Todd:  Heiser writes this about the Trinity:

In Heiser’s encouragement to all LDS readership:

My own view is that there is a better way to parse all this—by restricting talk of a godhead to Yahweh and Yahweh’s other hypostatic “selves”—what we would commonly think of as the “Son” and the “Spirit.”  I do not consider these “selves” to be mere personified attributes.  These other selves are Yahweh in that they are ontologically identical.  They are not the Father, though, and so in that sense it may (perhaps awkwardly) be said that they are not Yahweh.  I think it better to say that they share Yahweh’s essence, but they are also independent (but not autonomous) personal being distinct from Yahweh” (247).

 I assume that Michael is making it very clear that he does not believe in modalism.  This is good.  But my question would be, may we not say upon the authority of the scriptural text that Jesus is fully Yahweh (and not just delegated position or title)?  I am detecting from the paper that Jesus is the “chief agent of Yahweh,”  “The Angel, the Word, and the Glory-Man are visible representations of the coregent Yahweh,” etc.  But nowhere in the paper did I see Jesus proclaimed clearly as Yahweh, except maybe this, “Who occupies the ‘second god, coregent’ slot in Israelite religion under Yahweh?  Why Yahweh, of course” (248).  This statement made me smile. 

For what I see in scriptural text, Yahweh involves eternal relationship council of distinct three and yet three being one God.  Human mindblowing! 

Bob G.:  In light of Mr./Dr. Heiser’s comments here, I wonder how he would interpret Paul’s citation of Isaiah’s vision in the prophet’s sixth chapter.  There Isaiah sees “Adonai, sitting upon a throne (v. 1)” whom the seraphim identify as the holy and glorious “Yahweh of hosts” (v. 3).  The prophet himself begins to tremble “for,” he exclaims, “my eyes have seen the King, Yahweh of hosts” (v. 5).  Then Isaiah hears the “voice of Adonai,” who has already been identified as Yahweh, saying to him, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” (v. 8a).  Then Isaiah, using a third person SINGULAR imperative of entreaty, says, “Here I am; send me” (v. 8b).  In response, Adonai-Yahweh then speaks to Isaiah (‘and he said,’ 3^rd person masc singular), warning him that his ministry will be largely rejected because the people to whom he will preach are to suffer from a judicial blindness (vv. 9-10).  The Apostle John tells us that what the prophet actually saw was Christ’s own glory (John 12:41).  And the Apostle Paul tells us that what the prophet actually heard was the Holy Spirit’s own voice (Acts 28:25-27).  These texts incline me to view it as appropriate to speak of the Son and the Spirit as Yahweh, as well as the Father.

Scott W.:  [Todd inserting Scott’s comment here from another thread.]  LDS Scripture—particularly “the Pearl of Great Price—talks about gods and “the head of the gods calling a council of the gods.”  Also, LDS authorities historically have identified YHWH as the firstborn Son of God, namely, the pre-mortal Christ.

Todd:  Fantastic chapter in Isaiah, Bob!  Bokovoy does provide some of his own interpretation of Isaiah the prophet being a part of the council of gods from the data he has gathered on Isaiah 6.  I would have never come to that conclusion by looking at the text itself apart from outside sources.

Though I realize that Heiser has restricted the focus of Yahweh in the FARMS paper to just the Hebrew Bible, I would love to hear his thoughts on your comment, Bob.

Scott shares important summary on LDS interpretation of YHWH by general authorities.  It is interesting how Bokovoy in his FARMS paper writes,

Latter-day Saints have no problem, therefore, in associating God the Father with the title Yahweh—that is, “He who causes to be” or even “He who procreates.” . . . “In a recent Ensign article, Keith Meservy observed that “in at least three Old Testament passages it appears that LORD [i.e., Jehovah] applies to Heavenly Father, not Jesus Christ: Ps. 110:1; Ps. 2:7; Isa. 53:10].”  No doubt, for many Latter-day Saints, this estimate offered by Merservy could be greatly augmented” (282).

Yes, the biblical data on Yahweh could be greatly augmented.  This morning, I am studying John 6:41-46 for my Sunday morning message.  Who is the Yahweh of Isaiah 54:13?  Jesus says this is the Father (John 6:45, of course, some LDS might just say this is the ecclesiastical redactors interpretation in the gospel account of what Jesus might have said historically.  We can’t know for sure.)

But then I ask my LDS friends, “How does Yahweh teach us?”  Answer:  Jesus said in John’s Gospel, it would be the Spirit.

I do know that the glorious man, Jesus Christ, is eternally ontologically unique from the man, Todd Wood.  There is no way ever that I will see the total essence of God as Jesus can (John 5:46).  For he is fully Yahweh.  I am not.  And never will be.

[Sidenote – A friend in Idaho Falls told me the other day that in LDS scripture there was a change from “Behold the Lamb of God, the very eternal Father” to “Behold the Lamb of God, the very son of the eternal Father.”  I think I am just paraphrasing, and I don’t even know the text.  But is this remotely true?]