Divine Investiture

[SpiritDragon]

Divine Investiture, or Divine Investiture of Authority is a term sometimes used to explain when God the Father (Elohim) allows others, typically Jehovah (Jesus Christ) to speak as though he is the Father (Elohim). Ever since the first time I heard the idea, I was fascinated by it, but have never been able to ascertain where the idea originated.

I've been looking into it a bit and found this interesting reading: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-keystone-scripture/3-ministry-father-and-son#_edn28

This certainly gave me some food for thought. What I would like is to discuss what doctrinal foundation from the scriptures and teachings of the prophets we have to back the concept. On the one hand it really shouldn't matter whether the Father or the Son are speaking, as they are one and would share the same message, but it can get confusing when the Son is speaking as if He were the Father (such as referring to His only begotten, who is actually himself). Anyway, I'm trying to have a better grasp on each of the articles of faith (AoF) and I am working my way through trying to understand  more fully the Godhead as discussed in the first AoF. In so doing, I am finding it important to better grasp this concept.

Thanks,

SD

[Guest]

In the times of kings (anciently and on throughout the Renaissance) heralds were sent to all points with symbols of his office as the Herald of King X.  To reinforce that idea, royalty were often not introduced or spoken of as King of England or Duke of York.  They were introduced as England or York.  They were considered the embodiment of that jurisdiction -- its lands and people.

When the herald arrived at his destination, he had the recognized vestments of the herald, yet he came to the gates and proclaimed,"Inform your master that England requires an audience."  meaning,"Tell Lord Rochester that the herald wishes to deliver a message from the King of England."

When he went on to deliver the message to the the lord in question, he would usually only begin and end with "so says my master..."  The body of the message was to be given word-for-word as if the King himself had spoken it.  He would say "I command..." rather than "my master, the King of England, commands."

Today, we have the people who operate emails and social media accounts for and in behalf of (yes, we've seen that language before) the politician whose name is on the account.  I've never actually seen any note saying: this message was written by a staff member.

We have a press secretary who fields all the questions and makes statements on behalf of the President.  We have a chief of staff who gives orders as if he were the President, himself.

The Mormon Newsroom and PR department have to have everything reviewed multiple times and approved and re-approved before anything is sent to the public.  If anyone does anything against what the apostles would approve of, they get fired REALLY quickly.

The only difference is that with Divine Investiture, those giving the message are perfect messengers and never make mistakes.  They are to be respected and obeyed just as if we heard it from the Father Himself.

In the case of Jesus Christ, it is another level above.  He is not merely a messenger.  He IS GOD.  He is ONE WITH THE FATHER.  Just as Divine messengers are a leap above mortal messengers, The Son's Oneness with the Father gives Him another level above simple "messengers."

Edited January 8, 2018 by Guest

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

Divine Investiture, or Divine Investiture of Authority is a term sometimes used to explain when God the Father (Elohim) allows others, typically Jehovah (Jesus Christ) to speak as though he is the Father (Elohim). Ever since the first time I heard the idea, I was fascinated by it, but have never been able to ascertain where the idea originated.

I've been looking into it a bit and found this interesting reading: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-keystone-scripture/3-ministry-father-and-son#_edn28

This certainly gave me some food for thought. What I would like is to discuss what doctrinal foundation from the scriptures and teachings of the prophets we have to back the concept. On the one hand it really shouldn't matter whether the Father or the Son are speaking, as they are one and would share the same message, but it can get confusing when the Son is speaking as if He were the Father (such as referring to His only begotten, who is actually himself). Anyway, I'm trying to have a better grasp on each of the articles of faith (AoF) and I am working my way through trying to understand  more fully the Godhead as discussed in the first AoF. In so doing, I am finding it important to better grasp this concept.

Thanks,

SD

I have never been a big fan of divine invesisture as a principle of underdtanding who really speaks to us. I find it a kind of false front. For instance- why do we pray directly to the Father if we do not expect to hear directly back from him? Why would, or should it, only extend one way? I would hope that the Father directly and personally does communicate with us as we directly and personally communicate with Him. 

Moses ch. 1, in the PoGP for instance is said to be an instance of divine investiture based on doctrines taught by early prophets that since the fall the Father has not directly spoken to us except to introduce the Son. I personally do not buy into it. I believe that the Father does directly communicate with us. In Moses I believe Moses actually communicates directly with the Father.

Prayer is but just one testimony we have of a direct communication between us and our Heavenly Father.

[brlenox]

4 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

Divine Investiture, or Divine Investiture of Authority is a term sometimes used to explain when God the Father (Elohim) allows others, typically Jehovah (Jesus Christ) to speak as though he is the Father (Elohim). Ever since the first time I heard the idea, I was fascinated by it, but have never been able to ascertain where the idea originated.

I've been looking into it a bit and found this interesting reading: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-keystone-scripture/3-ministry-father-and-son#_edn28

This certainly gave me some food for thought. What I would like is to discuss what doctrinal foundation from the scriptures and teachings of the prophets we have to back the concept. On the one hand it really shouldn't matter whether the Father or the Son are speaking, as they are one and would share the same message, but it can get confusing when the Son is speaking as if He were the Father (such as referring to His only begotten, who is actually himself). Anyway, I'm trying to have a better grasp on each of the articles of faith (AoF) and I am working my way through trying to understand  more fully the Godhead as discussed in the first AoF. In so doing, I am finding it important to better grasp this concept.

Thanks,

SD

Not sure if you found in your search the person who originated the concept, if not it was James E. Talmage. 

[wenglund]

3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I have never been a big fan of divine invesisture as a principle of underdtanding who really speaks to us. I find it a kind of false front. For instance- why do we pray directly to the Father if we do not expect to hear directly back from him? Why would, or should it, only extend one way? I would hope that the Father directly and personally does communicate with us as we directly and personally communicate with Him. 

Moses ch. 1, in the PoGP for instance is said to be an instance of divine investiture based on doctrines taught by early prophets that since the fall the Father has not directly spoken to us except to introduce the Son. I personally do not buy into it. I believe that the Father does directly communicate with us. In Moses I believe Moses actually communicates directly with the Father.

Prayer is but just one testimony we have of a direct communication between us and our Heavenly Father.

The need for divine investiture is a function of the Fall as well as requisite living by faith and not sight according to the Plan. This applies even to prayer--though we pray to the Father, he typically responds through the Spirit, the Son, and other messengers (angelic and mortal).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

16 minutes ago, wenglund said:

The need for divine investiture is a function of the Fall as well as requisite living by faith and not sight according to the Plan. This applies even to prayer--though we pray to the Father, he typically responds through the Spirit, the Son, and other messengers (angelic and mortal).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yeah, Im not so sure about the whole need for divine investiture because of the fall. I think there is some false doctrines there.

For instance, after Adam was driven forth from the garden he still spoke with the Father although now it wasnt directly physically face to face-

"4 And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden, speaking unto them, and they saw him not; for they were shut out from his presence.
            5 And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord."

This is in context of the previous chapter where the "Lord God" is identified as the Father himself-

"28 And I, the Lord God, said unto mine Only Begotten: Behold, the man is become as one of us to know good and evil; and now lest he put forth his hand and partake also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever,
            29 Therefore I, the Lord God, will send him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken;
            30 For as I, the Lord God, liveth, even so my words cannot return void, for as they go forth out of my mouth they must be fulfilled.
            31 So I drove out the man, and I placed at the east of the Garden of Eden, cherubim and a flaming sword, which turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life."

[CV75]

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, Im not so sure about the whole need for divine investiture because of the fall. I think there is some false doctrines there.

For instance, after Adam was driven forth from the garden he still spoke with the Father although now it wasnt directly physically face to face-

"4 And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden, speaking unto them, and they saw him not; for they were shut out from his presence.
            5 And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord."

This is in context of the previous chapter where the "Lord God" is identified as the Father himself-

"28 And I, the Lord God, said unto mine Only Begotten: Behold, the man is become as one of us to know good and evil; and now lest he put forth his hand and partake also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever,
            29 Therefore I, the Lord God, will send him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken;
            30 For as I, the Lord God, liveth, even so my words cannot return void, for as they go forth out of my mouth they must be fulfilled.
            31 So I drove out the man, and I placed at the east of the Garden of Eden, cherubim and a flaming sword, which turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life."

There is an important transition in Moses Chapter 5 "after many days (verse 6)", in verse 7: "And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth. Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore."

In verses 14 and 15, the relationship is borne out: "And the Lord God called upon men by the Holy Ghost everywhere and commanded them that they should repent; And as many as believed in the Son, and repented of their sins, should be saved; and as many as believed not and repented not, should be damned; and the words went forth out of the mouth of God in a firm decree; wherefore they must be fulfilled."

This is the pattern established for us to follow from that point on (verses 57-59): "...believe on his Only Begotten Son, even him whom he declared should come in the meridian of time, who was prepared from before the foundation of the world. And thus the Gospel began to be preached, from the beginning, being declared by holy angels sent forth from the presence of God, and by his own voice, and by the gift of the Holy Ghost. And thus all things were confirmed unto Adam, by an holy ordinance, and the Gospel preached, and a decree sent forth, that it should be in the world, until the end thereof; and thus it was. Amen."

[Rob Osborn]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There is an important transition in Moses Chapter 5 "after many days (verse 6)", in verse 7: "And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth. Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore."

In verses 14 and 15, the relationship is borne out: "And the Lord God called upon men by the Holy Ghost everywhere and commanded them that they should repent; And as many as believed in the Son, and repented of their sins, should be saved; and as many as believed not and repented not, should be damned; and the words went forth out of the mouth of God in a firm decree; wherefore they must be fulfilled."

This is the pattern established for us to follow from that point on (verses 57-59): "...believe on his Only Begotten Son, even him whom he declared should come in the meridian of time, who was prepared from before the foundation of the world. And thus the Gospel began to be preached, from the beginning, being declared by holy angels sent forth from the presence of God, and by his own voice, and by the gift of the Holy Ghost. And thus all things were confirmed unto Adam, by an holy ordinance, and the Gospel preached, and a decree sent forth, that it should be in the world, until the end thereof; and thus it was. Amen."

Okay. So, when it says "and by his own voice" is that not the Father?

[Guest]

Quote

In all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority. … The Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father’s name; and so far as power, authority, and Godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father.

First Presidency & Twelve letter quoted in Talmage: Articles of Faith, p 471

Also see Talmage's exposition on pp 466-467, & 470

[Anddenex]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, Im not so sure about the whole need for divine investiture because of the fall. I think there is some false doctrines there.

 

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

why do we pray directly to the Father if we do not expect to hear directly back from him? Why would, or should it, only extend one way? I would hope that the Father directly and personally does communicate with us as we directly and personally communicate with Him. 

Prayer is but just one testimony we have of a direct communication between us and our Heavenly Father.

When Joseph smith prayed in the Sacred Grove, we know all three members of the Godhead were present. God initially speaks with Joseph Smith only to say, "This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" There are two important aspects: 1) God the Father testifies of his Son, and 2) Joseph is told to listen to the Son. Why didn't God the Father just speak himself? He surely was capable of answering and communicating with Joseph Smith directly and telling him the whole story.

When Joseph Smith prayed for forgiveness and to further know what he should do did the Father speak to him directly, he surely has the power to do so, or did he send a messenger? (Hint: it was a messenger, Moroni).

The concept of divine investiture isn't negating our ability, nor God's ability to directly communicate to his offspring, his heirs. Divine investiture is simply one method of communication God uses to speak to us, and obviously in correlation with the Fall. Without the Fall this whole conversation becomes moot, nothing false presented, no false doctrine.

If God speaks to us directly, why didn't God the Father visit the Nephites himself? Again, we have witness of God bearing witness of his Son, "Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him." And telling his heirs to "hear him."

Divine investiture doesn't mean "it only extends one way" and that God is not able to communicate directly with us. This is the false front being presented. God speaks to us directly, and he uses (more often than not) other methods to communicate with us. We know he answers our prayers through the Holy Ghost (John 14:26, Moroni 10: 5), which is the main source of inspiration, and we know from scripture that when people speak by the power of the Spirit they are speaking scripture, "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."

We are specifically told in scripture that when a person prayers to know if the Book of Mormon is true (remember they are praying to the Father) the Father provides an answer through the Holy Ghost, the third personage of the Godhead.

 

Edited January 8, 2018 by Anddenex

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

 

When Joseph smith prayed in the Sacred Grove, we know all three members of the Godhead were present. God initially speaks with Joseph Smith only to say, "This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" There are two important aspects: 1) God the Father testifies of his Son, and 2) Joseph is told to listen to the Son. Why didn't God the Father just speak himself? He surely was capable of answering and communicating with Joseph Smith directly and telling him the whole story.

When Joseph Smith prayed for forgiveness and to further know what he should do did the Father speak to him directly, he surely has the power to do so, or did he send a messenger? (Hint: it was a messenger, Moroni).

The concept of divine investiture isn't negating our ability, nor God's ability to directly communicate to his offspring, his heirs. Divine investiture is simply one method of communication God uses to speak to us, and obviously in correlation with the Fall. Without the Fall this whole conversation becomes moot, nothing false presented, no false doctrine.

If God speaks to us directly, why didn't God the Father visit the Nephites himself? Again, we have witness of God bearing witness of his Son, "Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him." And telling his heirs to "hear him."

Divine investiture doesn't mean "it only extends one way" and that God is not able to communicate directly with us. This is the false front being presented. God speaks to us directly, and he uses (more often than not) other methods to communicate with us. We know he answers our prayers through the Holy Ghost (John 14:26, Moroni 10: 5), which is the main source of inspiration, and we know from scripture that when people speak by the power of the Spirit they are speaking scripture, "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."

We are specifically told in scripture that when a person prayers to know if the Book of Mormon is true (remember they are praying to the Father) the Father provides an answer through the Holy Ghost, the third personage of the Godhead.

 

Aye. I believe God speaks through a variety of means. But to just say he never speaks directly to man is a phony doctrine. The fall doesnt automatically cut man off from the Fathers literal voice. Thats the part of doctrine I do not agree with. Whereas the church is governed and directed by Jesus Christ, and many scriptures thus do come to us through Christ himself, this does not mean that Jesus always speaks for the Father to us. Where is the principle stated in scripture that says because of the fall the Father will no longer directly communicate with us? Its rather apparent that after Adam and Eves expulsion from the garden they still communicated to the Father directly and the Father spoke directly to them audibly.

In the case of Moses, it really makes no sense if it was Christ speaking to him and not the Father. If we pray directly to our Heavenly Father we should expect he directly hears our prayers and can and does, at times directly speak to us. So why pray to Heavenly Father directly if such a doctrine were not true? 

[Anddenex]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

Aye. I believe God speaks through a variety of means. But to just say he never speaks directly to man is a phony doctrine. The fall doesnt automatically cut man off from the Fathers literal voice. Thats the part of doctrine I do not agree with. Whereas the church is governed and directed by Jesus Christ, and many scriptures thus do come to us through Christ himself, this does not mean that Jesus always speaks for the Father to us. Where is the principle stated in scripture that says because of the fall the Father will no longer directly communicate with us? Its rather apparent that after Adam and Eves expulsion from the garden they still communicated to the Father directly and the Father spoke directly to them audibly.

In the case of Moses, it really makes no sense if it was Christ speaking to him and not the Father. If we pray directly to our Heavenly Father we should expect he directly hears our prayers and can and does, at times directly speak to us. So why pray to Heavenly Father directly if such a doctrine were not true? 

True. I don't think anyone said anything differently. I guess that is my confusion.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Okay. So, when it says "and by his own voice" is that not the Father?

The Father certainly leads the way, and performs all things on earth through his Son. There are occasions where He does speak with those with ears to hear, such as Jesus' baptism, His appearance to the Nephites, and the First Vision. But note that any of these would be impossible without Jesus' essential role, from the beginning of the world, as Redeemer and Mediator. No one would be able to bear His voice. Thus He speaks through the Son, even when speaking, or seemingly speaking personally and directly.

So give an example were the Father has spoken directly to you without Jesus having the role of your Redeemer and Mediator. I think it would be false doctrine in your saying such a thing.

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

True. I don't think anyone said anything differently. I guess that is my confusion.

I think the question is one of whether the Father speaks to His children in the flesh without Jesus being our Redeemer and Mediator.

[Rob Osborn]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The Father certainly leads the way, and performs all things on earth through his Son. There are occasions where He does speak with those with ears to hear, such as Jesus' baptism, His appearance to the Nephites, and the First Vision. But note that any of these would be impossible without Jesus' essential role, from the beginning of the world, as Redeemer and Mediator. No one would be able to bear His voice. Thus He speaks through the Son, even when speaking, or seemingly speaking personally and directly.

 

So give an example were the Father has spoken directly to you without Jesus having the role of your Redeemer and Mediator. I think it would be false doctrine in your saying such a thing.

We speak directly to our Heavenly Father in the Name of Jesus Christ. Heavenly Father hears our prayers and answers them because we ask in Christs name in whom the Father cannot deny. Im not saying we cut out Christ, Im saying that we acknowledge Christ. If it were true that there was no direct connection between us and our Heavenly Father then it would be more proper to address our prayers in a manner such as "please ask Heavenly Father for me to bless my house, and also, ask him if I should take this new job opportunity. Please get back with me on what his reply is"

[Anddenex]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the question is one of whether the Father speaks to His children in the flesh without Jesus being our Redeemer and Mediator.

My understanding of our calling and election made sure is that it opens up the possibility of the Son introducing the Father and thus having communion once again with the Father.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

We speak directly to our Heavenly Father in the Name of Jesus Christ. Heavenly Father hears our prayers and answers them because we ask in Christs name in whom the Father cannot deny. Im not saying we cut out Christ, Im saying that we acknowledge Christ. If it were true that there was no direct connection between us and our Heavenly Father then it would be more proper to address our prayers in a manner such as "please ask Heavenly Father for me to bless my house, and also, ask him if I should take this new job opportunity. Please get back with me on what his reply is"

Assuming that by “connection” you mean personal “communication” and “communion,” Jesus is our means of connection to our Heavenly Father, and of His connection to us. Without Jesus, there is no other means of connection (whether by His power or by the power of the Holy Ghost): Jesus taught the proper format of praying to the Father in His name, so we do not address either Jesus or the Holy Ghost as if they were couriers or messengers.

Without the light of Christ enlightening us while in the mortal earth, we would have no inclination whatsoever to pray to the Father in the first place.

By insisting there is a direct connection in the flesh, you are saying that God is a liar, as Alma 12:23-24 explains: we are cut off from the presence of God (we have no personal connection) until Jesus allows us to enter His presence through the merits of His resurrection.

By insisting there is a direct connection, you are voiding the word of God, as Alma 42:5-6 explains: were we to have access to the tree of life without the merits of Jesus Christ, we are lost (without a personal connection with God) forever, having no space for repentance.

We cannot realize the full spiritual blessings of the Church, which blessings include “the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant,” until after our resurrection (D&C 107:19).

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

My understanding of our calling and election made sure is that it opens up the possibility of the Son introducing the Father and thus having communion once again with the Father.

As a process as well as an ordinance, the calling and election is a sealed promise, an assurance and a guarantee, that you will be exalted. I haven’t come across any accounts of mortal people being quickened (prior to their resurrection) so as to commune personally with God the Father, even after obtaining their sure calling and election, but if you have a reference, I would be happy to consider it.

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

As a process as well as an ordinance, the calling and election is a sealed promise, an assurance and a guarantee, that you will be exalted. I haven’t come across any accounts of mortal people being quickened (prior to their resurrection) so as to commune personally with God the Father, even after obtaining their sure calling and election, but if you have a reference, I would be happy to consider it.

Unless you have a different definition of "commune" I would say God the Father communed with Joseph Smith even if it was simply to point him to his Son. The quote would come from Bruce R. McConkie, but I wouldn't consider it until I can actually find it again. I will buzz again once I find it, or if I find it.

EDIT: Wait, I think I may have read your comment incorrectly. My comment didn't mention anything about communing with God without being "quickened" or "transfigured." I haven't come across any scripture, word of prophets or apostles, that specify we will commune with God the Father as you have suggested. To go back to my original quote, "it opens up the possibility of the Son introducing the Father." (emphasis added) If one is not resurrected then the body would have to be "transfigured" (if temporary, and what you mean by quickened) to see God the Father, let alone commune with him. So, I believe you read into my post something I didn't say.

Edited January 8, 2018 by Anddenex

[Rob Osborn]

34 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Assuming that by “connection” you mean personal “communication” and “communion,” Jesus is our means of connection to our Heavenly Father, and of His connection to us. Without Jesus, there is no other means of connection (whether by His power or by the power of the Holy Ghost): Jesus taught the proper format of praying to the Father in His name, so we do not address either Jesus or the Holy Ghost as if they were couriers or messengers.

 

Without the light of Christ enlightening us while in the mortal earth, we would have no inclination whatsoever to pray to the Father in the first place.

 

By insisting there is a direct connection in the flesh, you are saying that God is a liar, as Alma 12:23-24 explains: we are cut off from the presence of God (we have no personal connection) until Jesus allows us to enter His presence through the merits of His resurrection.

 

By insisting there is a direct connection, you are voiding the word of God, as Alma 42:5-6 explains: were we to have access to the tree of life without the merits of Jesus Christ, we are lost (without a personal connection with God) forever, having no space for repentance.

 

We cannot realize the full spiritual blessings of the Church, which blessings include “the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant,” until after our resurrection (D&C 107:19).

As a process as well as an ordinance, the calling and election is a sealed promise, an assurance and a guarantee, that you will be exalted. I haven’t come across any accounts of mortal people being quickened (prior to their resurrection) so as to commune personally with God the Father, even after obtaining their sure calling and election, but if you have a reference, I would be happy to consider it.

We are saying a lot of the same thing. Yes, without Christ, our existence is meaningless. But, even though we may physically not in Gods presence we can still have direct communication between us and our Heavenly Father.

[Guest]

Quote

And no man hath seen God at any time, except he hath borne record of the Son; for except it is through him no man can be saved.

JST John 1:19

 

[SpiritDragon]

19 hours ago, brlenox said:

Not sure if you found in your search the person who originated the concept, if not it was James E. Talmage. 

 

9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Also see Talmage's exposition on pp 466-467, & 470

Thanks for these sources. It appears that the 1st presidency and council of the twelve elucidated the doctrine of divine investiture, but that perhaps, Talmage coined the term to define it?

[brlenox]

7 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

 

Thanks for these sources. It appears that the 1st presidency and council of the twelve elucidated the doctrine of divine investiture, but that perhaps, Talmage coined the term to define it?

That is correct.

[SpiritDragon]

I suppose from a practical standpoint is there any guideline in scripture as to discerning between whether the Father or Son is speaking. Is it a safe bet that unless He is testifying of the Son that any verse of scripture that appears to be the Father is actually voiced by the Saviour?

[brlenox]

Just now, SpiritDragon said:

I suppose from a practical standpoint is there any guideline in scripture as to discerning between whether the Father or Son is speaking. Is it a safe bet that unless He is testifying of the Son that any verse of scripture that appears to be the Father is actually voiced by the Saviour?

That is correct. 

 

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Unless you have a different definition of "commune" I would say God the Father communed with Joseph Smith even if it was simply to point him to his Son. The quote would come from Bruce R. McConkie, but I wouldn't consider it until I can actually find it again. I will buzz again once I find it, or if I find it.

EDIT: Wait, I think I may have read your comment incorrectly. My comment didn't mention anything about communing with God without being "quickened" or "transfigured." I haven't come across any scripture, word of prophets or apostles, that specify we will commune with God the Father as you have suggested. To go back to my original quote, "it opens up the possibility of the Son introducing the Father." (emphasis added) If one is not resurrected then the body would have to be "transfigured" (if temporary, and what you mean by quickened) to see God the Father, let alone commune with him. So, I believe you read into my post something I didn't say.

Yes, I mentioned Jesus' baptism, His appearance to the Nephites, and the First Vision in a post above: Posted 6 hours ago These were not direct, one-on-one exchanges between God and one of His children, as in an intimate conversation.

I understood your mentioning only a “possibility,” but I am still asking where that idea might have come from, since the explanations I brought up seem to point to the impossibility of unmediated communication with God the Father.

Someone can be transfigured or quickened to see God the Father, and Stephen saw Him in vision, seemingly quickened only in his spiritual mind. I also take “God” in D&C 67:11-13 to refer to Jesus, and that Moses saw and conversed with Him and not the Father in this way (Moses 1:11) for the reasons explained in the Alma verses I shared.

5 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

We are saying a lot of the same thing. Yes, without Christ, our existence is meaningless. But, even though we may physically not in Gods presence we can still have direct communication between us and our Heavenly Father.

We cannot have direct spirit-to-Spirit communication with Heavenly Father while in the flesh either, because we are in the same fallen state spiritually as we are physically; we cannot enjoy direct spiritual communion with Him for we are spiritually dead. There is no physical or spiritual medium through which to do this, for we are cut off from His Person (His inseparably connected Spirit and Element) both physically and spiritually. We do have the hope that we will one day come into the Church of the Firstborn and enjoy a fullness of physical and spiritual life with the Father. But in the meantime, through His mercy, He operates through the media of the light of Christ and the power and gift of the Holy Ghost, availed to us exclusively through the merits of Christ. This is why we must do and receive all spiritual blessings possible in this life through and in the name of Jesus.

There simply is no direct access to and from the Father, only that fullness which is offered through Jesus. To act otherwise is to deny Jesus and to commune with someone who also denies Him and pretends to be the greater god.

If we are saying a lot of the same thing, there is no false doctrine in divine investiture of authority.

Edited January 9, 2018 by CV75