Divine Investiture

[zil]

My primary point has been the there are scriptures wherein Christ says he was the one who made the covenants, so either he did, or he was using divine investiture of authority when he spoke those words.  Either one contradicts Rob's stated beliefs.  Reason would say one needs to reconcile these in one of those two ways, but Rob's answer seems to be to claim the words of scripture and/or prophets are in error.

I agree with @Vort that at the very least, some covenants are made with the Father - though often (but not always) in the name of Jesus Christ.  I personally don't think the question is as clear as we might like (the words, when there are fixed words, aren't explicit), but from a functional standpoint, I'm not sure it matters.

I'd have to do a lot more studying to decide what I think beyond the idea that in general, we covenant with the Father in the name of Christ.

[SpiritDragon]

7 hours ago, zil said:

The existence of scriptures which say that God has made a covenant with the house of Israel does not erase the verse wherein the resurrected Jesus Christ states that he (Christ) made covenants with Israel.

Quote

5 Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end.

Please explain above verse in light of your assertion that all covenants are made only with God the Father.

 

Just to play Rob's advocate... Could not this verse be explained as making a covenant with the Father, because the Saviour could be speaking as though He is the Father and not as himself? Oh wait, that doesn't help Rob because he doesn't agree with divine investiture at all if I understand correctly.

Still, this does highlight some more of the importance of knowing who is speaking and whom they are speaking as.

 

[SpiritDragon]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

My primary point has been the there are scriptures wherein Christ says he was the one who made the covenants, so either he did, or he was using divine investiture of authority when he spoke those words.  Either one contradicts Rob's stated beliefs.  Reason would say one needs to reconcile these in one of those two ways, but Rob's answer seems to be to claim the words of scripture and/or prophets are in error.

I agree with @Vort that at the very least, some covenants are made with the Father - though often (but not always) in the name of Jesus Christ.  I personally don't think the question is as clear as we might like (the words, when there are fixed words, aren't explicit), but from a functional standpoint, I'm not sure it matters.

I'd have to do a lot more studying to decide what I think beyond the idea that in general, we covenant with the Father in the name of Christ.

You snuck this gem in there while I was writing. Now I feel as though mine is a duplicate post.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

Just to play Rob's advocate... Could not this verse be explained as making a covenant with the Father, because the Saviour could be speaking as though He is the Father and not as himself? Oh wait, that doesn't help Rob because he doesn't agree with divine investiture at all if I understand correctly.

Still, this does highlight some more of the importance of knowing who is speaking and whom they are speaking as.

 

To be fair to @Rob Osborn, he did not explicitly say he doesn't believe in Divine Investiture.  He clearly stated he could be wrong.  But he doesn't believe he is wrong because he doesn't see any reason why we need to go through the more complicated process of Christ speaking as the Father instead of it just be the Father - he doesn't see any reason why Christ needs be inserted in what seems like a simple verse of the Father speaking directly to Moses face-to-face.

[Vort]

At the risk of sounding Trinitarian, I am not sure it does matter (from our perspective) whether we are covenanting with the Father or the Son. @zil notes quite correctly that the ancients covenanted with Jehovah, who is Jesus Christ. Some might argue that such covenants were actually being contracted with the Father -- and I might even be one of those who argue so -- but it's an angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument. To distinguish between covenanting with the Father and covenanting with the Son, as if it made some material difference either in our obedience or in the blessings received, is starkly absurd.

Again, I haven't been following this discussion, so my points may not be relevant, and in any case aren't targeted toward any individual. I can imagine why the thread title came about, though.

[SpiritDragon]

I think it's possible that we do make covenants with both the Father and the Son... even in the same ordinance. I'm thinking of Boyd K. Packer narrating the story of the mediator wherein justice and mercy can only both be served via mediation. Is it not conceivable that the hardline of covenants to keep the commandments is with the Father, but the Saviour covenants with both parties to make up for our lack if we sincerely repent and work on keeping our covenants with the Father? Ie. the covenant with the Father is essentially to toe the line perfectly, and the covenant with Christ is to repent when we inevitably fail to keep our covenant perfectly with the Father.

[anatess2]

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

At the risk of sounding Trinitarian, I am not sure it does matter (from our perspective) whether we are covenanting with the Father or the Son. @zil notes quite correctly that the ancients covenanted with Jehovah, who is Jesus Christ. Some might argue that such covenants were actually being contracted with the Father -- and I might even be one of those who argue so -- but it's an angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument. To distinguish between covenanting with the Father and covenanting with the Son, as if it made some material difference either in our obedience or in the blessings received, is starkly absurd.

Again, I haven't been following this discussion, so my points may not be relevant, and in any case aren't targeted toward any individual. I can imagine why the thread title came about, though.

As I mentioned, the distinction is sticky (important to understand) when transitioning from Trinitarian background to LDS.  A lot of understanding of the restored gospel on the Godhead as well as pre-mortal existence rides on the dispelling of the Trinitarian teaching that Christ's involvement with mortal man started in Bethlehem.  It's either Christ was "there" (existent as a personage - ack, I'm not sure this is the proper word to use - actively involved with man) from the beginning or his personage started at his birth to Mary.

Let's put it this way - the conflict in the understanding of who the Holy Ghost proceeded from - did he proceed the Father only or did he proceed the Son also? - was so important that it split Christianity into Eastern and Western churches.

Edited January 12, 2018 by anatess2

[Guest]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

To be fair to @Rob Osborn, he did not explicitly say he doesn't believe in Divine Investiture.  He clearly stated he could be wrong.  But he doesn't believe he is wrong because ...

Because it takes a big man to admit when he's wrong.  So, instead he decides that he must have received divine revelation confirming his position.  That way he doesn't have to answer any questions or try to come up with any explanations for scriptures and other references that indicate he's wrong.  His personal revelation trumps everything!

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

To be fair to @Rob Osborn, he did not explicitly say he doesn't believe in Divine Investiture.  He clearly stated he could be wrong.  But he doesn't believe he is wrong because he doesn't see any reason why we need to go through the more complicated process of Christ speaking as the Father instead of it just be the Father - he doesn't see any reason why Christ needs be inserted in what seems like a simple verse of the Father speaking directly to Moses face-to-face.

Were getting closer now to where I stand. I never said Jesus doesnt speak for the Father. I even said that communication can come from His own voice, angels, the HG, Jesus, etc.

But Yes, I dont see the reason such as in Moses to insist its Jesus speaking based on an accross the boards rule that the Father doednt speak to man since the fall. That doesnt sit right with me at all.

I dont have a problem with Christ speaking the words of the Father as the NT and BoM both testify of that fact. I know there are errors in scripture (the old testament contains lots of errors) and so I know there are contradictions. I believe for us to just give a blanket statement that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament is as bad as the trinitarian belief. Reading Mormon.org paints a much different picture about our Heavenly Father and his role as covenant giver, Father of Israel, etc, that I am inclined to believe our church is yet in another paradigm shift again.

Yeah, Im humble enough to know I could be wrong but all I ask for are the principles and rules for making a statement to begin with. When you break down where covenants really come from and who is making them with us it starts to show a lot of contradictions with some of our past doctrines. Gods house is a house of order. The temple probably has the clearest doctrine in regards to how the Father speaks and makes covenants with us. I believe this same pattern has been in place since before time began. I dont think there were special rules after the fall. The covenant originates with the Father, he tells Jesus to have messengers go down and give those covenants of the Father, they report back to Christ and then Christ reports back to the Father. At times the Father makes direct contact such as with Abraham, Moses, etc. Same with Christ also although he only does so under direction of the Father. So too with angels under direction of Christ, etc. Its all ordered.

The bottom line is that no matter how we cut it, the reality of it is that its all ultimately the Fathers plan, His covenants and as such he can and is personally involved in direct communication with man at his will making covenants and directing the affairs of His kingdom. 

I find it interesting that its in the temple we learn that the first covenants made were directly with Elohim. I doubt that has changed at all over time. In this present day, in our restored church its been revealed our covenants we make are still directly with Elohim. We make 11 covenants in the temple, all of which are with Heavenly Father. I believe that the true church, whenever its been on the earth has followed that same pattern.

[anatess2]

11 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The bottom line is that no matter how we cut it, the reality of it is that its all ultimately the Fathers plan, His covenants and as such he can and is personally involved in direct communication with man at his will making covenants and directing the affairs of His kingdom. 

I find it interesting that its in the temple we learn that the first covenants made were directly with Elohim. I doubt that has changed at all over time. In this present day, in our restored church its been revealed our covenants we make are still directly with Elohim. We make 11 covenants in the temple, all of which are with Heavenly Father. I believe that the true church, whenever its been on the earth has followed that same pattern.

So the matter becomes a simple disagreement (difference in perspective) between you and me (or maybe even us) on the nature of covenants.  I believe all mortal covenants are made with Christ (and, of course, it all goes to the Father as everything that is Christ's is His).  That's fine.  

In any case, the prophets have clearly taught that Moses 1 is Moses speaking to Christ and the reason for that is Christ himself saying that he is the God of Israel to whom Moses made his covenant.

So there are only 2 ways this can go:

1.)  If covenants are made with Christ then we go through the more complicated process of Divine Investiture on Moses 1 and others like it.  PoGP student manual is good.  3rd Nephi 15:5 is good.  Mormon 9:37 is good.  Gospel Principles manual is good, Robert D. Hales quote is all good, etc.

2.)  If covenants are made with Heavenly Father only, then Divine Investiture on Moses 1 is not necessary.  PoGP student manual is wrong, 3rd Nephi 15:5 has to be rejected.  Gospel Principles manual is wrong.  And the teaching of Jesus as the God of the Old Testament needs to be revised.

#2 option is too much of a pretzel.

But hey, we're just gospel babies here trying to make sense of a giant mystical universe.  So all's good.

[zil]

14 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So the matter becomes a simple disagreement (difference in perspective) between you and me (or maybe even us) on the nature of covenants.  I believe all mortal covenants are made with Christ (and, of course, it all goes to the Father as everything that is Christ's is His).  That's fine.  

In any case, the prophets have clearly taught that Moses 1 is Moses speaking to Christ and the reason for that is Christ himself saying that he is the God of Israel to whom Moses made his covenant.

So there are only 2 ways this can go:

1.)  If covenants are made with Christ then we go through the more complicated process of Divine Investiture on Moses 1 and others like it.  PoGP student manual is good.  3rd Nephi 15:5 is good.  Mormon 9:37 is good.  Gospel Principles manual is good, Robert D. Hales quote is all good, etc.

2.)  If covenants are made with Heavenly Father only, then Divine Investiture on Moses 1 is not necessary.  PoGP student manual is wrong, 3rd Nephi 15:5 has to be rejected.  Gospel Principles manual is wrong.  And the teaching of Jesus as the God of the Old Testament needs to be revised.

#2 option is too much of a pretzel.

But hey, we're just gospel babies here trying to make sense of a giant mystical universe.  So all's good.

There is no reason covenants cannot be made with God, while still having Christ speak and act with divine investiture of authority.

3 Nephi 15:5 would not have to be rejected, we would just have to understand that Christ was speaking for the Father.

etc.

(Or are you trying to detail how Rob would view all this?  In which case, pretzel is just fine.)

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

There is no reason covenants cannot be made with God, while still having Christ speak and act with divine investiture of authority.

3 Nephi 15:5 would not have to be rejected, we would just have to understand that Christ was speaking for the Father.

etc.

(Or are you trying to detail how Rob would view all this?  In which case, pretzel is just fine.)

Ok... but that still brings you the same Rob pretzel of... why is that necessary?  Although, this time, it's backwards.  I.E., in Moses 1, why is it necessary that it is Christ speaking?  in 3rd Nephi, why is it necessary that Christ is not speaking about himself?

Or did I just get pretzelized?

 

[zil]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Ok... but that still brings you the same Rob pretzel of... why is that necessary?  Although, this time, it's backwards.  I.E., in Moses 1, why is it necessary that it is Christ speaking?  in 3rd Nephi, why is it necessary that Christ is not speaking about himself?

Or did I just get pretzelized?

I'm not sure "necessary" is the right word (as it implies insurmountable realities, as if God is physically, intellectually, whateverally incapable of having things otherwise).  Rather, it is appropriate and acceptable for the mediator who stands between us and God to represent God to us and to represent us to God.  It is perfectly natural given the nature of the reality in which we live.

And it's not like God has nothing of his own to do.  If God did everything, that would leave nothing for Christ except to sit by the pool and work on his tan.

[anatess2]

14 minutes ago, zil said:

I'm not sure "necessary" is the right word (as it implies insurmountable realities, as if God is physically, intellectually, whateverally incapable of having things otherwise).  Rather, it is appropriate and acceptable for the mediator who stands between us and God to represent God to us and to represent us to God.  It is perfectly natural given the nature of the reality in which we live.

And it's not like God has nothing of his own to do.  If God did everything, that would leave nothing for Christ except to sit by the pool and work on his tan.

Rob used the word "necessary"...

[Rob Osborn]

On 1/12/2018 at 9:02 AM, anatess2 said:

So the matter becomes a simple disagreement (difference in perspective) between you and me (or maybe even us) on the nature of covenants.  I believe all mortal covenants are made with Christ (and, of course, it all goes to the Father as everything that is Christ's is His).  That's fine.  

In any case, the prophets have clearly taught that Moses 1 is Moses speaking to Christ and the reason for that is Christ himself saying that he is the God of Israel to whom Moses made his covenant.

So there are only 2 ways this can go:

1.)  If covenants are made with Christ then we go through the more complicated process of Divine Investiture on Moses 1 and others like it.  PoGP student manual is good.  3rd Nephi 15:5 is good.  Mormon 9:37 is good.  Gospel Principles manual is good, Robert D. Hales quote is all good, etc.

2.)  If covenants are made with Heavenly Father only, then Divine Investiture on Moses 1 is not necessary.  PoGP student manual is wrong, 3rd Nephi 15:5 has to be rejected.  Gospel Principles manual is wrong.  And the teaching of Jesus as the God of the Old Testament needs to be revised.

#2 option is too much of a pretzel.

But hey, we're just gospel babies here trying to make sense of a giant mystical universe.  So all's good.

Yeah. 

I have always been taught that our covenants we make are between the Father and us. I have never been taught otherwise. Christ may help facilitate the details but our lawbound covenants are made with Heavenly Father as He is the author and head of His kingdom.

I am inclined to believe that in certain instances like Moses, the manuals and some past prophets were wrong. Its okay, I understand where misunderstanding comes in, we are human. Even in the BoM it appears there is some ambiguos instances where its hard to tell who is speaking, who made the covenants, etc. We must also remember that even for BoM prophets it appears there was some confusion with the godhead. Its one reason why Joseph Smith received later revelatiin, now found in the D&C, that explains in detail certain characteristics of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Certainly, from reading the BoM its rather quite confusing to understand tge godhead. Besides, the Bom contains about 2500 years of almost continuous history in the Americas from vastly different cultures.

[Vort]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

I am inclined to believe that in certain instances like Moses, the manuals and some past prophets were wrong.

Attributing wrong beliefs to the prophets is generally a dangerous idea. It is beyond doubt that ancient Israel covenanted with Jehovah, who of course is the same being as Jesus Christ. Seeking to understand why covenanting with Jehovah in that instance is the same as covenanting with the Father (which I believe is the case) is much different from proclaiming the ancient prophets wrong or deficient.

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Attributing wrong beliefs to the prophets is generally a dangerous idea. It is beyond doubt that ancient Israel covenanted with Jehovah, who of course is the same being as Jesus Christ. Seeking to understand why covenanting with Jehovah in that instance is the same as covenanting with the Father (which I believe is the case) is much different from proclaiming the ancient prophets wrong or deficient.

Thanks for your beliefs. I have mine too and it isnt at all dangerous, its about reading, pondering the scriptures and praying to know the truth. I dont just make this stuff up or do things in disregards for our prophets.

Edited January 13, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[wenglund]

"If ye had known me, ye should have known my father also; and from hence forth ye know him, and have seen him....Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." (Jn 14:7,19--see also Jn 5:17-24))

"Whether by mine own voice, or the voice of my servants, it is the same." (D&C 1:38-)

"...but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost." (Mk 13:11-12)

Divine investiture isn't just the domain of Jesus. It also extends to his servants.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Anddenex]

On 1/11/2018 at 9:13 PM, Rob Osborn said:

But Yes, I dont see the reason such as in Moses to insist its Jesus speaking based on an accross the boards rule that the Father doednt speak to man since the fall. That doesnt sit right with me at all.

Moses 1, which I believe is the chapter being mentioned appears to be the Father; although, these verses make it though as if Moses was speaking of Jehovah the whole time.

 

Quote

 

16. Get thee hence, Satan; deceive me not; for God said unto me: Thou art after the similitude of mine Only Begotten.

17 And he also gave me commandments when he called unto me out of the burning bush, saying: Call upon God in the name of mine Only Begotten, and worship me.

 

Who called Moses out of the burning bush?

Quote

 

4. God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

6. Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

14. God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am:

 

Jehovah called Moses from the burning bush, and it is Jehovah who visited him. Unless of course, one isolates the first 15 verses at God the Father, and then 17 Moses transition to Jehovah who called him from the burning bush.

This appears to be part of the misunderstanding occurring.

[Rob Osborn]

14 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Moses 1, which I believe is the chapter being mentioned appears to be the Father; although, these verses make it though as if Moses was speaking of Jehovah the whole time.

 

Who called Moses out of the burning bush?

Jehovah called Moses from the burning bush, and it is Jehovah who visited him. Unless of course, one isolates the first 15 verses at God the Father, and then 17 Moses transition to Jehovah who called him from the burning bush.

This appears to be part of the misunderstanding occurring.

Im honestly not seeing the connection. 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im honestly not seeing the connection. 

Jehovah is Jesus Christ the Son, not the Father.

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Jehovah is Jesus Christ the Son, not the Father.

I understand that part. Not seeing how it connects to Moses 1

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I understand that part. Not seeing how it connects to Moses 1

Before, you wrote:

On 1/11/2018 at 8:13 PM, Rob Osborn said:

I dont see the reason such as in Moses to insist its Jesus speaking based on an accross the boards rule that the Father doednt speak to man since the fall.

I believe that Anddenex was just pointing out that Moses was conversing with Jehovah, whom we know to be Jesus Christ. We don't have to merely infer that Moses must have been speaking to Christ because "the Father doesn't speak to man since the fall." Rather, we know Moses was speaking to Christ because he was speaking to Jehovah, who is Christ. We know by direct identity, not by inference.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Before, you wrote:

I believe that Anddenex was just pointing out that Moses was conversing with Jehovah, whom we know to be Jesus Christ. We don't have to merely infer that Moses must have been speaking to Christ because "the Father doesn't speak to man since the fall." Rather, we know Moses was speaking to Christ because he was speaking to Jehovah, who is Christ. We know by direct identity, not by inference.

Okay, and so where is the connection that Moses 1 must be Jehovah?

[Vort]

31 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Okay, and so where is the connection that Moses 1 must be Jehovah?

That's a separate question. You said you didn't see the connection in Anddenex's post. Did you mean you didn't see the connection between what Anddenex wrote and the topic, or that you didn't see the connection between God as portrayed in Moses 1 and Jehovah? Because I understood the first, but you appear now to be claiming the second.