- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve been asked to give a talk on a fairly broad subject (the Godhead) in sacrament meeting. I’m really struggling with this because of my uncertainty about what I believe. I don’t suppose it would be a great idea to bring up the differing versions of the first vision and how Joseph Smith’s theology about God evolved over time, would it? 
Short of just quoting a General Conference talk pretty much verbatim, I’m at a loss of what to say. Do any of you have suggestions?
I would think this would be a great time to mention Heavenly Mother. You have an essay you can back it with. Also the Godhead idea does have great options. Your idea about Joseph Smith’s first visions could be very useful. Again you have an essay to support it. You can also reference the Book of Abrahams choice of “The Gods” as something that sets our story apart.
If it were mine I would take it from the religious differences point of view. You don’t even have to acknowledge what your belief is. Read through the King Follett address (it was once canon).
You will do great.
Other than my normal plea not to read your talk (as found in this thread http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3948 – Sacrament Meeting talks should be inspirational not informational. A talk on the ‘Godhead’ is begging for the exposition of information… dictionary definitions and quotes from Mormon Doctrine. People already know the definition of Godhead. You need to find a way of turning it into something more along the lines of how we strive to live our lives.
– Each member of the Godhead provides some interesting fodder.
—- God created this world FOR US. In our theology, mankind, not God is the center of creation. His purpose is for our ‘joy’.
—- Jesus came to bridge the gap between mankind and God.
—- HG… lots of possibilities. Key-finding excluded. Inner voice that helps guide us. Is it our conscience? Is it the Light of Christ? Is it the HG? Really, does it matter? We know what is good from this inner voice, and maybe the world would be a different place if people strove to do what is good, rather that what they perceive as just.
– I might consider, rather than trying to cover it all, just pick the one from above that resonates the most with you and spend 90% of your time talking about that one.
you could maybe spend a bit of time talking about the nicean creed (without bashing it – just people trying to figure out what God is), then bring in how Joseph defined it. Within that you could mention how the first account of the first vision There is some good stuff from Givens that can allow you to talk in a faith-affirming way about the different versions. You can even tie it to a podcast that came out the last few weeks on rational faiths where an LDS bible scholar mentions that each of the new testament gospels have a bit of a different “take” or point they were trying to make (some were about proving his lineage – so they talk about that, some about his birth being divine – so they talk about that, etc.) The same about JS and his recounting the first vision in 4 different ways – for different purposes.
I think it is good to sprinkle a bit of the essay
https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng I think it is a perfect opportunity to bring up differing versions of the first vision. This is completely applicable to the topic, since much of our faith in the godhead stems from Joseph Smith’s account and the subsequent interpretations of scripture from that point of view. Talk outline could be formed as:
1. First Article of Faith established we believe in 3 distinct personages
2. True doctrine was lost in the apostasy (could mention something about what LH brought up on the Nicene creed.)
3. Joseph taught the three were separate personages, although earlier accounts of the first vision didn’t capture the distinction, he clearly taught it.
Quote:On June 16, 1844, in his last Sunday sermon before his martyrdom, Joseph Smith declared that “in all congregations” he had taught “the plurality of Gods” for fifteen years: “I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods” (TPJS, p. 370). The two earliest surviving accounts of Joseph’s first vision do not give details on the Godhead, but that he consistently taught that the Father and the Son were separate personages is clearly documentable in most periods of his life.
source: Encylclopedia of Mormonism
4. They are one in purpose, thoughts and actions…and in some ways…that makes it a bit irrelevant to distinguish, but perhaps in some ways it is significant. (story or testimony of why it is significant to you…perhaps a story of your father and mother raising you and how they were one in purpose but they had their different personalities and characteristics that made some things easier to learn from one, and some things easier from another…even if they were both trying to teach you.)5. We have presidencies and bishoprics today that function with one purpose, and there is order, even though they are comprised of separate beings to accomplish it.
Just some ideas coming to mind.
I don’t think you ever have to say you believe in the Godhead, maybe you do or don’t. But the talk can throw out the teachings from the church with some uplifting thoughts and stories (and perhaps humor) while allowing the listeners to be the ones to draw conclusions on their own about the Godhead. There doesn’t have to be one way to see the godhead in order to have a discussion on it and review teachings about it and find uplifting thoughts that apply to us today.
When the subject comes up – and it does surprisingly often – I usually make a point of saying that people have historically had almost no direct interaction with Heavenly Father. Most OT and BoM references to “seeing God” probably refer to Jehovah (some very clearly do). One first vision account refers to seeing Heavenly Father but he basically only says “this is my beloved Son, hear Him.” Likewise, except during the mortal ministry of Christ, Jehovah/Christ also doesn’t directly interact very often, and it doesn’t seem like that has changed much in modern times. So, almost all of our interaction is with the Holy Ghost. There’s nothing wrong with that IMO, and it explains why other Christians believe God is without body, parts, and passion – because the majority of interactions are with the Holy Ghost who seems to be without body, parts or passion. The God they know is the Holy Ghost. (Sometimes I get some puzzled looks at the idea that God actually interacts with people outside the church.) That said, were I given this topic I’d probably focus on either the Holy Ghost or Jesus Christ. Since I tend to focus on Christ anyway, I’d probably lean in that direction.
Thanks for all the great suggestions! I’m feeling much better about this now. If you want to read some Sunday School lessons I taught on the subject, search our archives for “My New Calling” and look for the posts from January 2014 – and possibly 2013.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.