coat; give it to me! You shall say: Prove yourself as to who you are. But if a man comes to you, saying: Your herd has gone astray; you shall not say to him: Prove yourself as to who you are. But go, and see after your herd.
24/10.10. If a spirit says: Behold, I am your father, say to him: It is well; what do you want? And when he answers you, consider if his words are of God, which are for the glory of the Creator. And if his words are not of God, you shall challenge him to prove himself.
24/10.11. As God is captain of heaven and earth to all righteous souls, so is there a satan who is captain over evil spirits.
24/10.12. And to the extent that the kings’ peoples do not have faith in the Father, so do their souls fall prey to satan and his hosts.
24/10.13. Yet, neither shall man flatter himself by saying: Behold, I have joined the Believers; my soul shall escape hell. || For in that day and hour God may be putting him to the test, to see if his heart is for good works and holiness. || For, because you profess God, you are doubly bound to practice godliness in your behavior toward men and angels. (Oahspe 24/9:10 – 10:13)

Reform Action #7 of 20   (see all reforms)

This is a difficult topic and I need more revelation to treat it properly. As I’ve written and re-written these reform ideas, the Spirit has continually impressed upon the idea that there are deep mysteries concerning the true nature of female priesthood (as intimated in the temple) unknown to most which keep this topic in a state of misunderstanding. It may boil down to the fact that women lead in the spirit world and men lead in the physical world & the way in which women are treated by ‘those in authority’ in the church is the greatest single test of righteousness in this probationary period.

I still believe that somehow the LDS church should follow the temple’s lead of making the women priestesses with their own priestess organization (not sure how this would be implemented). Also women should be the primary healers in priesthood blessings (see this LDS living article about how LDS women used to do this). I think this was the idea from the beginning and why it’s intertwined the temple ceremony (especially in the woman’s part in the second anointing).

At the same time, I DO NOT THINK WOMAN SHOULD BE GIVEN THE SAME PRIESTHOOD AS MEN. As I lay out in my “The Priesthood of God & Its Relationship to the Only True Church Doctrine” article, the very purpose of the priesthood is to force the most aggressive and assertive aspects of society into a system of service. It is meant to be a burden not a privilege. Thus giving this burden to women makes a mockery of the whole system and shows a complete distortion of its whole purpose. (And as I explain in that article, if women want it, it simply means men have wrongly turned priesthood into a privilege instead of a burden and responsibility).

However, Joseph Smith was incredibly progressive, and perhaps now the the church might be ready for some of the empowering aspects of what he seems to have envisioned with the Relief Society. Women should be allowed to ordain their youth into their organization (doesn’t necessarily even need to be in the same way with laying on of hands… in the BOM it seems they had a tradition of ‘clapping backs’ to ordain).  And their leadership structure should be equal to men’s (at least in developed areas of the church).  I’m sure if the church would simply open their hearts to the justice of equality, the Spirit would lead us to a structure & label that would satisfy everyone, in the same way the spirit slowly led the church to give those of African decent the priesthood (something which was wrong to bar them from in the first place–even if the demand for black priesthood holders was minuscule during that time period).

As one looks at the history of brutal warfare that marked the advance of civilization it’s fairly obvious why the physically strong ended up being ‘naturally selected’ to rule and hold power. It’s also obvious why social leaders, religious leaders and the divine would have had men start and run religions in their formative periods. As also why it was so important to shelter women to assure the survival of a clan’s future generations. But that time has past in the civilized world and the church needs to heed the Spirit which has pervaded the nations in showing that today is a time for complete gender equality in civilized regions of the world. The church would do well to understand the meaning of the following scripture and work to assure its fulfillment before God steps in and fulfills it in ways we do not like.

26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: 28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

30 But remember that all my judgments are not given unto men; and as the words have gone forth out of my mouth even so shall they be fulfilled, that the first shall be last, and that the last shall be first in all things whatsoever I have created. (D&C 29:30, Matt. 20:16; Luke 13:30; 1 Ne. 13:42; Ether 13:12; )

Reform Action #12 of 20   (see all reforms)

The church needs to do a better job in NOT confusing standards, traditions or church rules with God’s commandments. The Jews of Jesus day had done such a poor job at this, that they rejected Christ when he refused hold Jewish rules on the same level as God’s scripturally delineated commandments. All church’s (including ours) of necessity create useful cultural standards not explicitly laid out in scripture. But we need to be careful that these do not become ‘commandments’ in the minds of members or leaders such as the Jewish rules of Sabbath healing, reaping (plucking grain), thrashing (rubbing grain in hands), and carrying a burden (walking with a mat/bed). ALL of which Jesus disregarded in ways that caused Jews (church members) to disbelieve and excommunicate him.

We need to do a better job at not falling under Christ’s condemnation of the Jews in Matthew 15:6–9

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Reasoning:

The Church needs to do a better job in differentiation between a “standard” and a “commandment”.  A standard is a suggestion. It is goal or ideal toward which all are encouraged to strive. In the Gospel our standard is to attain the Perfect character of our example Jesus Christ (D&C 92:12). Creating high standards is good for society and good for individuals. But our church has changed religious moral standards into commandments which manipulate, enslave and divide the church more than perhaps any other aspect of our theology.

One classic example is the Word of Wisdom. This standard was specifically commanded not to be given to the saints by “by commandment or constraint.” (D&C 89:2)  However, church leaders “declared more or less” than the revelation and turned the standard into a commandment much like the Pharisees did to the Mosaic Law in Christ’s day. They even pushed this standard onto mature members of the Higher Priesthood who should not be governed by lower law of Carnal commandments anyway–but by divine principle and Jesus example (D&C 84:18. See reform ‘Teach the Higher Law’), fully disregarding Christ & Paul’s words.

And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: 11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. (Matt 15:10)

The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ (Luke 7:34)

God’s kingdom does not consist of what a person eats or drinks. Rather, God’s kingdom consists of God’s approval and peace, as well as the joy that the Holy Spirit gives. (Romans 14:17)

Outside of the abolished Mosaic law, neither Christ nor the scriptures gave many commandments for sexuality either. In fact, there are basically two– Do not lust and do not commit adultery. We must remember that Christ did away with the Mosaic Law, those able to live the higher law are no longer bound by the strictures of the old covenant–even though they follow Christ’s example of submitting to these laws to be good examples to others. (2 N 31:7-9, 1 Cor 6:12) In contrast, in the church today there are simply too many distorted principles concerning LDS morality and cultural strictures which appear to be more “commandments of men” which have “added to” and “taken away” from God’s law (Deut 4:2, D&C 10:68, read JST Col 2:21-22, NLT Col 2:21-22, Mark 7:7–8, JS-H 1:19 ). Just as occurred with the Catholic Medieval church, the suggestions and standards have become commandments because of our over-centralization of authority, and our beliefs that the “brethren” can establish commandments instead of simple non-doctrinal standards under the law of common voice & common consent.

Contrary to God’s law or standard, we are too often “commanded in all things” (which is why so many consider us a cult… we act too much like Jews who haven’t been redeemed from the old covenant by Christ). The Church hand-book of instruction has created an environment of commandment dictating every aspect of the average church members lives. Words of Wisdom have become commandment (D&C 89:2, 28:4-5). Our youth worthiness interviews and temple recommend interview process have “added to” God’s commandments in virtually every aspect of members lives, from our food, our dress, our income, to the minutia of our sexuality. As non-binding standards these suggestions on living can be good for society, but only if they are not pushed as the will of God or something that makes individuals feel spiritually damned for “transgressing”.

Our law of Chastity is another example of “adding and taking away” from scripture by creating a Pharisee-like system of commandments in lieu of a standard.

[I need to fully rewrite the following sections to flesh out the concepts I’m getting out].  Parents and those under the Aaronic (local leaders) priesthood have every right to make whatever rules they feel will guide their sheep.  This is the purpose of the lower priesthood and the ward/parish level.  But at some point every disciple is to graduate to the higher law of Christ. These are no longer bound by the lower laws. If they live them, they do so in sacrifice just to show a good example.  But their salvation and church standing are detached from obeying the commandments of the lower law. ie. “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. — 1 Cor 10:23”]

There is very, very little by way of specific commandments concerning these topics in the scriptures for a reason. Even the ten commandment’s simply say “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”  Not even the Mosaic law gave harsh penalties to sex out of wedlock, and it was in most cases far more strict than the law Christ replaced it with.  Scripture clearly calls sex out of wedlock sin, but to make it into a “sin next to murder” as Mormonism has, is drive the millions of youth who experiment with premarital sex away from God. (see the article The Sin Next to Murder)  The specifics of how to be sexually “chaste” or physically healthy are highly personal and difficult to define with blanket prohibitions (see this article on moral purity). Much like dietary fads, cultural religious proscription on sexuality rarely take into account the uniqueness of each individual’s different physical background and spiritual makeup. Priesthood overreach has caused many “words of wisdom” to become strictures, dogma, and commandments. Unwisely “adding to and taking away from” the standards of righteousness God has given to men. God’s loving standard has been made into a self-righteous burden.

Only very generalized dietary guidelines of balance can be made to apply to both a 350 lb Samoan and a 90 lb Tibetan. Likewise only very generalized guidelines of sexuality can be made to apply to individuals along the diverse spectrum of human sexuality and passion. It is unreasonable and unrighteous to create overly-specific and idealistic strictures concerning masturbation, self-stimulation, gender identity, minutiae in sexual media consumption, kissing, dress and many aspects of sex (again, standards are good for society, strictures are highly divisive). To take God’s name and draw a line which says if you do X, you are righteous and approved by God but if you do Y, you are wicked and condemned by God is the most solemn and awful of responsibilities. Any individual who does this becomes karmically responsibility for those they make to feel evil and demonized. There are far too many who leave the church because the churches blanket prescriptions on sexual practice are unreasonable and demonizing because they often are. When they realize how unreasonable they are… they then lose faith in God because how could “god” make a commandment that they are literally incapable of keeping?  When in truth it wasn’t god, it was a man unjustly using god’s name to make a needed social standard into a divine commandment. In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ himself chastised Israel for turning the trivial standards and minutia of the Mosaic “law” into divine commandments.

Almost universally, everyone understands that cheating on a committed relationship (adultery) is wrong–this is why it is specifically forbidden in scripture. God didn’t just write this law on stone, he wrote it in the human heart. Everyone is capable of keeping this divine law which is written in human conscience by God. But nothing is said in scripture of dating, kissing, masturbation for a reason, and little is said of fornication for the same reason—because the “rightness or wrongness” of these things is complex. God’s goal is the happiness of each individual—and when religious prohibitions & demonization cause more pain than the personal & social consequences of the “sin” itself, then you know something is wrong. “Sin” is by definition a thing which has negative or destructive consequences for an individual and society, and strictures tend to befuddle that principle and turn people into pharisees who call good evil and evil good.

Whenever possible, specific regulations should be withheld in lieu of words of wisdom which point to “scientific” studies and examples which teach people which actions most often lead to which consequences without generalizing, demonizing or spiritualizing the matter. Avoiding as much as possible taking the name of God in vain. (wrongly speaking by God’s authority.)

Continue to greatly reform the for strength of youth pamphlet to teach principles and not proscriptions. Standards, not commandments.  Great division comes from trying to “add” to the scriptures or law on matters of sexual morality. Great evil comes from demonizing sexuality. It is better to teach people how to pray and how to listen to their heart and mind (emotions and logic) on details of sexual morality. Hold up the standard, which is healthy lasting marriage between a husband and wife, but be more careful about telling people how to achieve that standard. Never insinuate a person is “evil” for inability or lack of desire to live the standard. Focus on what is right and desired, instead on what is wrong, bad or “contrary to God’s will”.

Sexual morality should be handled locally. First by parents, then by Bishops/Stake Presidents, and seldom by General Authorities. Give correct “principles” (not rules) and let people govern themselves. Create and sustain forums where parents can get and exchange information. Religious dogma and over-controlling strictures surrounding sexual morality and the Word of Wisdom are in my estimation among the number one reason for apostasy and division. Members have not been allowed to follow the Spirit in this highly personal issue because of the priesthood overstepping its bounds. Youth are inundated with rules and individually unrealistic standards but rarely actually get taught meaningful information about human sexuality. Demonizing human sexuality in any degree is the surest way to divide & destroy the Church. As warned in D&C 121, it creates many “anti-Mormons” who esteem the church “as their enemy” (D&C 121:43), as well as creating a class of religiously active hypocrites and self-righteous sycophants. (This author was one of them… thinking he was so much ‘more righteous’ than those he knew who had sex before marriage.)

Given the information we have on Joseph Smith’s sexual difficulties and the law of Polygamy given to the saints (because they wanted it), the current proscriptive tenets which rule LDS sexuality are completely hypocritical, contradictory and idolatrous.

-use the patriarchal order as much as possible in matters of legalism and discipline.

Stop excommunicating or marginalizing dissidents so often and easily. Excommunication should conform strictly with the principles delineated in D&C 42:20–28 and D&C 102. Public or private differences of opinion are not grounds for excommunication. Witch-hunts should be avoided at all costs. The church is meant to be a ‘type’ or example of perfect government, there must be effective channels for group secession and re-absorption to and from the ecumenical union.

Reasoning:

Jesus did not excommunicate Judas, even though he knew he would betray him to be murdered. The excommunication of the September Six and countless other dissidents in the LDS church is among the greatest causes of division.  When we as a church excommunicate those with strong dissenting opinion we crucify Christ afresh (Heb 6:6). This cult-like behavior only restricts and shows the inadequacy of our own priesthood. Strong differences of opinion are an opportunity for leadership to show their superior wisdom. Excommunication simply shows members that the priesthood lacks the superior wisdom needed to harmonize the difference of opinion or false conception. D&C 42:20–28 and D&C 102 delineate that excommunication must follow an accusation of breaking major moral commandments (see Alma 1:17).

Having channels for willing group secession when differences of opinion cannot be reconciled (and later re-absorption) is subtly taught in the LDS temple endowment as the order of heaven. Nearly all popular religion, nations and scientific breakthroughs are started by ego filled humans who are influenced by both good/unselfish and bad/selfish forces to branch off from the mainstream. Whether it be Peter or Paul, Joseph Smith, John Calvin, Martin Luther or John Wesley– reformers and apostates need to be free to create offshoots and righteous branches. It is a dangerous practice for priesthood hierarchy to reject these stones (Matt 21:42). It is not the place of Church hierarchy to use their “position, power or influence” to prevent branches of thought. It is their job to maintain the unity of the faith (Eph 4:11–14) through loving & Christ-like wisdom & persuasion (D&C 121). We might take a lesson from the academic community which has learned how to deal with rogue ideas; dissident thought is not forcefully expelled by the institution, but combatted with truth and evidence. (Even wrongly sometimes, but eventually truth prevails!) We should follow the examples of the scientific community, which has learned branches of thought are healthy to the pursuit of truth, even if they come across a bit antagonistic. They do not need to be shunned or thrown out, because consensus will eventually prove whose views “have God’s Spirit” or are best at describing and mimicking God and his natural law (Acts 5:38–39).

An effective method of dealing with these issues can come from an understanding of the way the “lower” and “higher” priesthoods work in heaven. (see this article)

Create a process where apostates or reformers are allowed to gain converts and form their own church “branches”, schools of thought/monasteries or congregations. By the same process, these groups need an avenue to be reabsorbed or grafted back into the mother church’s priesthood structure, once the leaders have achieved their dissenting egoic desires to lead others according to their own understanding. Almost like a combination and harmonization of Catholic & Protestant Christian systems. A rigid “by ordination only” Catholic-like priesthood and hierarchical structure exists, but a “self-ordained” or ordination by the Spirit system is also allowed. The travelling twelve constantly and actively court these “priesthood of all believers” types systems for reabsorption back into the central communion.