2 Nephi 19:6

[aluvsd4ever]

6: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Can someone explain to me this verse? Are they calling Jesus, "The Everlasting Father?" If so, why?

[Hemidakota]

Borrowed from Isaiah 9:6

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no

bend, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this."

Few of the names given to Him as an honorary title. Who is the 'Everlasting Father' title belong too? GOD! Who is acting in HIS behalf? The Son!...

The Prince of Peace.” (Isa. 9:6.) I. W. Slotki translates the name as “Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace,” and adds, “The child will bear these significant names in order to recall to the people the message which they embodied.” The child, then, was not expected to be God, but simply to be called after these titles to remind the people who they were and who God was. The Jews understood these passages to mean that the individual mentioned in each passage would have a metaphorical relationship with God—that he would be an anointed “servant-son.” For this reason, then, Jesus’ claim to be the literal son of God—an idea not extant in Jewish tradition—outraged them. It was a claim far more offensive than the claim of Messiahship. For Jewish leaders, Jesus’ claim of literal sonship was blasphemous.

When Caiaphas, the high priest, questioned Jesus and received Christ’s affirmation that he was the Messiah, the claim only gave them a reason to send Christ to the Romans for judgment. Others had claimed messiahship before and had not been arrested and charged. But Jesus gave the Jewish leaders a much graver offense—an offense that would enable them to convict him under Jewish law. That offense was the capital crime of blasphemy—in this case, claiming to be the Son of God. Had Jesus denied his literal Sonship, the Jewish rulers could have brought only political charges against him.

The Book of Mormon clarifies Jesus’ Messiahship in several ways. It gives inspired commentary, restores important Messianic scriptures, and provides a context for other Old Testament Messianic prophecies.

[Justice]

Mosiah 15:

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall bcome down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

"God" to all people was Jehova. We are told by modern revelation that Jehova is/was the pre-mortal Jesus Christ. It was Jehova who created all things and appeared to Moses. All that He has done has been under the direction of the Father, or following His plan for man.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

6 And after all this, after working many mighty miracles among the children of men, he shall be led, yea, even as Isaiah said, as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.

7 Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.

8 And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men—

9 Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice.

The rest of chapter 15 is very good reading.

One question many with a trinitarian view cannot answer is why didn't the Father Himself appear and sacrifice Himself? Why the complicated description about separate manifestations?

In my view, only Joseph Smith's view of God, having seen them side by side, can explain why the Father had to send His Son. The Father already had a glorified, perfected body and could not suffer pain or death. So, He needed one who was not born flesh or exalted to perform His work of the Atonement... one who could suffer, bleed, and die. The Father could not.

[Guest tomk]

Because of the deep surrender of Christ's will to the Father's will -- it was "as if" the Father, Himself, had atoned for us. And He did, through His Son, Jesus Christ. Like modern day temple work, Christ served as proxy for the Father, thus "becoming the Father AND the Son"

14 And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence.

15 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.

16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.

17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?

18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.

19 Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?

20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin.

21 And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?

22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

Jesus said, "I do nothing but what the Father shows me and tells me" -- including the Atonement. Without Heavenly Father, Christ could not have performed the atonement.

[Guest tomk]

This book, the last few chapters, is very illuminating. It was the first time I began to understand how deep, how exquisitely literal Christ was being when He said He did the Father's will.

Amazon.com: A Scriptural Discussion of Light: Allen J. Fletcher: Books