Does the 1916 "Doctrinal Exposition" of the CJC-LDS have some errors in doctrine?
Introduction
Some faithful believers in the restoration scriptures and the teachings of the Prophets Joseph and Brigham find convincing evidences that the church leadership erred in 1916 by accepting the Doctrinal Exposition written by Elder James E. Talmage, and the Church lost some of the truth that had been restored.
But can the Church leaders and members accept the resulting chastisement of accepting that as a church they lost certain key truths that had been restored? That takes child-like humility and recognizing that God allows everyone and every people to make mistakes that they must learn from.
“My people must be tried in all things, that they may be prepared to receive the glory that I have for them, even the glory of Zion; and he that will not bear chastisement is not worthy of my kingdom.”
– D&C 136:31
All those who cannot accept chastisement from the Lord and humbly mend their ways at some point will be cast out of the Lord's kingdom. Scripture also warns us that those who are pacified and slough off any consideration that the Church could be in need of chastisement from the Lord, are in danger of being led carefully by the adversary into hell:
And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell. – 2 Nephi 28:21
Please consider this matter seriously and prayerfully.
Did the Church get off track?
Some who intensely study the scriptures and teachings of Joseph and Brigham see serious problems in what the Church teaches today about the creation Godhead.
The Church accepts the endowment doctrine that the Creators in the six days of creation were three Beings: Elohim, Jehovah and Michael. Yet although the endowment was prepared by Brigham as directed by Joseph the Church later rejected and significantly changed Brigham's teachings about each one of the Creators: Elohim, Jehovah and Michael.
That is ironic. Without Brigham there would not even be any Temple work in the restoration. Brigham prepared the temple ordinances and the endowment ceremony, led the Saints to the safety of the Rocky Mountains and built endowment houses and began building temples. Are we not justified in comparing what the Church teaches today on the creation Godhead to Brigham's teachings and see if the Church got off track from the original doctrine the church was taught by Brigham, who more than once claimed his doctrine came from Joseph?
Elohim, Jehovah, Michael Changes
Most significantly, the Church rejected and changed Brigham's doctrine that Michael was an exalted resurrected Being in the Creation, and the Father of spirits for this earth, Jesus being his firstborn Spirit. This doctrine is supported by Joseph's teachings that a spirit with a physical body always has power over a spirit without one. The Creators in the six days of creation could not have been just body-less Spirits.
The Church changed the doctrine to Michael being a spirit that had never lived in the flesh, but somehow still an angel, even an archangel. How can this not contradict D&C 129:1 which teaches that angels have resurrected bodies? In the new doctrine Michael does not have exaltation, so the three Creators are two members of the Godhead and a spirit that is not a regular angel yet. The third member of the Godhead is not mentioned during the creation.
The Church also rejected and changed Brigham's doctrine that the creation and Old Testament Jehovah was a resurrected Being, and thus was not Jesus of the New Testament, our earthly Savior. This doctrine is supported by the scriptures where over and over, again and again, it is verified that the man Jesus was the Son of the Old Testament Jehovah who declared Himself the Creator. Thus, scriptures that speak of Jesus as the Creator Jehovah have to be speaking by divine investiture.
The new doctrine is changed to Jesus being a Spirit as the creation Jehovah even though Joseph taught that a resurrected body is necessary to even gain salvation let alone exaltation to be a Creator.
And the Church rejected and changed Brigham's doctrine about Elohim, now claiming Elohim is the Father of spirits for this earth instead of Michael. But there is no scriptural evidence, except possibly Deut. 32:8, that the God Jehovah in the Bible has a Father over him. That is basically a Temple doctrine only.
And by Brigham's understanding Elohim is the Grandfather God and not the Father of spirits for this earth.
Is Jesus the Jehovah that created this earth?
The revelation to John speaks of both Jesus and his Father having their own throne:
"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." – Rev 3:21
Isaiah saw the God of Israel Jehovah sitting on His throne in Heaven:
"In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. ... Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips ... for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." – Isaiah 6:1,5
In the Hebrew the word LORD is יְהוָֹה – the divine Name – which is Jehovah in English. So Isaiah saw Jehovah in Heaven sitting on a throne.
The Old Testament LORD Jehovah is said to be the Creator. This agrees with the Temple endowment in which Jehovah and Michael are sent down to create this earth.
“O LORD [Jehovah] of hosts, God of Israel … thou hast made heaven and earth.” – Isaiah 37:16
“...I am the LORD [Jehovah] that maketh all things...” – Isaiah 44:24
Joseph taught this:
"There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones." – 5 Jan 1841
Unless Joseph was teaching false doctrine in this statement, then the Jehovah that Isaiah saw in heaven was a resurrected Being. So it could not have been Jesus as a Spirit, but it was the Father of Jesus.
Furthermore, the throne of Jesus will be set up on this earth for the Millennium and eternity after the Ancient of Days, who Mormons know is the resurrected Adam, gives Jesus authority over all mankind. So the throne of Jesus as Jehovah will be on this earth, and not in heaven on the earth where the Creator Jehovah has His throne.
“I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit.... I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man [Jesus] came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days [Adam], and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” – Daniel 7:1,13-14
The Bible says Jesus is the “Firstborn of all creatures.” Is it not confusing to claim that Jesus is created as the Firstborn spirit if he is the Creator of it?
The Greek word “en” in Col 1:16 does not have to mean Jesus was the Creator. It can mean: “after, because of, for the sake of”. And the Greek word “dia” in the same verse does not have to mean Jesus was the Creator. It can mean: “on account of, by reason of, for the sake of, because of”.
"Who [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For “en” [after, because of, for the sake of] him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created ”dia” [on account of, by reason of, for the sake of, because of] him, and for him:" – Col 1:15-16
Why should we believe the Firstborn of every creature in the creation created the world? Surely his Father created the world because of, by reason of, on account of, and for the sake of his Son Jesus. When Jesus is spoken of as the Creator it is by divine investiture. So we should believe that as a Son and Heir Jesus in his resurrection is an equal as the Jehovah who will have his eternal throne on this earth in it's celestial state creating future earths.
The Holy Ghost teachings
Several church leaders have taught that the third member of the Godhead, the Holy Ghost, has never had a physical body to this day. He is an unmarried male Spirit that has never lived in the flesh and proved himself and kept his Second Estate but has exaltation and has been a Witness seeing the sexuality, cultures, wars and evils of billions of humans over thousands of years that he comforts and teaches.
This unmarried male Spirit apparently has made no eternal D&C 132:7 covenants himself, but is considered the Holy Spirit of Promise sealing all such covenants for mankind.
How can this Holy Ghost teaching be correct? Here is a study of this issue:
Richard Holmes
Conclusion
The Adam-God teachings of Brigham can be basically correct and yet still have errors in them. The books and discourses of Elder Talmage and others that later rejected and taught doctrines that contradict some of Brigham's doctrines can also have errors in them. What is needed is Word of the Lord revelation to resolve the matter.
Elder Talmage was the first Church apostle with a Phd degree and he was the one that prepared the 1916 “Doctrinal Exposition” that established the current authorized Church doctrine.
In hindsight, would it not have been better to have the scriptorians of the church study both Brigham's teachings about Elohim, Jehovah and Michael and the teachings of those who could not reconcile in scripture some of the things that Brigham taught, and then have the church collectively pray for a revelation as promised in Article of Faith 9 to resolve the matter?
I fully agree that this matter can only be resolved with Word of the Lord revelation. Discourses, conversations and books by Brigham or Talmage or anyone are not guaranteed to be the Iron Rod that the faith must hold fast to.
If the Church is teaching false doctrine concerning the creation Godhead, some day it will be exposed on the housetops. Would it not be a step in the right direction for the Church today to acknowledge that it could have been a mistake to reject the way it did some of the teachings of the Prophet Brigham Young who held the office to give revelation to the church (D&C 107:92)?
There was no extensive church wide study of the matter. And no asking the church membership to pray for revelation. President Young's teachings were replaced without the common consent of the membership with teachings from an Apostle whose calling was to be a traveling councilor (D&C 107:23) not to write books or be the primary Revelator for the Church.
This is a study of the evidence that both Jesus and his Father are a Jehovah:
Richard Holmes
Member discussion