Pray to/worship the Lord Jesus or not?

[seven7up]

7UP: If you know about LDS doctrine, you know that Jesus Christ is following in the footsteps of the Father, and inherits everything that the Father has ... including the Father's name/titles. You are correct that LDS understand that it was Jesus Christ, known as Jehovah/YHWH, that was directly interacting with man kind in the Bible on behalf of the Father. He , as a mediator, is acting in his Father's name.

McConkie says the Father's name is Elohim. Nowhere on LDS.org is the Father called Jehovah.

The LDS use the name titles Elohim and Jehovah to designate God Our Heavenly Father and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ respectively. It is a convenience. That is to help us to keep the members of the Godhead straight and to recognize the distinction between the relationship. Just because we do that as a general way of distinguishing between them, is not meant to insist that those titles of Deity are absolutely exclusive. As you pointed out on the other thread, Jesus is called, in Isaiah, "The Everlasting Father."

Latter-day Saints have recognized from the beginning that the Hebrew word Elohim was used anciently as a generic word for "god." You can find references to this concept in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith"The LORD [Jehovah] said unto my Lord [Adonai], Sit thou at my right-hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."Heb 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

Jesus said: "I have come in my Father's name" (John 5:43).

-7up

[Bill the Cat]

7UP: If you know about LDS doctrine, you know that Jesus Christ is following in the footsteps of the Father, and inherits everything that the Father has ... including the Father's name/titles. You are correct that LDS understand that it was Jesus Christ, known as Jehovah/YHWH, that was directly interacting with man kind in the Bible on behalf of the Father. He , as a mediator, is acting in his Father's name.



The LDS use the name titles Elohim and Jehovah to designate God Our Heavenly Father and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ respectively. It is a convenience. That is to help us to keep the members of the Godhead straight and to recognize the distinction between the relationship. Just because we do that as a general way of distinguishing between them, is not meant to insist that those titles of Deity are absolutely exclusive. As you pointed out on the other thread, Jesus is called, in Isaiah, "The Everlasting Father."

Latter-day Saints have recognized from the beginning that the Hebrew word Elohim was used anciently as a generic word for "god." You can find references to this concept in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith"The LORD [Jehovah] said unto my Lord [Adonai], Sit thou at my right-hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."Heb 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

Jesus said: "I have come in my Father's name" (John 5:43).

-7up

Please cite on LDS.org where the Father is ever called Jehovah.

[Sparko]

If you know about LDS doctrine, you know that Jesus Christ is following in the footsteps of the Father, and inherits everything that the Father has ... including the Father's name/titles.

You are correct that LDS understand that it was Jesus Christ, known as Jehovah/YHWH, that was directly interacting with man kind in the Bible on behalf of the Father. He , as a mediator, is acting in his Father's name.

-7up

and yet YHWH never directed prayer to anyone but himself. And he told the whole world he was the ONLY God, and there were no other Gods before or after him. If the LDS doctrine that Jesus was YHWH is true, then you believe that Jesus was a liar, and executed a plan to steal the world away from the Father for himself. Exactly what Satan wanted. You basically are teaching that Jesus was evil.

[seven7up]

Please cite on LDS.org where the Father is ever called Jehovah.

I did better. I quoted scripture (Psalm 110:1).

Again, the titles that LDS use for the members of the Godhead are generally distinguished as "Elohim" for the Father and "Jehovah" for Jesus Christ. However, as I also pointed out, these titles are not exclusive, because the Son inherited the name/title of the Father.

Jesus said: "I have come in my Father's name" (John 5:43).

Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

"... since he [Jesus] is one with the Father in all of the attributes of perfection, and since he exercises the power and authority of the Father...the Father puts his own name on the Son and authorizes him to speak in the first person as though he were the Father."

Examples are given from the Old Testament (Genesis 17:1; 35:11; Exodus 6:3). Christ was also referred to as "the Almighty" in the New Testament (Revelation 1:8, 18; 4:8; 11:17).

-7up

[seven7up]

and yet YHWH never directed prayer to anyone but himself. And he told the whole world he was the ONLY God, and there were no other Gods before or after him.

"we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords , yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; AND one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him."

Context matters. The "Most High God" is the "God of gods" and the "Lord of lords". There are "gods" which actually exist; that is who Paul refers to when he says "indeed, there are gods many and lords many".

Also please note, that most of the New Testament writers, when referring to the "one true God" are referring to the Father ONLY, just as Paul did here. He says, " there is but one God , the Father ... AND one Lord , Jesus Christ. Numerically they are two - God the Father is the "one God" and Jesus Christ is not the same Being, but instead the second, who has inherited the title "Lord" from the Father.

In another context, the critics of Jesus accused him of claiming to be equal to God. In response, Jesus referenced the scripture in the Old Testament which says "ye are gods". Were those men just accusing Jesus of claiming to be a "judge"? No, they were trying to argue against the Deity of Jesus. The response of Jesus is to say that anybody who is given divine authority is a god according to the Law and the Prophets (Old Testament). Divine authority is one of the keys of godliness, even if those men were still mortal, and very flawed individuals. So, the argument from Jesus is that if God made them gods, then how much more Jesus deserves the title of God , because his authority is only second to the authority of the Father.

And nobody answered my previous question: When the "Most High God" is called the "God of gods", do you really think that it is meant to refer to the Almighty as the "God of (false idols)"?

So, in conclusion, Jesus Christ (who was Yahweh/Jehovah) in these passages was being compared to the false gods/idols of other nations. He, obeying his Father's will, is the one who would pay the penalty for sin, and is the true Savior. The other "gods" of the other nations were figments of their imagination and did not exist, until they "created" and "formed" them from wood, stone, metal, etc. That is the CONTEXT.

So, in a different context, Jesus would not say "there is no god beside me" or "there is no other god" while standing at the right hand of the Father. In that context, it would be blasphemy.

In fact, we know this because Jesus DID say different kinds of statements in different contexts, such as:


and
"If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

If the LDS doctrine that Jesus was YHWH is true, then you believe that Jesus was a liar, and executed a plan to steal the world away from the Father for himself. Exactly what Satan wanted. You basically are teaching that Jesus was evil.

Quite wrong. Lucifer decided that his way was superior than God's way. Therefore, he felt that he should be exalted above the Father.

Certainly you are smart enough to know that there is a difference between that and the idea that God the Father GIVES his name and authority to the Son.

In one instance, there is rebellion and an attempt usurp the Father's throne against his will, and in the other instance Jesus is fulfilling the Father's will.

-7up

[Bill the Cat]

I did better. I quoted scripture (Psalm 110:1).

Sorry, but no. Again, LDS.org says:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/06/l...hovah?lang=eng

Jehovah, who is Jesus Christ, appears from beginning to end of this great book as the God of the Old Testament

We can find Jesus Christ in the Old Testament by substituting Jehovah for LORD whenever it appears

It is a blunder. Plain and simple. Trinitarianism can answer this. You can't while remaining consistent. You have to make excuses.

Again, the titles that LDS use for the members of the Godhead are generally distinguished as "Elohim" for the Father and "Jehovah" for Jesus Christ. However, as I also pointed out, these titles are not exclusive, because the Son inherited the name/title of the Father.

Again, you fail to prove from LDS.org any source that can back that up. And you don't speak for the LDS church, they do.

Jesus said: "I have come in my Father's name" (John 5:43).

That was a client/patron/broker phrase meaning that the Father was the patron who the clients would seek for protection and benefit, and that the Son would broker the transaction. It did not mean that the name of the patron was possessed by the broker.

Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

"... since he [Jesus] is one with the Father in all of the attributes of perfection, and since he exercises the power and authority of the Father...the Father puts his own name on the Son and authorizes him to speak in the first person as though he were the Father."

McConkie misses the fact that the one speaking would ALWAYS announce whom he was speaking for before speaking the words to be conveyed. Nowhere in the OT do we see that happening when Jehovah is the subject.

Examples are given from the Old Testament (Genesis 17:1; 35:11; Exodus 6:3).

Christ was also referred to as "the Almighty" in the New Testament (Revelation 1:8, 18; 4:8; 11:17).

-7up

Again, these do not support your failure to provide a single source from LDS.org that the Father was ever called Jehovah, and that Jehovah was the name "given" to Christ.

[Sparko]

No. it means there are no other true Gods but YHWH. Just him. He alone is God. It says it over and over in the bible.

"we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords , yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; AND one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him."

Context matters. The "Most High God" is the "God of gods" and the "Lord of lords". There are "gods" which actually exist; that is who Paul refers to when he says "indeed, there are gods many and lords many".

Yeah context matters, yet you totally ignore the part about "so-called gods. " - These are false gods. There is only one true God.

7up, try reading the bible without already assuming your conclusion. Your bias is blinding you.

Also please note, that most of the New Testament writers, when referring to the "one true God" are referring to the Father ONLY, just as Paul did here. He says, " there is but one God , the Father ... AND one Lord , Jesus Christ. Numerically they are two - God the Father is the "one God" and Jesus Christ is not the same Being, but instead the second, who has inherited the title "Lord" from the Father.

They are the SAME God, 7up. Jesus also was a man. He had two natures: God and Man.

In another context, the critics of Jesus accused him of claiming to be equal to God. In response, Jesus referenced the scripture in the Old Testament which says "ye are gods". Were those men just accusing Jesus of claiming to be a "judge"? No, they were trying to argue against the Deity of Jesus. The response of Jesus is to say that anybody who is given divine authority is a god according to the Law and the Prophets (Old Testament). Divine authority is one of the keys of godliness, even if those men were still mortal, and very flawed individuals. So, the argument from Jesus is that if God made them gods, then how much more Jesus deserves the title of God , because his authority is only second to the authority of the Father.

7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.

And nobody answered my previous question: When the "Most High God" is called the "God of gods", do you really think that it is meant to refer to the Almighty as the "God of (false idols)"?

derp. It is an honorific. Saying God is the greatest being ever. He is Most High. It doesn't say he was "Higher than other true Gods"

So, in conclusion, Jesus Christ (who was Yahweh/Jehovah) in these passages was being compared to the false gods/idols of other nations. He, obeying his Father's will, is the one who would pay the penalty for sin, and is the true Savior. The other "gods" of the other nations were figments of their imagination and did not exist, until they "created" and "formed" them from wood, stone, metal, etc. That is the CONTEXT.

No it isn't. again, all over the bible it clearly says that YHWH is the only real God. That there are no other real Gods. that anything and anyone else who claims to be a god is a FALSE God. So if Jesus and the Father are two different beings, which one is the false God?

If YHWH is Jesus and the Father is NOT YHWH, I guess the LDS believe the Father is a false God.

So, in a different context, Jesus would not say "there is no god beside me" or "there is no other god" while standing at the right hand of the Father. In that context, it would be blasphemy.

Only if they are two different Gods, dimwit.

In fact, we know this because Jesus DID say different kinds of statements in different contexts, such as:


and
"If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

Jesus was a man as well as God. As a man he submitted himself to the Father as we do so in his humanity the Father was his God.

Again, if the Jews believed that YHWH was God, and Jesus was YHWH, then he just told them that YHWH was a liar since YHWH just told them that the Father was THEIR God.

Quite wrong. Lucifer decided that his way was superior than God's way. Therefore, he felt that he should be exalted above the Father.

Apparently so did YHWH according to the LDS view. He never said "Howdy! I am YHWH, the son of the true God, Elohim. He told me to take care of you people and to pray and worship only him"

Nope. YHWH said he was the "most high" and the only God and that all prayer and worship should go to him alone and no one else.

[seven7up]

Sorry, but no. Again, LDS.org says:

It is a blunder. Plain and simple. Trinitarianism can answer this. You can't while remaining consistent. You have to make excuses.

Trinitarianism doesn't explain it. Are you now going to contradict yourself again and claim that there is no "subject / object distinctions" between members of the Trinity? Now they are all the same person?

My explanation is quite simple:

Jesus said: "I have come in my Father's name" (John 5:43).

Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

"... since he [Jesus] is one with the Father in all of the attributes of perfection, and since he exercises the power and authority of the Father...the Father puts his own name on the Son and authorizes him to speak in the first person as though he were the Father." Examples are given from the Old Testament (Genesis 17:1; 35:11; Exodus 6:3).

That was a client/patron/broker phrase meaning that the Father was the patron who the clients would seek for protection and benefit, and that the Son would broker the transaction. It did not mean that the name of the patron was possessed by the broker.

It means that the broker was speaking on behalf of the patron, speaking in his name. The difference here is that this is not just a Patron and a Broker, but also a Father and a Son. As we both know, the Son "inherits" the name of the Father (ie they have the same name). Furthermore, the Son is a PERFECT representative of the Father, being the "exact image copy of the Father's person." This gives Jesus even more right to represent the Father.

When Jesus says, "if you have seen me, you have seen the Father" , that is not meant to imply that Jesus and the Father are the same person. It isn't teaching modalism. Instead he is saying that He is a perfect representative of the Father.

Again, you fail to prove from LDS.org any source that can back that up. And you don't speak for the LDS church, they do.

LDS.org pages you refer to only gives a basic understanding. That is it's purpose and for the most part that is correct. What it is saying is that the direct contact between Deity and man in the Old Testament is Jesus Christ, who was the mediator and messenger on the Father's behalf. The Angel who is speaking is by rights Deity, and He is Jesus Christ. But we know from the New Testament revelation that this was Jesus was speaking at the will of the Father who sent him.

The BYU page addresses the issue on the Harold B. Lee Library page and gives a more extensive treatment of name-titles and includes LDS scriptural cannon texts as examples , for example:

'JEHOVAH, LORD, LORD GOD. The term "Lord," printed with capital letters in many English versions of the Old Testament, is a substitute for the name Jehovah (yhwh in the Hebrew Bible). Even though Latter-day Saints identify Jesus Christ as Jehovah (3 Ne. 15:3-5; cf. D&C 110:1-4; see Jehovah, Jesus Christ), they utilize the title "Lord" for both the Father and the Son, as is common throughout scripture. The title "Lord God" in the Hebrew Bible is a compound of elohim preceded by either yhwh (Jehovah) or adonai (lord or master). This combined name-title refers mainly to Jehovah in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, and in other latter-day scriptures, "Lord God" can mean either the Father (e.g., Moses 4:1-4) or the Son (Mosiah 3:21). http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/God_the...mes_and_Titles

McConkie misses the fact that the one speaking would ALWAYS announce whom he was speaking for before speaking the words to be conveyed. Nowhere in the OT do we see that happening when Jehovah is the subject.

Let's look at some examples concerning the "Angel of the Lord's presence":

(Gen 16:10-13)

Note carefully Gen 16:13, that in the context, it was the "Angel of the Lord" however...
a. It was "...the LORD who spoke to her"
b. She called His name "You-Are-the-God-Who-Sees"
c. She said "Have I also here seen Him who sees me?"..."

Likewise with Abraham...
1. When he was about to sacrifice Isaac - Gen 22:9-19
2. The Angel speaks in the first person as though he were God
a. "you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
- Gen 22:12b
b. "By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD...blessing I will
bless you..." - Gen 22:15-18

TO MOSES...
1. At Mount Sinai, in the burning bush - Exo 3:1-6
2. The Angel identifies himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob - Exo 3:6

Many have suggested that the direct messenger was Jesus Christ, who is "the Angel of the Lord's presence", who was using the name title "Jehovah" on behalf of the Father, but almost indistinguishably, and using the same title for himself... as you can see.

-7up

[seven7up]

No. it means there are no other true Gods but YHWH. Just him. He alone is God. It says it over and over in the bible.

You are taking it out of context and therefore forcing a Biblical contradiction. Can you think of a verse where it says that God was not "alone" , but instead "with" someone? In the beginning was the "Word", who is Jesus Christ. He was "WITH" God, so God was not alone.

Yeah context matters, yet you totally ignore the part about "so-called gods. " - These are false gods. There is only one true God.

The text from Paul refers to all of the kinds of gods from the Bible. It refers to 1) idols - which do not exist 2) beings that are called "gods" - which he says "indeed there are many" (keep in mind that these beings that are called gods can be in heaven or on Earth. Or do you think that there are false idols in heaven Sparko?) 3) God the Father AND 4) Jesus Christ

"we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords , yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; AND one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him."

7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.

all of these categories.

It is an honorific. Saying God is the greatest being ever.

What is great about being the God of false idols? ... Which don't even exist?

No it isn't. again, all over the bible it clearly says that YHWH is the only real God. That there are no other real Gods. that anything and anyone else who claims to be a god is a FALSE God. So if Jesus and the Father are two different beings, which one is the false God?

There are so many problems with your argument here it is difficult to know where to begin.

For starters, you are ignoring that even within the Trinity dogma, there is a subject / object distinction between the Father and the Son. So, if the Son says, there are no other Gods besides me, then the Son would be saying that the Father is not God?

The other way to look at it is that the Father and the Son are "one God". God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are separate and distinct personages, though they think, speak, and act as one God. Just as Bill says there is "one government" with 3 different branches.

Third, which I already explained, is that the verses you are attempting to use here are clearly contrasting the God of Israel, to the false gods/idols of the other nations, which do not actually exist, and are nothing more than a figment of their imaginations. That context is not designed to be used as an exposition of the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In fact, it is meant just to contrast against false idols, a superiority of the living God compared to false gods.


7UP: LDS believe that they are the same God. Just not the same Being.

Only if they are two different Gods, dimwit.

Really? Name calling?

Surely you can understand the difference here:

A) Referring to God the Father, who is fully God AND God the Son, who is fully God. In that sense, they are two.

(I refuse to play the game of the Creeds and pretend that I don't know how to count. Feel free to wallow in that form of intellectual dishonesty, but I will not participate. You can try to back out, as Bill has recently done, and say that the Father is 1/3 God, the Son is 1/3 God, and the Holy Spirit is 1/3 God. I don't recommend that you do so though. It is heresy.)

B) In the sense that Jesus describes in John chapter 17, they are "One".

So, there you go. Just use "one" in the same sense that Jesus did, and problem solved.

7UP: Jesus DID say different kinds of statements in different contexts, such as:

Jesus was a man as well as God. As a man he submitted himself to the Father as we do so in his humanity the Father was his God.

The Father was superior to the Son even prior to the incarnation. That is why the Father, as the person in charge, did the sending. The Son, as the loyal child, obeyed and was sent.

This is why Bill has to go into this idea that the Father and Son are "functionally different" from all eternity. The Son is always considered to be subject to the Father's will, not the other way around, therefore the Father and Son are eternally different, (yet supposedly they are the same single essence). This Trinitarian concept also runs contrary to Hebrews 1, which says that the Son is an exact copy/imprint of the Father's person. If that were the case, Jesus would not be eternally subservient to the Father, because it would also imply that the Father is subservient to a Father, just as Jesus is.


-7up

[foudroyant]

Why do Mormons contradict that the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to (1 Corinthians 1:2)?

[Cow Poke]

Why do Mormons contradict that the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to (1 Corinthians 1:2)?

Because their whole religion was made up as it went along - some from the Masons, some from other denominations... mostly from Smith's head.

[DigitalInkling]

As an aside, should we really consider this topic a purely "Mormon" issue?

Surely, there are Christians outside the LDS church who understand the teaching that we should pray to the Father in the name of the Son. This is true from early Christianity:


"Only God the Father is worthy of receiving prayer and adoration; not even the Son, though we pray in the name of Christ." Origen [ca. A.D. 250 ]

Origen [ca. A.D. 250 ]

Athanasius (A.D. 300-373)

- The Council of Carthage in A.D. 397

- LaCugna at Council of Hippo A.D. 393

-7up

This is a good point 7up. I haven't thought of this. I found it interesting what the early church says about this.

[foudroyant]

Those that belonged to the earliest church (Luke, Peter, Paul, John) taught that prayer is to be directed to the Lord Jesus.

[DigitalInkling]

Those that belonged to the earliest church (Luke, Peter, Paul, John) taught that prayer is to be directed to the Lord Jesus.

Hmmm i kinda like those folks he quoted foudroyant. I am not willing to discount their views.

[foudroyant]

1. I much more like what those under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote.
They trump all.

2. Here is another citation:
Papylus upon being martyred said, "Blessing to you Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God: you have thought me fit to share this fate with you, sinner though I am."

3. More can be found in "Early Christian Prayers"
http://www.amazon.it/Early-Christian.../dp/1466462671


It's best to stick with point #1.