Is Joseph Smith another Messiah?

[rayhale]

On Page 304 of “Shadow of the Temple” by Oskar Skarsaune, I found this:

In the rabbinic sources we find another model of two messiahs, probably based on Genesis 49 (Blessing of Jacob) and Deuteronomy 33 (Song of Moses), in which both Judah and Joseph are called the leader of their brethren. Corresponding to the double kingdom in the time after Solomon, this recurs in the rabbinic texts as the two messiahs of David and Ephraim: the first one victorious, the other dying in battle. It is difficult to ascertain whether this concept was already well known in New Testament times or developed later—for example, during the second century a.d. as an aftermath of the Bar Kokhba incident.

I added bold to make it stand out.

[Anddenex]

No. Joseph Smith is similar to any other prophet that was called by God. He is in no way another Messiah, as in comparison to Christ.

[Canuck Mormon]

Um, No. Only Jesus is the Messiah.

[rayhale]

The Jews have a different definition of Messiah than Christians do. I realize that Joseph Smith was/is not THE Messiah, but when I read this quote, the similarities to Joseph Smith, how he died in a battle, the Book of Mormon being called a “Stick of Joseph”, are hard to miss.

[Anddenex]

The etymology, context, of the word Messiah will have different meanings. Messiah can also mean "one who delivers" and in this context Moses would have also been a Messiah.

If we eliminate the divine element from the term "Messiah" (an expected liberator, spiritual Savior) then anybody who at any point delivers another from some for of bondage, technically can be considered a Messiah.

The temple allows all people to be "savior" on Mount Zion, however in this term I have removed the element of divinity from the term "savior."

Isaiah would have fallen under the definition you have provided. All of the original Apostles (New Testament) would also have been considered Messiahs.

EDIT: I assume we may differentiate the meaning by little "m" and capitalized "M", as with little "g" and capitalized "G." Messiah, or messiah. God, or god.

[Traveler]

As I understand the Hebrew term Messiah is best understood as anointed. In this context it could be considered that Joseph Smith was indeed like Job - ordained and anointed a prophet to the nations.

In the context of the Messiah as the redeemer of mankind; Jesus is the only Messiah - dispirit the fact that Satan is noted in scripture to have also been anointed (Messiah) - Satan has not redeemed anyone, including himself.

Most likely the problem is in understanding terms (if there is any difficulty) and not in actual doctrine concerning the per-ordination of Joseph Smith.

The Traveler

[JayJ]

2 Nephi 3: 1-22. Here is a prophesy of the seer (anointed/messiah?) Joseph Smith, Jr. Note the references to "deliverer" and "great like unto Moses", etc.

Also note the very specific language used to prevent any confusion between the Messiah (Jesus Christ) and this "Branch" or seer that the Lord would raise up.

This prophesy, related by Lehi to his son Joseph, was recorded in the Brass Plates as the prophecy of Joseph (who was sold into Egypt and the father of Ephraim). This is perhaps, in my opinion, the most accurate interpretation given in regards to the Messiah ben Joseph.

There, are of course, other ways of viewing the double messiahs; but the term messiah as used here seems to refer to a foretold, fore-ordained anointed messenger/leader duly called of God.

[Just_A_Guy]

I've also heard about rabbinic traditions that supposedly distinguish between "Messiah bin David" (or "bin Judah") versus "Messiah bin Joseph"; and possibly linking the latter to Joseph Smith strikes me as in the "very interesting" category.

But they are not in the same league. Not remotely.

[bytebear]

I think the discussion should include the concept of dispensations, and Greater and Lesser prophets.

[Blackmarch]

On Page 304 of “Shadow of the Temple” by Oskar Skarsaune, I found this:

I added bold to make it stand out.

All who are called by God, and faithfully serve in bringing others unto him participate in Christ's messianic calling.

[Finrock]

Good Afternoon Anddenex. I hope you're having a good day!

The etymology, context, of the word Messiah will have different meanings. Messiah can also mean "one who delivers" and in this context Moses would have also been a Messiah.

If we eliminate the divine element from the term "Messiah" (an expected liberator, spiritual Savior) then anybody who at any point delivers another from some for of bondage, technically can be considered a Messiah.

The temple allows all people to be "savior" on Mount Zion, however in this term I have removed the element of divinity from the term "savior."

Isaiah would have fallen under the definition you have provided. All of the original Apostles (New Testament) would also have been considered Messiahs.

EDIT: I assume we may differentiate the meaning by little "m" and capitalized "M", as with little "g" and capitalized "G." Messiah, or messiah. God, or god.

I was considering the fact that when we become true disciples of Jesus Christ, then our calling is to act as a Savior. Not only is our heritage divine but at that point, so is our goal and our power. Is it right to suppose that we can or ought to completely remove the element of divinity from the work of salvation performed by those who are answering the call of their God? I don't think so. I believe that we can, in a truly divine sense, become Saviors unto mankind. In fact, I believe it is necessary for us to do this in order to inherit celestial glory.

Obviously and always, our work is enabled and possible because of the atonement of Jesus Christ but that is no different than Jesus Christ being enabled to perform His work by way of the Father.

Regards,

Finrock

[Anddenex]

Is it right to suppose that we can or ought to completely remove the element of divinity from the work of salvation performed by those who are answering the call of their God? I don't think so. I believe that we can, in a truly divine sense, become Saviors unto mankind. In fact, I believe it is necessary for us to do this in order to inherit celestial glory.

Obviously and always, our work is enabled and possible because of the atonement of Jesus Christ but that is no different than Jesus Christ being enabled to perform His work by way of the Father.

Regards,

Finrock

I agree with the sentiment you are proposing, however let me clarify my response. Jesus is a member of the Godhead.... we are not.

I am born of two earthly parents, whereas our Messiah was begotten by an earthly mother, and an eternal and glorified Father. When I mention removing divinity from the term Messiah, I am simply referring the major difference between us and Jesus Christ here upon this earth.

This is why I mentioned, little "m" and capitalized "M", or capitalized "G" and little "g". We are gods, Christ is God. Both have a sense of divinity, however not in the same sense -- at least on this earth.

[ElectofGod]

Jesus is a member of the Godhead.... we are not.

I believe we are...

But now, thats speculation... and that's another thread.

Edited April 25, 2013 by ElectofGod

[Vort]

I believe we are...

You are not alone.

[Anddenex]

I believe we are...

But now, thats speculation... and that's another thread. If we are all divinity (co-equal with god) than we must in some way be part of the Godhead. What has a beginning has an end.

Even if you say being in the Godhead is just an eternal calling given to them (trinity).

Key word "speculation".

We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost....[and ElectofGod, Vort, (input name,...,...,...)].

Edited April 24, 2013 by Anddenex

[Guest]

I believe we are...

No, we are not. That, at least, is not speculation.

When your will is 100% the same as God's then you might just get included in that club. Or you can form your own club. Or maybe not. That's speculation.

But while you're not yet in the highest level of celestial glory, you are not.

[skippy740]

Romans 8:16-18

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

Some scriptural thoughts to ponder.

In essence, you're both right.

[ElectofGod]

! Edited April 25, 2013 by ElectofGod

[Anddenex]

There is no question we are a part of God, we are his offspring, heir's to all the father hath.

"We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."

Ask yourself, is either you or I in this statement? This is the Godhead. Now go study the scriptures on the Godhead and what makes up the Godhead.

Edit: I don't see "you" or "I", or anybody else within this definition either: Godhead

Edited April 24, 2013 by Anddenex

[Guest]

One begins to feel like it's Blasphemy Week at LDS.net.

[Finrock]

Good Morning Eowyn! I hope you are having a good day.

One begins to feel like it's Blasphemy Week at LDS.net.

What is blasphemous? Or, what in this thread has inspired you to comment that it feels like it is Blasphemy Week at LDS.net?

Is it the idea that we are a part of the Godhead or the idea that we can be Saviors?

Regards,

Finrock

[Guest]

Yes.

[Finrock]

Yes.

So, both ideas are blasphemous to you?

Respectfully,

Finrock

[Guest]

They are.

[Anddenex]

Saviors of men shouldn't be blasphemous, at least in a correct context, which I didn't see it being used out of context, for example:

President Gordon B. Hinckley stated that “God planted within women something divine.” 6 That something is the gift and the gifts of motherhood. Elder Matthew Cowley taught that “men have to have something given to them [in mortality] to make them saviors of men, but not mothers, not women. [They] are born with an inherent right, an inherent authority, to be the saviors of human souls … and the regenerating force in the lives of God’s children.” 7

Emphasis on saviors of men highlighted for context.

D&C 103: 9-10:

9 For they were set to be a light unto the world, and to be the saviors of men;

10 And inasmuch as they are not the saviors of men, they are as salt that has lost its savor, and is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Anddenex