1841, 1867, 1961 ... Jehovah = Father

I don't know what I think about the Bible right now, today, but, I ran across these quotes, all authorized by LDS Church Presidents, supporting the view for which I was previously charged with apostasy in the modern LDS Church:

“We believe in God the Father, who is the great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal with the Father; yet he is our Savior, Redeemer, King, and Great Prototype;… and is now seated at the right hand of the Father.” – Times and Seasons 3 (1 November 1841): 578.

“Jehovah God, Thou Eloheim - Thy Son Jesus Christ” (BYA, 4 Aug 1867) - Brigham Young

“Jehovah, God the Father is one / Another His Eternal Son” (Sacred Hymns #262) - John Taylor

“Jehovah and his Son, Jesus” - (1 July 1961, Church News) - David O. McKay.

Today, the Church teaches that Jehovah is the same character as Jesus, a view primarily introduced and pushed by James E. Talmage, and unsubstantiated by Scripture.

Topical Guide Confusion

Open up a copy of the LDS standard works, or use the online version. Look up in the Topical Guide, these two sections:

God the Father--Jehovah

Jesus Christ--Jehovah

Notice anything odd? It seems like the contents of these sections are intentionally reversed from what would be expected. Every reference under the "God the Father--Jehovah" section is a reference to Jesus Christ, and every reference under "Jesus Christ--Jehovah" is actually a reference to Heavenly Father. What's up with this reversal? Or does someone out there grasp this division between these verses in a way that I'm missing?

A Convert Trapped

I was a convert to the Church in 1999. I believe in it wholeheartedly. But I feel trapped right now. The missionaries never taught me the strange doctrine upon which (among a couple other things) my temple worthiness is now being held in the balance. Why would the missionaries teach about Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost but not teach me that they believe Jehovah is Jesus? They taught me and I agreed with the things they taught, and because I agreed and gained a testimony of the Book of Mormon and of the principles they taught I was baptized. Now, I am being asked to accept that Jehovah is Jesus Christ. If there was no contradictory evidence I would have no problem with it, but there is a TON of contradictory evidence. I didn't make this stuff up. It isn't MY fault, THEY did it, the leaders of the Church who have written for years and years, and they are acting like its my own fault for believing their own writings. I am not pulling something out of my hat, I'm taking a standard Christian assumption that probably everyone has at some point or another. I don't understand. Any Jew, and any Christian who is not a strict trinitarian would agree with me. The missionaries did not teach me this deviation, I picked it up later when I started asking questions, it was the answer I got from my teachers and friends. But at that point, I was already a member, so I went along with it for a while, but as I read the scriptures and the writings of the prophets they do not all agree, there is a diversity in this teaching, and I don't want it to rest upon MY shoulders to have to state that I know an answer to it especially an answer that is as clearly wrong to me as saying that the sun isn't shining at noon.

I need to pray to God for comfort and to allow me to fully forgive not these men, but any who came before them and helped to make it so confusing for us today. They talk about me doing things that might lead one soul astray as though it is a wicked thing, while the official writings
are just as confusing and just as prone to leading people any direction on this matter. I kind of feel unappreciated because of it, I follow the patterns, I study scriptures like they ask me to, I pray, and then the answers I get they tell me not to have. I didn't put the answers there either. I guess I can't say that God did either, because they don't want me to write anything that "I know" they only want me to say that I'm thinking about or studying things, while at the same time everyone says "I know this, I know that" when bearing their testimonies. If I said "I'm thinking about the Book of Mormon being true, and I'm studying whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet." that would not be a testimony. I believe God answers prayers, and I believe I have been trapped by for some reason, and I don't think God would trap one of his children in such a situation.

ALL converts should be taught that the official position of the Church is that Jehovah is Christ before being baptized, so they are not faced with this impossible choice unwillingly. I fear the consequences no matter what I say. There is no right answer. This is the most confusing thing I've ever faced, and after wasting hundreds of hours on the subject over the past seven years, finally coming to a comforting and relievingly simple answer, I am now asked to go back into the confusing zone and to just pray about it. But my prayers were already answered, and if I pray more how do I know what to trust? How do I know what to think? What should I do?

If every convert were treated this way, the Church would be very small. I feel very small because of it. I also feel that these men although trying to be loving are also trying to avoid the situation because they are scared of it. I wish they would teach me instead of holding back my temple recommend in order to "threaten" (lovingly) me to change my belief. That is not how the missionaries taught me, they did not say you're going to hell if you don't believe this doctrine. They said here are the doctrines, try it out, pray about it, find out if it is true. If you find it out, be baptized. I thought threatening tactics of hellfire and damnation are gone with the various sects and denominations of protestant Christianity.

I have to go.

On the state of Jesus

This post is formulated from comments I made on a post over at Millennial Star.

Mortal death, a consequence of the fall, was due to Adam and Eve being required to leave the garden, thus they were no longer able to partake of the Fruit of the Tree of Life. (This fruit being the only thing keeping the Gods alive eternally, as it sustains their celestial bodies in a way that restores them or prevents them from decaying.) Lack of this fruit for any extended period of time would cause man to decelestialize: as the celestial sand in his veins is replaced with blood he becomes mortal. The fruit, the Tree of Life, and the positive consequences of partaking of this fruit are quite ancient concepts, perhaps as widespread as the story of a world flood.

My current view of MMP is this: You are born a mortal (I'll use telestial as an example word here). You die. If righteous, you are born a baby again but this time you have become perfected to the point that you are able to live sinless (I'll use terrestrial as an example word here). You die again. You are resurrected (as Christ) and now have a celestial, resurrected body. This same adult body goes on to become the Adam of your new world. You are sustained by the fruit of the Tree of Life.

I object to the idea that Jesus Christ could be sinless straight out of the gate. I believe Jesus lived a life as a sinner in order to become worthy of being sinless. If not, he would be acting as a prototype of the original Satanism (Denial of Agency), he never would have tasted of evil in order to know good, he would be like Adam and Eve before the fall, in a condition of innocence and lack of joy. The only way I see it working is that Jesus Christ was a sinner and earned his way to being Christ; Just as Adam was a sinner and also earned his way through that office and to eventually become exalted (a celestial being).

If Jesus was sinless out of the gate, it would had to have been due to his own choices in his mortal life on this earth and we too would have equal opportunity to be and remain sinless throughout our own lives and save ourselves without his help. (For we are all literal children of God, ultimately, both by Adam-God reasoning, or without it: For Adam himself would have been a literal offspring of God.)

How is such a sinless "Terrestrial" body (as I am calling it) created? By an exalted, resurrected Celestial being (like Adam) procreating with a mortal (like Mary). This creates sinless offspring. Why is Seth different? Because he is the consequence of a decelestialized, mortal Father and Mother (each having blood in their veins). Note, I am not saying anything here about Mary's own condition except that she at this point is mortal (subject to impending physical death).

Without considering Adam-God, the question becomes why can Adam, created by God, sin, while Christ created by the same process could not, and remained sinless? If it was only due to Christ's righteous choices, that's a lot of spirits to put up for gamble - what if it had gone wrong?

Was Jesus really sinless in the way we think he was? Jesus certainly must have made indiscretions, mistakes, and what we would consider sins, even in this mortal probation, but his Elder Brother (and Father by Adoption), had already suffered as a sacrifice on a previous earth so that all of Jesus's sins past, present, and future, could be forgiven with an attitude of penance.

If Jesus hadn't already completed one probation, and if it is indeed possible for God to father a sinless child in one step while allowing this child to retain its agency, why would he not just make every one of us sinless and eschew the whole programme?

Notes on greek words translted to worship in KJV

Note: This post was created as a supplement to a comment I posted on Blogger of Jared's post titled "Worship the Father or Jesus?"


Proskuneo - "to kiss the hand to one"

Jesus:

Matthew 2:2, Matthew 2:8, Matthew 2:11, Matthew 8:2, Matthew 9:18, Matthew 14:33, Matthew 15:25, Matthew 18:26, Matthew 20:20, Matthew 28:9, Matthew 28:17, Mark 5:6, Mark 15:19, Luke 24:52, John 9:38, Acts 10:25, Hebrews 1:6
Revelation 19:10 (Jesus; denied)
Revelation 22:8 (Jesus as an angel [messenger], or perhaps another sent in his behalf; denied)


God the Father:

Matthew 4:10, Luke 4:8 - [God] only shalt thou *serve* (directed to Satan)
John 4:20 - Our fathers worshipped (presumably the Father, per next verse)
John 4:21, John 4:23, John 4:24, 1 Corinthians 14:25
Revelation 4:10, Revelation 5:14, Revelation 7:11, Revelation 19:4 (Possibly Adam? Compare Dan. 7)
Revelation 11:16 (Lord God Almighty)
Revelation 15:4 (Lord God Almighty)
Revelation 22:9


Satan, Idols or the Beast:

Matthew 4:9, Luke 4:7 (Satan)
Acts 7:43 (idols)
Revelation 9:20 (not worship devils)
Revelation 13:4 (the dragon, the beast)
Revelation 13:8, Revelation 13:12, Revelation 13:15, Revelation 14:9, Revelation 14:11, Revelation 16:2, Revelation 19:20, Revelation 20:4.


Other:

John 4:22 - Ye worship ye know not what.
John 12:20 (came to worship at the feast, generally)
Acts 8:27 (came to Jerusalem for to worship, generally)
Acts 24:11 (went up to Jerusalem for to worship, generally)
Hebrews 11:21 (generally, when blessing the sons of Joseph)
Revelation 3:9 (John, recipient of Revelation)
Revelation 11:1 (worship in the Temple, generally)
Revelation 14:7 (creator)


Sebomai

- to revere, to adore. devout, religious, worship
- also translated as devout (Acts 13:50) and religious (Acts 13:43)
- in relation to goddess Diana "worshippeth" in Acts 19:27


Matthew 15:9, and Mark 7:7 - But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines ...
Acts 18:13 - This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law.


Eusebio

- act piously or reverently, dutiful regard or reverence
- (1 Tim 5:4 uses it as "show piety")

Acts 17:23 - For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.


Ethelothreskeia

- will worship
- misdirected

Colossians 2:23


Latreuo

- to serve for hire
- to serve, minister to, either to the gods or men, slaves or freemen
- to render religious service or homage, to worship
- to perform sacred services, to offer gifts

Acts 7:42 - idolatry - the hosts of heaven by way of the calf idol
Acts 24:14 - But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
Philippians 3:3 - For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Thus, I have determined that Latreuo is the "worship" in the sense that most religious people today naturally use the word. Here is every New Testament verse using latreuo, and you will see that every one of them applies to God the Father:

Matthew 4:10
10. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Luke 1:74
74. That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,

Luke 2:37
37. And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.

Luke 4:8
8. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Acts 7:7
7. And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God: and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place.

Acts 7:42 [Note: This is a reference to idol worship]
42. ¶ Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?

Acts 24:14
14. But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Acts 26:7
7. Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.

Acts 27:23
23. For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve,

Romans 1:9
9. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;

Romans 1:25 [ idolatry ]
25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Philippians 3:3
3. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

2 Timothy 1:3
3. I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day;

Hebrews 8:5
5. Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

Hebrews 9:9
9. Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

Hebrews 9:14
14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Hebrews 10:2
2. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

Hebrews 12:28
28. Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:

Hebrews 13:10
10. We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

Revelation 7:15
15. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

Revelation 22:3
3. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:


I hope this is helpful in some way.

Basic Beliefs

I just took a quick cruise through the current rendition of the Basic Beliefs on the church's official websites. The section on Jesus said the following:

Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is Heavenly Father’s Only Begotten Son in the flesh. He is our Redeemer. Through Jesus Christ, Heavenly Father has provided a way for all people to become like Him and return to live with Him forever.

We love Christ. We worship Christ. He is our example and our Savior.

While the section on Heavenly Father said this:

Jesus taught that God is "Our Father which art in heaven" (Matthew 6:9). We call God Heavenly Father because He is the Father of our spirits.

As your Father, God knows and loves you personally. He wants you to find joy in this life and return to live with Him when this life is over. He has prepared a plan to help you do these things. It is the plan of salvation, a plan of happiness. It offers peace in this life and eternal life in the world to come.

It appears that they are indicating that Jesus is to be Worshipped but no mention of Worship is included in explaining God the Father. I can only conclude that in emphasizing monotheism and separatism over trinitarianism, the official position of the maintianers of the Basic Beliefs portion of the website is that Jesus is to be worshipped while Heavenly Father is not.

I may be overly ridiculous or simplistic here, but this is what an investigator may think when approaching the website. How would these statements look to a Muslim, or a Jew who is considering further investigation of the Church? (Taken together with the other strange notion that Jesus as Jehovah actually did everything they ever thought God the Father did for his people, this becomes stragely like Trinitarianism. Just... a different Trinity.)

How the Gospel makes little girls cry.

I just read this, and had to share a link to it:

Cold & Calculating: Warning Label for The Lamb of God

I think it is always important to consider the way the messages we teach and endorse look from outside and alternative perspectives.

Jehovah, the Father of Jesus Christ

The LDS Hymn Book from 1840
Title Page, and Preface:

These hymns were selected by the First Presidency for the use of the Saints.
I wanted to share Hymn #150, which gives a demonstration of the early LDS understanding of the identity of Jehovah:

How ought we to regard Jesus?

In reading the 1854 Children's Catechism, I came across this question and answer, to which I fully agree:

With what feelings ought we to regard the Lord Jesus Christ, when we consider the love manifested by him to us?

We ought to feel towards him the warmest gratitude and love, and be ready to keep all his commandments and precepts.

I have often warned against the worship of Christ on this blog, but I want to also warn never to allow this to strip you of your feelings of gratitude and love towards Christ, which are desirable and acceptable to have. Of course, I also have similar gratitude and love towards Joseph Smith and many others, including membebrs of my own family, but Jesus, our Brother, went through tremendous suffering and even death for us, and we must never forget what he has done. Would we be willing to pass through that same type of challenge that he went through in order to help our Brothers and Sisters?

Jehovah = Father (in 1854)

This is from the "Children's Catechism", published by Apostles Franklin D. Richards in 1854, available from online collection at BYU. It can be observed that at this point in time, Jehovah was still considered to be the Father, and Jesus Christ to be His Son, and that this was (correctly) taught to the children being raised in the Church at that time.

Did Jesus die Spiritually?

Reading about the televangelist Kenneth Copeland I came across an interesting teaching of his: That Jesus Christ had died spiritually, as part of his atoning work for our sins.

I thought this was interesting... Mr. Copeland, I believe, suggested that this happened after his physical death, as he descended to hell.

I think I agree that he did die spiritually, except that it happened during the atonement process in the Garden of Gethsemane. Matthew 27:46

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

If "Spiritual Death" is a separation between Man and God, then this seems to have occurred. Not only that, but it seems that as the "wages of sin" are death, this would be the only adequate payment for sin - a spiritual death, not a physical death.

However, upon further study, I'm questioning the notion of spiritual death being equivalent to "separation from God" at all. I see a lot of scriptures about the second death or spiritual death being equated to a lake of fire and brimstone, and something that happens if someone dies while they are in sin, but not very much about separation from God being spiritual death. The standard verse people might quote is Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

However, I see this as clearly talking about the introduction of mortality into the world by Adam's transgression. The wages of [original] sin is mortality (physical death). Nothing to do with spiritual death at all. Wow, I really changed my mind half way through this post, or at least got myself confused. :-)

Who gets worshipped by name of Jesus?

I've been wondering this for some time, but no where is it made clearer to me than Moses chapter 1 and Moses chapter 4: Who gets worshipped by name of Jesus?

Moses 1-4 makes it abundantly clear that there is one God only whom we are to Worship (at least if we follow the example of Moses). It also sets forth Satan's plan and Jesus's plan in a very clear way. Satan goes by the names the Only Begotten, the redeemer, in other words, the Savior, Jesus Christ. It is his goal to have people worship him instead of the True God. Jesus Christ has a different goal. He wants people to worship and glorify the Father, the same as Moses insisted on doing.

When someone "Worships" "Jesus" it seems that they are demeaning the character of Jesus Christ by trying to "tempt" him to deviate from his Father's plan. Since he is not going to sin by accepting such worship, it leaves two possibilities: 1 - Satan presumes the role and gladly serves as an object of worship. 2 - Out of mercy of someone's ignorance of this, Jesus redirects the misguided Worship to God the Father.

The endowment, and Joseph Smith's first vision, among other accounts, teach us that at least in some cases, the first person ready to answer a prayer is Satan. Discernment is necessary to pass by Satan and arrive at God.

The Book of Moses, (The Joseph Smith Translation version of Genesis) is one of the first works Joseph Smith produced after the Book of Mormon was published in 1830. It must have had a large influence on early LDS theology. In making this inspired translation, Joseph was restoring many plain and precious things that had been lost from the Bible, and in comparing Moses with Genesis, one finds that the main thing removed was this information about the Council in Heaven, Satan's plan, Satan's attempt to undermine Moses's pattern of worship, etc. The theological statements here are amazing, and they constitute what was "plain and precious" in this case, because the remainder of the material (except for the information about multiple planets and possibly aliens) is largely the same as otherwise found in the Bible.

Worship God.

Mormon Gnostics Podcast

I've just started a Mormon Gnostics Podcast to go along with this blog, and the first episode is 001 - Theology, Moses 1:1-23. Enjoy!

Will the real Savior please step forward?

What thoughts or questions does this design bring to mind?

If you want this on a T-Shirt, we have made it available.

The Mormon Jesus is Created

And what of it? He was the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh, and the first-born of the Father in the Spirit. The Mormon Jesus had a beginning as a personage. Yet, he also has existed eternally as "intelligence" or spiritual matter. His Spirit birth refers to his being organized by Father (and Mother, I presume), not his creation out of nothing. (For what can be created of nothing, but nothing?) The Jesus of the Christian World is an uncreated being, co-eternal with the Father. The Mormon Jesus is a created being, whose element is co-eternal with Father's own element, and your own spirit and body must necessarily follow the same pattern, if you ever expect to gain exaltation and partake along with Christ of the fullness of your inheritance from Father.

D&C 29 and 49. Who is Jesus's Only Begotten Son?

Reading the D&C, I came up with a few theological questions. I present these two for your investigation.

I verified D&C 29 with the scanned pages from the original Book of Commandments. Aside from some minor words (is/was, forest/forests) the text remains intact with no additions, deletions, or changes except the verse numbering.

Doctrine and Covenants Section 29 begins with this:

LISTEN, to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the Great I AM, whose arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins; Who will gather his people even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, even as many as will hearken to my voice, and humble themselves before me, and call upon me in mighty prayer.

It appears to be a revelation from Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith. Interestingly, he will gather those who pray ... to him? Pray to Jesus? That's something not taught in the LDS Church today, but seems to be required in this verse in order to be one that Jesus will gather. To remove any shadow of doubt, verse six (BOC) or five (D&C) further demonstrates the identity of this figure:

Lift up your hearts and be glad for I am in your midst, and am your advocate with the Father; and it is his good will to give you the kingdom;

There are several other points to demonstrate that this is indeed Jesus, the Son of the God the Father who is speaking.

In verse 31 (BOC) or 27 (D&C), we find: "And the wicked on my left hand will I be ashamed to own before the Father." Okay, it's still Jesus speaking.

Then something unusual happens. The creation is reviewed, including the creation of Adam (!!), and by the time we get to verse 51 (BOC) or 42 (D&C) we find:

But behold I say unto you, that I the Lord God gave unto Adam and unto his seed, that they should not die as to the temporal death, until I the Lord God should send forth angels to declare unto them repentance and redemption, through faith on the name of mine only begotten Son:

Verse 53 (BOC)/46 (D&C) also refers to "mine only Begotten", and if we backtrack up to verse 45 (BOC) / 36 (D&C) we will see the the Devil had "rebelled against me saying, Give me thine honor"

I call this the Son-to-Father "Bait and Switch"

Now let's take a look at D&C 49. I compared it quickly to BOC but I'm not going to give BOC verse numbers on this one:

Verse 5:

Thus saith the Lord; for I am God, and have sent mine Only Begotten Son into the world for the redemption of the world, and have decreed that he that receiveth him shall be saved, and he that receiveth him not shall be damned--

Verse 7:

I, the Lord God, have spoken it; but the hour and the day no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor shall they know until he comes.

Verse 11:

Wherefore, I give unto you a commandment that ye go among this people, and say unto them, like unto mine apostle of old, whose name was Peter:

Verse 28:

Behold, I am Jesus Christ, and I come quickly. Even so. Amen.

I call this one the Father-to-Son "Bait and Switch"

So... Does anyone know what the story is on these? Other sections in the D&C mention when multiple revelations were combined together, but these seem to gradually shift from one personage to another. Help?

The Living Christ was... what?

On January 1, 2000, the First Presidency issued a statement titled The Living Christ, which contains the statement: "He was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New."

I am interested in how other Mormons who have studied theology interpret this confusing statement. I have two issues with it. First, Jehovah is not Christ. However naturally this supposition may seem to Latter-day Saints today, it was not the understanding of Joseph Smith or the early Saints. It is a modern innovation, adopted from the line of thinking that creates the Protestant Trinity, and as far as I know, no revelation has ever been given on it (unless The Living Christ is it!), and it flies in the face of other revelations we have received. Even the Apostle Orson Pratt, who nearly got excommunicated for disagreeing with Brigham Young on the Adam-God issue, believed Jehovah to be the Father:

"God is love," says the Apostle John," and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." If, then, this is one of the great attributes of Jehovah, if he is filled with love and compassion towards the children of men, if his son Jesus Christ so loved the world that he gave his life to redeem mankind from the effects of the fall, then, certainly, God the Eternal Father must be in possession of this passion.
--Orson Pratt, November 12, 1876; JD Vol.18, p.288

Charles W. Penrose also agreed:

God, then, the God of the Bible, who is called Jehovah, the person who manifested Himself to Israel as Jehovah, is an individual, a personality, and He made man in His image and His likeness. Now, if we are the children of God, and if Jesus Christ is the Son of God, we can upon that reasoning understand something about what God is like, for there is an eternal principle in heaven and on earth, that every seed begets of its kind, every seed brings forth in its own likeness and character.
--Charles W. Penrose, November 16, 1884; JD Vol.26, p.21

This topic has been covered extensively in articles such as "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine: From Joseph Smith to Progressive Theology" by Thomas G. Alexander which appeared in Sunstone, July-August 1980. Some excerpts from this article are available online. However, as far as I know, this is the first time all fifteen Apostles have put out a signed statement proclaiming this notion, and that is concerning to me.

The second issue is "the Messiah of the New." That seems a preposterous statement to me, as Messiah is a Hebrew word, which is not to be found in the New Testament at all.

The remainder of the document seems theologically sound. My main explanation for this: The Living Christ is a testimony, not a revelation on Theology. There is no reason to expect it to contain accurate theological information when the people writing it have been raised up immersed in a population carrying the same popular understanding of the Godhead as we find in modern LDS literature and not the one given by revelation.

The Da Vinci Code and Brother Brigham

You may hear the divines of the day extol the character of the Saviour, undertake to exhibit his true character before the people, and give an account of his origin, and were it not ridiculous, I would tell what I have thought about their views. Brother Kimball wants me to tell it, therefore you will excuse me if I do. I have frequently thought of mules, which you know are half horse and half ass, when reflecting upon the representations made by those divines. I have heard sectarian priests undertake to tell the character of the Son of God, and they make him half of one species and half of another, and I could not avoid thinking at once of the mule, which is the most hateful creature that ever was made, I believe. You will excuse me, but I have thus thought many a time.

-- Journal of Discourses, Vol.4, p.217, Brigham Young, February 8, 1857

I've actually thought that before as well.

So, what this has to do with the Da Vinci Code?

The idea that God is a different type of being than us mortals, leads to Jesus being a mule of sorts. And, that being the case - he would certainly be infertile. A great case for the Catholics, if not for it being so disrespectful. But with an eye on Adam being God, or at least God being a Man, no one has to be a mule - or a donkey :-) And Jesus can have children and still be as divine as we are ... wait! the traditional-Christians would think that's blasphemy as well.

Mormons already knew the Da Vinci Code

I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.

All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this—they worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfil the commands of his Father. I worship one that is just pure and holy enough "to fulfil all righteousness;" not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more righteous and important law "to multiply and replenish the earth." Startle not at this! for even the Father himself honored that law by coming down to Mary, without a natural body, and begetting a son; and if Jesus begat children, he only "did that which he had seen his Father do."

Orson Hyde, March 18, 1855.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, p.210

The Da Vinci code raises some big questions for the Christian world, but we have had these thoughts floating around Mormonism for 150 years. They pose no threat to any true Latter-day Saint who understands that it is necessary to be wed and have offspring in order to attain Exaltation, and that we are following in the Savior's footsteps.

It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it.

I will venture to say that if Jesus Christ were now to pass through the most pious countries in Christendom with a train of women,. such as used to follow him, fondling about him, combing his hair, anointing him with precious ointment, washing his feet with tears, and wiping them with the hair of their heads and unmarried, or even married, he would be mobbed, tarred, and feathered, and rode, not on an ass, but on a rail. What did the old Prophet mean when he said (speaking of Christ), "He shall see his seed, prolong his days, &c." Did Jesus consider it necessary to fulfil every righteous command or requirement of his Father? He most certainly did. This he witnessed by submitting to baptism under the hands of John. "Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness," said he. Was it God's commandment to man, in the beginning, to multiply and replenish the earth? None can deny this, neither that it was a righteous command; for upon an obedience to this, depended the perpetuity of our race. Did Christ come to destroy the law or the Prophets, or to fulfil them? He came to fulfil. Did he multiply, and did he see his seed? Did he honour his Father's law by complying with it, or did he not? Others may do as they like, but I will not charge our Saviour with neglect or transgression in this or any other duty.

At this doctrine the long-faced hypocrite and the sanctimonious bigot will probably cry, blasphemy! Horrid perversion of God's word! Wicked wretch! He is not fit to live! &c., &c. But the wise and reflecting will consider, read, and pray. If God be not our Father, grandfather, or great grandfather, or some kind of a father in reality, in deed and in truth, why are we taught to say, "Our Father who art in heaven?" How much soever of holy horror of this doctrine may excite in persons not impregnated with the blood of Christ, and whose minds are consequently dark and benighted, it may excite still more when they are told that if none of the natural blood of Christ flows in their veins, they are not the chosen or elect of God. Object not, therefore, too strongly against the marriage of Christ, but remember that in the last days, secret and hidden things must come to light, and that your life also (which is the blood) is hid with Christ in God.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.4, p.260, Orson Hyde

Not only do we assert that Jesus Christ was married, but that he was a polygamist. Just wait until it falls upon the Christian world to digest that piece of information.

The Fine Line Between Good and Evil

The pre-1990 Endowment contained the following exchange of dialogue (Don't worry, nothing under covenant not to be revealed is quoted here):

PETER: ... Do you know who that man is? He is Satan!

SECTARIAN MINISTER: What? The Devil?

PETER: That is one of his names.

SECTARIAN MINISTER: He is quite a different person from what he told me the devil is. He said the devil has claws like a bear's on his hands, horns on his head, and a cloven foot, and that when he speaks he has the roar of a lion!

PETER: He has said this to deceive you, and I would advise you to get out of his employ.

The lesson here is so important! Being beat into the minds of the Latter-day Saints for over a hundred years, it would be hard to believe that it could be forgotten in sixteen. Satan is subtle in his ways. In fact, he strives to appear completely Good and acceptable, and it is only his deception that allows him to gain any ground at all. Latter-day Saint scriptures are abound with revolutionary ideas of "Free Agency" and it is esteemed as one of God's greatest gifts to man.

In the scriptural accounts of the premortal council in heaven, we learn that Satan desired all to be saved. His idea was to enforce righteousness on all creation so that no piece of it could be lost.

Jesus Christ determined to carry out the plan of his Father, which included the great gift of Free Agency, and the fact that some individuals would not choose to return, and some would be lost and perish from their lack of faith and obedience.

The opposing forces here are: a tyranny of forced goodness - Lucifer's plan, against the allowed existence of both good and evil - God's plan.

If every human being could hold true to this idea, the Dark Ages would stay away. Ironically, it was this very concept, holy as it is, that permitted the Dark Ages to occur, and allowed all of the horror inflicted by the Church of Rome to come to pass. Yet, God values man's freedom to choose above all of those consequences.

In reality, no man gets more righteous by being forced to "Choose The Right", because a forced choice is not a choice at all.

Amongst the Saints themselves, removing temptations can be good, especially for the young and inexperienced, however, even that can have its dangers - Children grow up in a "sheltered" Utah culture, but when they step out into the real world, even if it is the warped sense of a real world that is BYU, suddenly they are faced with so much that they are utterly unprepared to cope with, it is overbearing and they cave in. This is why it is important to be in the world, but not of the world. Isolation is dangerous.

When setting standards and laws that affect people outside of the Church, we must be especially careful. We should not presume they hold the same values that we do. To put forth an extreme example, imagine completely removing drinks containing Alcohol of all forms from Utah. On the surface, this might seem like a good idea. After all, to the Mormon, alcoholic beverages are "sinful". However, putting this into effect as a law would prevent Catholic mass from taking place. It seems that one man's sin can be another man's virtue. We are absolutely and utterly not authorized to impose that decision on other people, and as a group who has Polygamy in our past, and in light of the reaction the rest of the western world had to it, it is the mark of complete hypocrisy for us to try to put an end to other people's practices, unless they are harming another person or hurting the freedom of others:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
--11th Article of Faith

Even then, we need to be careful. If we perceive someone taking away someone else's freedom we need to ask: Is it consentual? Outsiders may well view the Mormon church as taking away our Freedoms: To drink tea, to interpret the Bible for ourselves, or however they see it. But we have chosen this path. It is our will to submit to these restrictions, and therefore our freedom has not been revoked, but has actually been exercised. Making a decision ahead of time and then holding firm to it is a great example of Freedom of Choice.

I think taking away freedom ("unrighteous dominion") or permitting freedom to be taken away is just as bad as any sin it seeks to prevent, because it thwarts God's divine plan.

So, if each person can choose between Good or Evil that means we need to help teach and persuade others to choose Good, to choose Freedom: The course that allows true Good to exist at all (and Evil, as well).

Because "Choose the Right" seems to carry a political message with it and flirts too closely with Satan's plan, I call this "Choose the Light" -- indicating the way of enlightenment. Step out of the Dark Ages and allow man to think for himself.