Monday, October 5, 2009

Administering Angels and Ministering Spirits

The other day I was working on an article about section 76 and how two of the three kingdoms of glory are actually kingdom of damnation as well as glory in the sense that the inhabitants of those two kingdoms are damned from ever entering into the presence of God the Father in the highest kingdom.

The article was not finished and as with many articles that I write I came across some ancillary but related issues that I had some speculations on that I temporarily put in the first draft subject to doing more thorough research on them.

This is how I outline the original drafts of most of my articles so that I don't loose the thoughts I want to cover in the article... it also enables me to capture the chronology of how I want to present things.

I then forgot about some of the additional research I needed to do and while working on the article early in the morning I published it thinking I would have the original research done on it and have it completed and updated on the blog before anyone read it.

To add to the problem, I forgot to do the additional research and I forgot to unpublish the unfinished article.

It is really funny to me how quickly certain people begin reading my posts... it seems as if it is within seconds after I hit the post button that my stats pages is showing that people are reading it. (not that I check the stats page very frequently)

I sometimes wonder if some people sit in front of their computers 24/7 watching for the new posting alerts to pop up so they can pounce on them LOL.

Anyway, long story short, I appears that about 30 people have read that first draft although it was not posted very long. I have since pulled the article pending doing the more thorough research. Needless to say, I have had a few responses from people wondering if I have lost my mind.

I apologize for getting ahead of myself.

I hope to republish the article eventually with the necessary corrections and deletions and with some interesting new information I have since uncovered pertaining to the general topic.

I hope to get that post and my last one on the Morley Farm series posted within a week or two.

I may suspend my blogging after that as I feel pretty much blogged out right now.

While doing the article about the degrees of glory however I came across some information that had not occurred to me and want to share it at this time.

This falls under the topic of speculation.

It has to do with the restoration of the higher priesthood by Peter James and John.

One of the reasons I find what I am about to share with you interesting, is because it may explain an "apparent discrepancy" in church history pertaining to the restoration of the higher priesthood by Peter, James and John.

Before I begin, I acknowledge that the restoration of the higher priesthood is a very complex and confusing issue that has baffled LDS historians and theologians for years.

I don't pretend to have all the answers.

I recently read a compelling post providing the supposition that the higher priesthood was an inherited patriarchal priesthood that did not even require an ordination by angels.. it even provided a fascinating revelation received by Joseph Smith supporting this thesis.

Another thought that has come to me is that the ordination of the higher priesthood and the conferral of keys pertaining to the higher priesthood could have been two separate and distinct events.

Those two possibilities might make for an interesting analysis at some point in time.

As you know, the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood by John the Baptist is pretty detailed and consistent.

We are given the details behind what motivated the event, we are given an exact time and place and we have the testimony of two witnesses that were there. Both testimonies are consistent.

The restoration of the higher patriarchal priesthood (which is usually referred to as the Melchizedek Priesthood in modern Mormonism), is much more obscure and problematic.

In the words of controversial LDS historian Michael Quinn, "accounts of the visit of Peter, James, and John by Cowdery and Smith remained vague and contradictory."

We are not given to many details behind what motivated this event and we are not sure exactly where it took place, although many LDS scholars have come to believe that the higher priesthood restoration took place on the banks of the Susquehanna River between Colesville and Harmony... based on a statement in section 128.

The public revealing of the restoration of the Melchizedek did not even take place until many years after the event. (which is believed to have taken place in 1829 shortly after the restoration of the Aaronic priesthood)

"The first time that any mention of angelic messengers is documented was in 1834 at a meeting of the Kirtland High Council. Soon after, Cowdery also started to talk about angels. In 1835, he said, “[Smith] was ordained by the angel John, unto the lesser or Aaronic priesthood, in company with myself… After this we received the high and holy priesthood …” (Early Mormon Documents 2:452-453).

According to John Whitmer, “I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic Priesthood until the year 1834"

The following statement from JS explains why he and Cowdery did not speak much about the restoration of the priesthoods,

"In the meantime we were forced to keep secret the circumstances of having received the Priesthood and our having been baptized, owing to a spirit of persecution which had already been manifested in the neighborhood."

Strangely we have not been given the exact date on which the restoration of the higher priesthood took place.

Perhaps the most disconcerting thing about the event is that the testimony of Oliver Cowdery and the testimony of Joseph Smith appear to contradict each other.

Joseph Smith stated multiple times that he received the priesthood keys from Peter James and John.

In 1846 Cowdery for the first time named an angel involved in the second priesthood restoration. He wrote that he "stood in the presence of John, with our departed Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood—and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater."

In a public talk two years later Oliver Cowdrey declared: "I was also present when the higher or Melchizedek Priesthood . . . was conferred by the holy angel from on high."

Critics of the church use these statements from Cowdery to show inconsistencies between the testimony of Cowdery and Smith.

They feel it is problematic that Oliver states that only one angel conferred the priesthood upon Smith despite Smiths statements that the priesthood keys had been received from Peter, James and John.

However I recently came across an interesting statement by Joseph Smith that is recorded in the Kirtland Record Book,

At the organization of the Kirtland high council, he said: "I shall now endeavour to set forth before this council, the dignity of the office which has been conferred upon me by the ministering [sic] of the Angel of God, by his own will and by the voice of this Church".

Interestingly some LDS church historians assume that Joseph was referring to John the Baptist and the Aaronic priesthood when making that statement, but I would suggest that in fact the context behind this event suggests that he was referring to the restoration of the higher priesthood.

After all, he was setting forth the dignity of the office before the "high council"! They were obviously holding the higher priesthood not the lesser priesthood.

I therefore submit that he was substantiating Oliver Cowdery's testimony that would be made years later after his death, that the higher priesthood was conferred by ONE angel... Peter.

I would further point out that Joseph and Oliver were probably in the presence of all three beings, Peter, James and John, even though the actually conferral was done by just one of them. (regardless, the keys that had been committed to all three were being conveyed by the president of the quorum)

Another statement made by Joseph Smith was that he had "received the holy priesthood under the hands of they who had been held in reserve for a long season, even those who received it under the hand of the Messiah."

I would suggest that those who had been held in "reserve" to physically confer priesthood on those occasions were Peter, James and John.

This brings me to the speculative observations I would like to share regarding the article I was working on.

While working on the above mentioned article about the three degrees of glory, I came across the intriguing statement in section 76 about those who are "heirs of salvation"

“…And also the telestial receive it of the administering of angels who are appointed to minister for them, or who are appointed to be ministering spirits for them; for they shall be heirs of salvation.

While some assume that the above passage is teaching that the telestial glory is a glory of salvation since it’s inhabitants are “heirs of salvation”, according to the 1820 Websters, an heir is “One who is entitled to possess” not one that has already possessed. Hence those being spoken of presumptively in the telestial kingdom don't have salvation yet.. only the promise of salvation.

Hence the above passages would prove just the opposite, that the telestial kingdom is not a kingdom of salvation.

Further, it would appear to teach that those in the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms can progress from one kingdom to another and eventually receive eternal life in the highest kingdom.

Of course, we know this is not possible from other passages and words of the prophets, therefore we need to drill down contextually to see what is really being said.

I would submit that if you will carefully study the verses preceding the above verse, you will see that verse 86 reveals that in the ETERNAL WORLD, the telestial souls receive the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial, however verse 88 is actually addressing a new topic, or at least, sub-topic.

It is speaking about how MORTAL MEN in a PROBATIONARY STATE in a TELESTIAL WORLD, WHO ARE HEIRS OF SALVATION, are ministered to by ministering spirits and administering angels, just as Joseph and Oliver were ministered to by John the Baptist and Peter, James and John. (See Heb 1:14, D&C 7 & D&C 13)

The above passage caused me to do a key phrase search using "administering angels" AND "ministering spirits".

That search took me to a section of the D&C that I have never really pondered that deeply before.

It is a short revelation that I am going to provide in full. I am going to insert my observation between verses then provide a synopsis,

"And the Lord said unto me: John, my beloved, what desirest thou? For if you shall ask what you will, it shall be granted unto you.
2 And I said unto him: Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee.
3 And the Lord said unto me: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people.
4 And for this cause the Lord said unto Peter: If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? For he desired of me that he might bring souls unto me, but thou desiredst that thou mightest speedily come unto me in my kingdom.
5 I say unto thee, Peter, this was a good desire; but my beloved has desired that he might do more, or a greater work yet among men than what he has before done.

I always used to think the Lord was telling Peter that John's desire was a greater desire and a greater future work than Peters. I now think that the Savior was acknowledging that both Peter and John had good desires.

The Lord was stating that the desire of John was that John wanted to do a greater work than John had previously done.

6 Yea, he has undertaken a greater work; therefore I will make him as flaming fire and a ministering angel; he shall minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation who dwell on the earth.

Bingo. That is what the passage in section 76 was making reference to. Some of the mortal men on earth who are going through their probationary experience in a telestial world, who are willing to repent will be "heirs of salvation".

Case in point, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and those who responded to the gospel were blessed by the ministering of angels!

7 And I will make thee to minister for him and for thy brother James;

I am not sure if verse 7 continues speaking to Peter, the last one spoken to or to John. I lean towards it now reverting back to John since James was Johns literal brother, not Peters.

Very interesting. John is going to minister to people on earth in behalf of Peter and James because Peter and James are in the presence of Christ while John is still in the trenches doing missionary work.

Peter is going to be with Christ but will be available to act as an "administering angel". John is still on the earth as a "ministering spirit".

I could be wrong on a few issues here. Let me know if you think I am and why.

If verse 7 was still addressing Peter, then the implication is that James had also asked to remain and bring souls to people.

and unto you three I will give this power and the keys of this ministry until I come.
8 Verily I say unto you, ye shall both have according to your desires, for ye both joy in that which ye have desired.

Now then here is the final speculation that I am going to make regarding the above passages and information discussed about the restoration of the priesthood.

John the Baptist was martyred as was Peter. Those are both resurrected being taht are able to perform physical ordinances. John and James are either spirits or translated beings which have very refined spiritual bodies. It makes perfect sense that for some reason, John and Peter (Administering Angels) needed to provided a physical priesthood ordinance as resurrected beings while John and James (ministering spirits) may have simply stood by and watched.

Hence the statements from JS that he received the priesthood keys from Peter, James and John are accurate even though the physical transaction of the ordinance was done solely by Peter, while the others watched as witnesses. Perhaps it is contrary to the laws of God for John to perform a physical ordinance...

I admit this is total speculation and I have not been pondering this very long and done virtually zero key word searching and researching beyond what I have disclosed.

Most references to the quotes above can be found at the following website


rob said...

I think that James and John could have & most likely, were standing by to WITNESS what Peter was doing all by himself.  Afterall, you always see Christ in those pictures of him ordaining his twelve, doing it without the help of anyone. So why could not Peter do the same?I always thought it was a bit of overkill to call up a circle full of Elders or High Priest to give a Child a name & a Blessing.Seems to me that the sacredness of the occassion would forego the need or even the Lord's desire to have so many people collectively laying their hands on one person.What's the point other than to gratify the desires of those standing in the circle?Seems to me like Peter was a pretty good guy that got the Lord's trust and didn't necessarily need the Octane Boost of having extra Preiesthood hands to enhance an ordinance that Christ alone performed on his deciples & intrusted Peter with that same charge.

Someone who is watching said...


You bring up an interesting point.

I have often wondered how we got the tradition of having all of the priesthood holders within three square miles to participate in the ceremony.

I don't have a problem with having a crowd...

I just wonder if it was originally done by Christ and his apostles or if it began some time later.

Is it necessary or is it one of the traditions we picked up along the way?

Someone who is watching said...

I will say this however, if it is a blessing for someone that is sick, then I am all for getting as many faithful men, women and children in the holy circle as possible since we live during dark times when our faith is weak and instantaneous healings are few and far between.. LOL

But if someone has the priesthood or priesthood keys and has the right to bestow them, I don't see why additional horse power is required...

rob said...

Wathcer, I would say to your last comment, without being judgental but being simply aware of various levels of Faith among people I know in the Church, that I would sometimes absolutely prefer fewer men in the circle especially for those who are sick enough as it is.

Someone who is watching said...


NEPT said...

"Perhaps it is contrary to the laws of God for John to perform a physical ordinance..."

The only scenario I can think of at the moment that could throw a monkey wrench into this idea is found in Moses 6 where Adam is baptized presumably by the Holy Ghost:

64 And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water.
65 And thus he was baptized, and the Spirit of God descended upon him, and thus he was born of the Spirit, and became quickened in the inner man.

Apart from the profound doctrine of baptism by water, fire, and the Holy Ghost found in this chapter, it seems to indicate that a "refined spiritual body" or spirit has the capacity to carry a mortal into the water.

This is something that has always confused me, given what JS has to say about the incapability of unembodied spirits to take your hand (D&C 129).

In the end, I'm sure there's much more to Adam's baptism than just the Holy Ghost carrying him down into the water. After all, Mary was "carried away in the spirit" and Nephi himself was "carried away upon exceedingly high mountains...upon the wings of the Spirit".

rob said...

Watcher, I take exception to your last comment, in a very nice way, regarding the more the merrier. There have been times when calling up a boat load of help, especially where the sick are concerned, could possibly make the ability to heal the sick a little tougher considering the vast levels of Faith among the members. But who would deny themselves the opportunity to offer up their Faith (whatever) that may mean, for the sake of joining in the shared fellowship of a Priesthood ordinance in front of others, even at the expence of the person we are to be helping? It may be just me, but this is more of what I believe I am seeing as I grow older & don't see the real relevance of strength in numbers other than to admitt that numbers are needed to do what one real man of God could do himself or two in the case of healing the sick. Don't get me wrong, I'm definately not a Pessimest. I just find it easier to see beyond the crap as I no longer try to fool myself and view the actions of some traditional acts of men as being JUST THAT & not a tradition of God who I view as rather progressive & not so much reliant on tradition in order to forge ahead.

By the way, you got the best stuff on the internet...That's not flattery, it's just an old guy who has read so much on the Net that I've litterally almost made myself blind doing it and your thoughts are very Spiritually Stimulating and cool to think someone thinks so deeply about God and His Gospel.

I hope to meet you someday and put a face to the voice and coments you make.

What the heck can I tell about that picture of you that looks an awefull lot like a picture of myself at that age? I hope you grew up to be a little less curious to passer by's than me.

I know this sounds dumb but I always try to paint a mental picture of people to whom I have listened to on the radio and find interesting.

We have a male & female DJ couple down here that I listened to for years, then the first time I saw their picture on a Bill Board in Orlando, I lost Faith and could never listened to them again.

I know that's kind of shallow but they DESTROYED my image of them and caused me to think I was listening to someone I never knew.

Just kidding...But I did almost have a wreck when I was distracted by what I saw! Now I know why they do Radio & not TV!

Someone who is watching said...


That is a great observation.

I see two differences however,

One is that you are comparing the abilities and allowances of eternal law pertaining to the "Spirit of the Lord" (which may or may not be referring to the Holy Ghost) to those of a translated being... they might be different.

The other difference is that moving physical, mortal matter is not necessarily the same as bestowing the priesthood or keys of the priesthood.

It is a given that God has the ability to create worlds and move matter, however there may be an eternal law stating that in a temporal, telestial world, only humans and resurrected beings from that same world are allowed to perform priesthood ordinances.

I find it interesting that in the account in Moses that you are making reference to, it does not say that the "Spirit of the Lord" uttered the baptismal prayer as it carried Adam into the water and back out again.

The only words uttered, came from heaven, acknowledging that he had been born of the spirit and quickened in the inner man after the fact.

Hence, the Spirit of the Lord may only have moved matter and actually performed the actual ceremony, which might be different than conferring priesthood.

Obviously this is one of the rare exceptions where things happen a little differently.

It almost sounds as if God or Christ was doing the ceremony from the heavens.. and they certainly did it differently than humans would.

I am not saying the Spirit of the Lord did not utter the baptismal prayer, I am just pointing out that it is not documented.

What would really help clarify this issue, in my opinion, is if we could find a case where a translated being like John or the three Nephites ever physically ordained someone.

Someone who is watching said...


That is the picture of me I want you to have in your mind..

Because that is the call to action in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We are to become as little children.

I see you the exact same way...

just not quite as cute.

Someone who is watching said...


I wasn't totally kidding when I suggested letting women into the circle. Perhaps the only other improvement might be to keep the men out of it.

Here is an interesting segment of an interesting article on the role of women in healing the sick during the restoration movement that I recently skimmed,

"With Joseph’s approval, Emma and her counselors laid hands on the sick and blessed them that they might be healed.

The fifth time the Relief Society
convened, Sarah Cleveland invited the sisters to speak freely, and women stood one at a time in this testimony meeting.

Sister Durfee was among those who spoke.

She "bore testimony to the great blessing she received when administered to after the last meeting by Emma Smith and [her] Counselors Cleveland and Whitney,
she said she never realized more benefit through an administration."

She added that she had been healed and "thought the sisters had more faith than the brethren."

Following the meeting, Sarah Cleveland and Elizabeth
Whitney administered to another Relief Society sister,
Mrs. Abigail Leonard, "for the restoration of health.

In the intervening week, someone apparently reported to Joseph that the women were laying their
hands on the sick and blessing them. His reply to the
question of the propriety of such acts was simple. He told the women in the next meeting "there could be no evil in it, if God gave his sanction by healing.., there
could be no more sin in any female laying hands on the sick than in wetting the face with water."

He also indicated that there were sisters who were ordained to
heal the sick and it was their privilege to do so.

"If the sisters should have faith to heal," he said, "let all hold
their tongues."

NEPT said...

I realize this is not exactly what you requested in your last post, but what do we make of John the Baptist appearing on the mount of transfiguration? What was he doing there? And had he been resurrected? I don't know what he was doing there, but I suppose he was not a resurrected being given that Christ was the firstfruits of the resurrection. Was John performing a priesthood ordinance in the spirit, or some other refined spiritual body?

NEPT said...

And with respect to the gift of healing, I have always wondered why mainstream thought has segregated the "gift to heal" as one that is only held by "priesthood brethren" when it is listed so many times in the scriptures among so many other gifts of the Spirit that we claim have been or can be bestowed on all, male or female. Why should the gift to heal be any different?

Someone who is watching said...


you may have successfully thrown a wrench in the works.

The LDS websites states thus,

"This very important event in the N.T. occurred about a week after the promise made to Peter that he would receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16: 13-18; Matt. 17: 1-9).

On the mount (probably Mount Hermon) the Savior, Moses, and Elias (Elijah) gave the promised keys of the priesthood to Peter, James, and John (HC 3: 387), which enabled these brethren to carry forth the work of the kingdom on the earth after the departure of Jesus.

These keys were later given to all of the Twelve."

I'm not sure I believe it, they don't document why they feel that way, but it is plausible.

Of course your question assumes the heretical stance (which I ascribe to) that Elijah the prophet from the OT that was at that event was also John the Baptist of the NT.

The problem is that we don't know for sure what was taking place in that event.

Also, apparently it is only priesthood ordination that required a physical ordinance.

It appears from section 110 that the transference of "keys" does not necessarily require a physical ordinance. Which btw, might be an important key to this discussion if the "ordination" to the higher priesthood was a separate and distinct event from the transferring of keys.

Now then.. you bring up a great question.

Lets assume, that John was Elijah.

You have pointed out that the Mt. of Transfiguration was prior to the meridian resurrection and Christ was the first to be resurrected.

If John was present when the higher priesthood was given to JS, was he a spirit, or did he return to the state he had achieved in the OT as a translated being before his birth in the meridian of time?

Wrap your mind around that question..

Then enlighten me cuz I haven't a clue...

Someone who is watching said...

When I woke up this AM I had two things on my mind regarding this topic.

One was how Peter, James and John approached the Savior after his resurrection and asked him,

“Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?”

Peter, James and John understood that the keys of the kingdom needed to be transferred from them to others, so that the keys would go from those of the kingdom of Judah to those of the kingdom of Israel.

Joseph and Oliver and their fellow laborers represented those of the kingdom of Israel.

What an incredible witness of the truthfulness of the restoration of the gospel, that Peter returned to transfer the keys to Israel!

The other thing on my mind, regarding the role of Peter in the transferring over of the keys to Israel was that I had remembered something very interesting that Joseph Smith had said about Peter flying through the midst of heaven, in one of his Nauvoo sermons…

so I looked for my book, “words of Joseph Smith” by Ehat.

It was nowhere to be found so I googled and found another great site in the internet providing that content online

In the notes taken from a sermon of JS below, notice how JS refers to Peter as the angel flying in the midst of heaven [to give the keys of the kingdom to Joseph]

“God sows--The enemy comes & sows parties divisions, heresies; Shall we kill them? No, not till harvest--The end of the world.

The Son of God will do as he ever has done from the beginning. Send forth his Angels. If the reapers do not come, the wheat cannot be Saved.

Nothing but Kingdom being restored, can save the world. Like unto a treasure hid in a field. This figure is a representation of the [kingdom] in the last days.

Michael==Adam. Noah. I am Gabriel--Well, says I. Who are you?

I am Peter, the angel flying through the midst of heaven”

I would submit that the prophecy in the Book of Revelation, that JS is alluding to, has a dual fulfillment.

The scripture was a shadow fulfillment of Peter giving the keys to Joseph Smith in the 2nd watch. However the literal fulfillment has to do with JS giving the keys to mortals during the 3rd watch.

Notice that the prophecy in the Book of Revelation takes place at the time of the 144,000,

“And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads.

And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:

And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” Rev 14

To be continued

Someone who is watching said...

Two more references to this prophecy that give additional light pertaining to it, are found in sections 88 and 133.

Joseph Smith resumes the roll that Peter had previously played by flying through the midst of heaven to commit the everlasting gospel to the inhabitants of the earth in the 3rd watch..

• D&C 88: 92, 103
92 And angels shall fly through the midst of heaven, crying with a loud voice, sounding the trump of God, saying: Prepare ye, prepare ye, O inhabitants of the earth; for the judgment of our God is come. Behold, and lo, the Bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.
• • •
103 And another trump shall sound, which is the fifth trump, which is the fifth angel who committeth the everlasting gospel—flying through the midst of heaven, unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people;

• D&C 133: 17, 36
17 For behold, the Lord God hath sent forth the angel crying through the midst of heaven, saying: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight, for the hour of his coming is nigh—
• • •
36 And now, verily saith the Lord, that these things might be known among you, O inhabitants of the earth, I have sent forth mine angel flying through the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel, who hath appeared unto some and hath committed it unto man, who shall appear unto many that dwell on the earth.

In another sermon, JS spoke about the significance of the Mt. of Transfiguration that NEPT brought up in reference to this post.

Apparently the Savior, Moses and John the Baptist did give the keys to Peter, James and John at that event,

“The Father called all spirits before him at the creation of Man & organized them. He (Adam) is the head, was told to multiply.

The Keys were given to him, and by him to others & he will have to give an account of his Stewardship, & they to him. The Priesthood is everlasting.

The Savior, Moses, & Elias—gave the Keys to Peter, James & John on the Mount when they were transfigured before him.

The Priesthood is everlasting, without beginning of days or end of years, without Father, Mother &c,—

If there is no change of ordinances there is no change of Priesthood.

Wherever the ordinances of the Gospel are administered there is the priesthood. How have we come at the priesthood in the last days?

They it came down, down in regular succession. Peter James & John had it given to them & they gave it up.”

The above statement should be helpful to those who continue to quote section 77:14 thinking that John the Revelator is the one to preside over the completion of the work of gathering Israel instead of Joseph Smith.

Peter, James and John gave up the keys to Joseph and others.

They continue to help as ministering spirits and angels, but the holder of keys in life and death, who presides over the finishing of the work of the gathering of Israel, as documented multiple times, over and over again in this blog, is Joseph Smith

Someone who is watching said...

correction, I said

"However the literal fulfillment has to do with JS giving the keys to mortals during the 3rd watch."

I meant using the keys to take the everlasting gospel to the inhabitants of the world.

NEPT said...

I want to digress for a moment to discuss the idea that John the Baptist was Elijah transmigrated. Watcher, you mentioned that my comment presupposed that The Baptist was Elijah, but I don't think that is necessarily true. Although Elias is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew Elijah, I think there is sufficient precedence to claim that Elias does not strictly refer to Elijah (that one is a no-brainer).

Although I am open to the idea of transmigration, I came across a journal entry from the Kirtland era wherein JS describes an encounter with one Robert Matthew, aka Joshua the Jewish minister, aka Matthias the Prophet. I'll reproduce just a part of the entry:

"during all this time I did not contradict his sentiments, wishing to draw out all that I could concerning his faith; the next morning Tuesday 10th I resumed the conversation and desired him to enlighten by mind more on his views respecting the resurection, he says that he poss[ess]es the spirit of his fathers, that he is a litteral decendant of Mathias the Apostle that was chosen in the place of Judas that fell and that his spirit is resurected in him, and that this the way or scheme of eternal life, this transmigration of soul or spirit from Father to Son: I told him that his doctrine was of the Devil that he was in reality in possession of wicked and depraved spirit, although he professed to bew the spirit of truth, it self, also that he possesses the soul of Christ; he tarried unti Wednesday 11th, after breckfast I told him, that my God told me that his God is the Devil, and I could not keep him any longer, and he must depart, and so I for once cast out the Devil in bodily shape, & I believe a murderer..."

I realize this is a far cry from a denunciation of the doctrine of transmigration, but it has caused me to pause and reevaluate the idea. An obvious counter argument would be that JS took issue with the belief that transmigration was the literal fulfillment of resurrection and eternal life, viz, a never-ending cycle of transmigration. But the fact that JS specifically singled out "transmigration" in the journal entry makes me wonder.

So, to come full circle, a mingling of the JST with mainstream thought (i.e., John the Baptist was present at Christ's transfiguration, and Elias necessarily means Elijah) might be just too heretical for me, LOL!

Someone who is watching said...

Yes I guess I should not have assumed that you accepted the statements in the scriptures stating that Elijah is John the Baptist.

In that case, as you pointed out, since this was before the meridian resurrection, John would have to have been a ministering spirit.

Assuming that it was a transferring of priesthood keys as us mentioned in the JS sermon, and not an ordination to the priesthood, the laying on of hands would not be necessary anyway.

NEPT said...

"Yes I guess I should not have assumed that you accepted the statements in the scriptures stating that Elijah is John the Baptist."

Are there scriptural references that can be interpreted as Elijah = John the Baptist aside from Mark 9? I don't recall ever having this discussion with you, but then again, with everything that we've discussed over the past year my brain feels like mashed potatoes.

Someone who is watching said...

Yes there are.

I can't remember where I put my diatribe on that topic right now... it may have been in a comments section instead of in an article.

I'll try to find it... just try to remember a few others

Someone who is watching said...

Regarding JS statement about Mathias,

Here is a snippet from an article that brings up a great point.

Mathias had made four doctrinal declarations. There is no reason to believe that all four of them were false.

I don't think we can use that statement to categorically prove that certain prophets could possibly be called to return if their office or calling required it.

"Why do the present authorities teach that reincarnation is the doctrine of the Devil?

It all stems, as do many false doctrines, from an original misinterpretation, and each succeeding authority did not have a mind to contradict the preceding ones. It's as Joseph Smith said in the King Follett discourse. If we start right we can go right all the time, but if we start amiss we will continue to error.

In November 1835 a man who went by the name of Joshua paid a visit to Joseph Smith. The man evidently had some truth for Joseph said he made some "excellent remarks". However, Joseph Smith was suspicious of him and discovered that he was Robert Mathias of New York who had endured trials for "murder, man slaughter, contempt of court, whipping his daughter, etc." Despite this Joseph entertained him for a few days and finally asked him to enlighten him "on his views respecting the resurrection." Matthias made four statements 1. He was a literal descendant of Matthias, the apostle. 2. The spirit of Matthias was resurrected in him. 3. The scheme of eternal life was the transmigration of the spirit from father to son. 4. He was the spirit of truth itself and possessed the soul of Christ.

To this Joseph Smith said "I told him that his doctrine was of the devil, that he was in reality in possession of a wicked and depraved spirit." Joseph pressed him to leave and upon his departing he said: "And so I, for once, cast out the devil in bodily shape, and I believe a murderer." History of the Church Vol. 2; pages 304-307.

Let's examine the four statements of Matthias and see if Joseph Smith was correct about him. The first statement is really the only one that may be true. It is possible that he was a descendant of Matthias. Intellectually, we have no way of knowing the truth of this one.

It's very unlikely that he possessed the spirit of Matthias, the Apostle, since he (Robert Matthias) himself was a murderer. Chances are very slim that one of the original twelve apostles would come back as a murderer and wife beater.

Number three is also false doctrine since the scheme of things is not to have one spirit passed down from father to son. One is often reincarnated in a body unrelated to a previous life.

Number four is also false doctrine as he certainly did not possess the soul of Christ.

Interestingly we can believe in the true doctrine of reincarnation and yet say along with Joseph Smith that the man's doctrine was of the adversary."

NEPT said...

Right. In my previous post I alluded to this argument. As I said before, I have not categorically renounced transmigration, but am taking a closer look at the doctrine.

Someone who is watching said...


You asked

“Are there scriptural references that can be interpreted as Elijah = John the Baptist aside from Mark 9?”

Yes there are additional supporting references.

#1 First lets review just how clear JST Mark 9 is,

“And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, and James, and John, who asked him many questions concerning his sayings; and Jesus leadeth them up into a high mountain apart by themselves.

And he was transfigured before them. And his raiment became shining, exceeding white, as snow; so white as no fuller on earth could whiten them.

And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses, or in other words, John the Baptist and Moses; and they were talking with Jesus.

#2 In Luke 1:17, the angel that appears before Zacharias to announce that, regardless of the advanced age of his wife and him, a son would be granted to them by God, says irrefutably:

"...and he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah..."

Let's review what Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist reveals in Luke 1:76 concerning this when he says: "... and thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways." in clear reference to the passage of Malachi 4:5,6.

#3 in John 1:1-4 quotes the prophecy in Mal and then acknowledges that it is referring to John

“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; As it is written in the prophets,

Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

#4 JST John 1:20-24 in the regular bible John denied that he is Elijah but in the JST it is changes where he “denies not that he is Elijah”

“And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem, to ask him; Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not that he was Elias; but confessed, saying; I am not the Christ. And they asked him, saying; How then art thou Elias? And he said, I am not that Elias who was to restore all things. And they asked him saying, Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. “

to be continued

Someone who is watching said...

# 5 JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION MATTHEW 11: 7-15 In these passages Christ himself testifies that John “was the Elias, who was for to come and prepare all things”

“And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? Was it a reed shaken with the wind?

And they answered him, No. And he said, But what went ye out for to see? Was it a man clothed in soft raiment?

Behold they that wear soft raiment are in king's houses.
9 But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.

For this is the one of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Verily, I say unto you, Among them that are born of women, there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist; notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven, is greater that he.

And from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

But the days will come, when the violent shall have no power; for all the prophets and the law prophesied that it should be thus until John.

Yea, as many as have prophesied have foretold of these days.
And if ye will receive it, verily, he was the Elias, who was for to come and prepare all things.”

#6 JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION MATTHEW 17: 10-14 these passages reveal that two Eliases [Elijahs] were to come—one to prepare and one to restore. John was Elijah the preparer and Joseph is Elijah the Restorer

“And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things, as the prophets have written.

And again I say unto you that Elias has come already, concerning whom it is written, Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and they knew him not, and have done unto him, whatsoever they listed.
Likewise shall also the Son of Man suffer of them.

But I say unto you, Who is Elias? Behold, this is Elias, whom I send to prepare the way before me.

Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist, and also of another who should come and restore all things, as it is written by the prophets.

In addition to the pattern we see from the above 6 passages, it is interesting to note that the NT states that John was full of the Holy Ghost while in his mothers womb… most people never achieve the fulness of the holy ghost during mortality let alone before birth! clearly this is an advance being... perhaps one that had already been sanctified and translated in a previous life.

Add to that that the original version of the D&C tells us that John the Baptist had been baptized BEFORE coming out of the womb…

It seems to me that there is overwhelming evidence that John the Baptist was Elijah the Prophet from the Old Testament returning to fulfill his mission.

I certainly think the above scriptures are significant and hard to refute.

Of course the fact that a great prophet needs to return to finish his calling does not provide a strong case that everyone keeps returning.

Someone who is watching said...

I might also add, that in addition to the six scriptural witnesses that John was the literal fulfillment of the return of Elijah the Prophet from the Old Testament, and in addition to the fact that Christ referred to him as the greatest prophet born of woman, which many Bible scholars would otherwise have attributed to Elijah who had fulness of the priesthood and could command the elements and was translated and taken up into heaven, and in addition to the fact that John had been baptized and received the fulness of the Holy Ghost BEFORE coming out of the womb, there is one more consideration to be made.

Notice the following statement From John,

"Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice:"

It is rather profound and significant that John does not categorize himself as being among those who represent the bride, rather, he is the "friend of the bridegroom".

He is putting himself separate to, and above, the status of the bride and closer to the status of the bridegroom is he not?

One could actually make a strong case that he is the third member of the you no what...

however, one could make just as strong a case that Adam or JS is also, so, we shall leave that mysterious topic for another time...

Nevertheless, if you believe John was not Elijah the Prophet, then we must assume that he was acting as a ministering spirit at the Mt. of Transfiguration.

WanderingMortal said...

I value your hard work and time, into making some very thought provoking posts. I don't deny that God has the power to bring back whom He wills, to bring about His purposes. Speaking in general now thats Its best to not put limits on what God can and cannot do. You are really doing that to yourself if you do. I have made the same mistake, so I am speaking from experience.

As being raised Lds. I once had a view that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were separate, distinct,Holy Beings. But my views on it have changed, it led me to much unneeded speculation on who the Father, and Holy Ghost were, when the answer was right in front of me, yet I was looking beyond the mark.

As much as I believe Joseph Smith to be a true prophet. And that the Father and Son visited him, but I don't consider any accounts of the First Vision 100% accurate at best. Even though the Father reveals the Son. The Son being equal with the Father, can do the same.

All of the mysteries of God, cannot top this One.

Someone who is watching said...

"As being raised Lds. I once had a view that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were separate, distinct,Holy Beings. But my views on it have changed"

I think you are making inaccurate assumptions about what I believe.

The fact that the Godhead is described multiple times in scripture as being separate and distinct, it also states multiple times that they are ONE and that there is only ONE God... and that Christ is the Eternal Father.

Unlike most people, I don't choose one or the other of what most people believe to be two conflicting doctrines... I believe both... and yes, that is a mystery to most people.

I suggest you read my article on Fullness of the Father to see if you can wrap your mind around what I am saying.

Hence the apparently contradictory accounts of the first vision that give many people, apparently you included, are not a problem for me and I believe all of them.

You are invited to share your deeper knowledge of the nature and character of God on this platform IF you can substantiate it from the holy and infallible word of God, which, based on what little you have said, I doubt you can.

"it led me to much unneeded speculation on who the Father, and Holy Ghost were, when the answer was right in front of me, yet I was looking beyond the mark."

No offense, but I think you are still looking beyond the mark.

If your current perception of God is inconsistent with the word of God, you really need to go back to the drawing board.

" I don't consider any accounts of the First Vision 100% accurate at best."

I rest my case.

WanderingMortal said...


I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my words, hard for me to put into words to convey on what I know or what I believe. I was merely stating what I believed in the past, not what you believed, I cannot convey your own thoughts, If you thought I was I'm sorry, that was not my intentions. One thing about me I don't assume how others view God, I listen to their views, but I don't mirror it. But I will say I will try to connect with them.

But as you have clearly spoken, your views and not by me. We are both on the same page, since I too believe in the what seems to conflicting doctrines. As far scriptures to support my Mono-polythesist view, if you really want me to, but I know it will take a while. I don't know how you will react to this response, but from the last It seems that I offended you, and for that you have my deepest apologies.

TruthSeekerToo said...

Wow, this topic has gone all over the place!

The nature of Godhead has been on my mind A LOT lately. How timely for it to come up here.

I think I finally understand that the Father and Son presents a paradox.

I think that having a circle of loved ones to welcome a baby into the world is a beautiful ritual. I only wish that mothers could hold their babies in the chapel. I was once told that a mother can hold the baby, but you have to do the blessing in private. Random!

It's sad when the Old Testament is more progressive than 2009. :(

Oh, I only have one observation about administering angels and spirits. It seems to me that we sometimes overlook the fact that the servant (greatest) serves the least. So, while some people may have believed that those who become exalted would have servants in the CK, I believe they are wrong. Those who are most likely to be servants-or serve others-are those with eternal life.

We have thise notion of "visiting" people of "lesser glories." I don't think it will be a social call. Do you?

Someone who is watching said...

I agree we won't have servants in the sense wealthy people may have servants in this life, however, one of the definitions of the Melchizedek priesthood, which is the priesthood of Godhood is that you have power over ALL THINGS which includes all spirits in a lesser order.

It appears that is how you are able to create worlds through the post-knowledge faith, is that you speak the word and the spirits and elements rush forward to obey your command.

I agree with you that visiting people in lesser kingdoms will not be in the sense of a social call as we might think in this existence.

TruthSeekerToo said...

Interesting. What do you think it means to have power over all things-including resurrected beings of lower kingdoms?

The priesthood (used properly) can only be used to serve others.

"one of the definitions of the Melchizedek priesthood, which is the priesthood of Godhood is that you have power over ALL THINGS which includes all spirits in a lesser order."

I can't find where you got this definition, could you throw me a verse. My keywording is failing me. Thanks!

Someone who is watching said...

1- [God created ALL THINGS and Knows ALL THINGS. His Elect will know ALL THINGS]

1 Hearken, O ye people of my church, to whom the kingdom has been given; hearken ye and give ear to him who laid the foundation of the earth, who made the heavens and all the hosts thereof, and by whom all things were made which live, and move, and have a being. D&C 45: 1, 35, 38, 60
10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him. 28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things. D&C 93: 10, 28
• D&C 121: 4
4 O Lord God Almighty, maker of heaven, earth, and seas, and of all things that in them are, and who controllest and subjectest the devil, and the dark and benighted dominion of Sheol—stretch forth thy hand; let thine eye pierce; let thy pavilion be taken up; let thy hiding place no longer be covered; let thine ear be inclined; let thine heart be softened, and thy bowels moved with compassion toward us.

2- [God governs ALL THINGS]

40 For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.
41 He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever.

3- [Those who receive a fullness of the priesthood of Godhood will become a possessor of ALL THINGS and all things are subject unto them]

He that is ordained of God [to the Melchizedek Priesthood] and sent forth, the same is appointed to be the greatest, notwithstanding he is the least and the servant of all. Wherefore, he is possessor of all things; for all things are subject unto him, both in heaven and on the earth, the life and the light, the Spirit and the power, sent forth by the will of the Father through Jesus Christ, his Son. But no man is possessor of all things except he be purified and cleansed from all sin. D&C 50: 27-28, 35, 40

4- [After God subdues ALL THINGS he will then put ALL THINGS into the hands of his elect who are the Church of the Firstborn]

54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.
55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things—
56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;
57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.
58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—
59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
60 And they shall overcome all things.
61 Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but rather let him glory in God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet.

Someone who is watching said...

Also pertaining to the topic of obtaining power over all things, I pointed out in the Morley Farm series that “Salvation is for a man to triumph over all his foes or be above all enemies"

"In a sermon given in Nauvoo, Joseph Smith gave a fascinating definition of what “salvation” is and revealed how oppressive the world of spirits is….

“The spirits of the eternal world are diverse from each other as here in their dispositions: aspiring, ambitious… The spirits of the eternal world glory in bringing other spirits in subjection unto them, striving continually for the mastery….” (ref)

This spirit world is composed of aspiring and ambitious spirits who oppress those that have less knowledge and power than themselves.

The prophet also acknowledges that because of the unsurpassed power and glory of the Father, he is able to call together and organize spirits to do his will when he creates a world or has a work to do;

“Further, He who rules in heaven, when he has a certain work to do, calls the spirits before him to organize them. They present themselves and offer their services.”

The prophet reveals that because of the dynamics in the spirit world, we have enemies there, and we need to gain knowledge and power that will place us beyond their power. He states that we need to do this in order to be saved;

[Therefore] as man is liable to [have] enemies there as well as here it is necessary for him to be placed beyond their power in order to be saved…”

“What is salvation? Salvation is for a man to triumph over all his foes or be above all enemies even our last enemy which is death through power… Knowledge will do this. And until this is done you will not have obtained salvation.

Further, knowledge must be given to triumph over all evil spirits in the world to come, then we are saved. Perhaps there are principles here that few men have thought of.” (ref)

The term salvation, as used in the New Testament and book of Mormon and most of the time in modern revelation refers to the highest salvation in the kingdom of God. According to Joseph Smith, this highest salvation has to do with overcoming all enemies through the acquisition of knowledge and priesthood power.

Joseph Smith revealed a great secret in that and other discourses stating that evil spirits oppress other spirits in the world of spirits. Those with greater power often oppress the others. Unrighteous dominion runs rampant in the spirit world.

It is therefore essential that we gain the knowledge and power necessary to “triumph over all evil spirits” in the world to come.

Someone who is watching said...

As you all know, Abraham became a "friend of God".

We are also told that several of the first laborers of the last kingdom became "friends of God".

That term has a very special meaning.

I recently saw a great article about John the Baptist and his role as the friend of the Bridegroom.

Here is a segment of the article,

"The relation between John the Baptist and the Holy Spirit began before he was born, for he was "filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb."

Jesus testified of his special position, saying "Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist."

He also testified of his unique role in the Gospel, saying, "this is he, of whom it is written,

Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." John had the incomparable honor of baptizing the Lord Jesus and bearing witness of "the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove" It is for these reasons, and many more, that John bore the sign of Gimel, wearing, as stated in Matthew 3, "a raiment of camel's hair."

Friend of the Bridegroom

John's role as the "Friend of the Bridegroom" - called a Shoshabin in Hebrew and a paranumph in Greek - foreshadowed the work of the Holy Spirit.

There are profound links to elements from Spoke 3. The purpose of the Friend of the Bridegroom was threefold, including activities before, during, and after the marriage.

This is presented in some detail by Adam Clarke (below is an abreviated version of the online article):

1. Before the marriage: it was the business of the shoshabin:

1. To procure a husband for the virgin, to guard her, and to bear testimony to her corporeal and mental endowments; and it was upon this testimony of this friend that the bridegroom chose his bride.
2. He was the internuncio between her and her spouse elect; carrying all messages from her to him, and from him to her: for before marriage young women were very strictly guarded at home with their parents or friends.

2. At the wedding: it was the business of the shoshabin, if necessary:

1. To vindicate the character of the bride.
2. To sleep in an apartment contiguous to the new-married pair, to prevent the bride from receiving injury.
3. It was his office to see that neither the bride nor bridegroom should be imposed on by each other; and therefore it was his business to examine and exhibit the tokens of the bride's purity, according to the law, Deuteronomy 22:13-21.
4. When they found that their friend had got a pure and chaste virgin, they exulted greatly; as their own character and the happiness of their friend, were at stake. To this the Baptist alludes, John 3:29, This my joy is fulfilled.
5. They distributed gifts to the new-married couple, which, on their marriage, were repaid either by their friend, or by his father. The same thing is done at what are called the biddings, at marriages in Wales, to the present day

To be continued

Someone who is watching said...

3. After marriage.

1. The shoshabin was considered the patron and advocate of the wife, and in some sort her guardian, to which the apostle alludes, 2 Corinthians 11:2 (Spoke 3, Cycle3). He was generally called in to compose any differences which might happen between her and her husband, and reconcile them when they had been at variance.

Clarke also noted that the shoshabin "were chosen out of the most intimate and particular friends of the parties: a brother might be shoshabin or paranymph to his brother." This cohere's with John the Baptist who was Jesus' cousin. In keeping with this pattern, it is on Spoke 3 that Paul portrays himself as the Friend of the Bridegroom, saying in II Corinthians 11:2 (Spoke 3, Cycle 3):

I am jealous over you with godly jealousy; for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

Endersheim expounded on this verse in his Sketches of Jewish Lives:

[H]e speaks, as it were, in the character of groomsman or "bridegroom's friend," who had acted as such at the spiritual union of Christ with the Corinthian Church.

And we know that it was specially the duty of the "friend of the bridegroom" so to present to him his bride. Similarly it was his also, after marriage, to maintain proper terms between the couple, and more particularly to defend the good fame of the bride against all imputations.

In this, Paul was fulfilling the law of the High Priest given in Leviticus 21 (Spoke 3, Cycle 1):

And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments ... shall take a wife in her virginity.

It is the Holy Spirit that makes the Bride of Christ worthy, cleansing us of all impurity and sanctifying us. Many scholars have explored the "Friend of the Bridegroom" as a Type of the Holy Spirit, who "runs to and fro throughout the world" to gather the People of God together, to "present a chaste virgin to Christ."

The ramifications of these parallells with the Holy Spirit are greatly amplified by their geometric integration with elements of Spoke 3 - Leviticus, II Corinthians, and John 3."

WanderingMortal said...

My first comment on here was quite confounding, I knew one way or another, my words would get twisted, because it’s hard for me to do any communication precise and to the point. Hence why I added "Speaking in general," not directed to anyone. Again it’s my fault, since communication is not my strongest attribute.

Anyways, as I have pondered over the verses contained, Christ being the Father. Then I questioned if Christ is the Father, is He the Holy Ghost? Now I still believe in the Godhead and the roles contained therein. Just that none other than Jesus Christ fulfilling all roles in our salvation.

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
(New Testament | Colossians 2:8 - 9)

Interesting enough, Isaiah comments on the Son of God as being an Arm of God

1 WHO hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
(Old Testament | Isaiah 53:1)

20 And we beheld the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father, and received of his fulness;
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 76:20)
As I have pondered over this verse, glory of the Son seems quite eluding doesn't it?

But the main reason, I'm here, is the name of the Holy Ghost, as to why Jesus Christ is also the name of the Holy Ghost, as well as the Father.

26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.
(New Testament | John 17:26)
Why would the Lord, declare the name of the Father, if the name of Jesus Christ is all we need?

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
(New Testament | John 14:16 - 17)
This another comforter is given the name of Spirit of truth, lets see where it is mentioned also.

23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth;
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:23) Spirit of Truth seems to be a name for the Father also.

9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men.
10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him.
11 And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:9 - 11)
And again to the Son.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
(New Testament | John 14:18 - 19)
Interesting that the Lord is acknowledging that He will comfort.

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
(New Testament | John 14:26)
So there is a Comforter and Holy Ghost connection, and the Lord saying He will comfort. Also that Holy Ghost will be sent in Christ's name, that doesn't mean Jesus Christ is the name of the Holy Ghost, or does it?

There is another verse that supports this, but I can't seem to remember where it is.

To be continued.

WanderingMortal said...

Now to the second part of my view of Jesus Christ, being the Holy Ghost also.

25 Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 11:25)
To me its seem that the name Jesus Christ is the name of all three.

If they each had a separate name, why would Jesus Christ be the only name by which we are truly baptized.
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
(New Testament | Acts 2:38)
It just doesn't seem right that the Lord can be called by name of Father, and yet not the Holy Ghost.

9 And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will.
(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 5:9)
If the Holy Ghost is not Jesus Christ, why does he come to Adam saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning.
If the Holy Ghost comes saying that he is the Only Begotten, then the Holy Ghost has to be Jesus Christ.

There may be a god and lord, to Jesus Christ, but Jesus Christ is my God and my Lord, and my Comforter, whom is the only deity, I give my attention to. I don't speak for others, only for myself.

23 All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.
(Luke 10:23) JST

I may not be most knowledgeable concerning the scriptures, but I know enough. To get by and learn more. As far as assumptions concerning on this matter towards me, I don't know any.

Someone who is watching said...


Thank you for taking the time to share with us your belief concerning the nature and character of the Godhead.

I appreciate your effort to provide scriptural justification for your interpretation.

I will be providing a post that addresses the similarities and differences in my view on the matter when I get the time.

BTW Am I correct in assuming that you and "rob" are one and the same person.. kind of like your perception of how the Father and the Son are the same person?

TruthSeekerToo said...

Wandering, thanks for providing those scriptures. A few of them were quite stunning to read.

Watcher, thanks for providing all that info I previously asked for. LOL I was expecting, like, one scripture. Shoulda known...

I'm thinking that if the final enemy is death than the other enemies are, in all likelyhood, not other people/spirits.

WanderingMortal said...

Nope we are different, I guess I could understand why you had that assumption, but nope not the same guy. Hence "My first comment on here" from my scripture response.

Now since you asked me that, I ask you, do you feel God is inclined to one tabernacle, or infinite? I choose the later.

But I suppose we will never truly and fully understand the nature of God, until the rest of the elements are revealed. As far as the gospel of Salvation restored by the servants.