Can the Fifth Lecture on Faith be agreed to D&C 130

Post by **_bcspace** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:39 pm

I believe these things are caused by not taking all doctrines and principles into account. Should be a non-issue.

Big surprise. Nobody in the world thinks like you, yet in your mind, the entire world SHOULD think like you, and more, the entire world is wrong not to think like you.

I never said or implied that. I'm simply pointing out the facts.

If there were a God, I'd pray to him/her that you would never, ever be called to a position of authority in which you are counseling people who are struggling (as humans do) with such and related issues. Your potential to f*** with vulnerable peoples' minds is unlimited.

Too late! lol

Post by **_bcspace** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:47 pm

Where?

Ummmmm let me see....how about the OP in this thread? The one I referred to above and to which you brightly replied "where?"

You simply repeated the words which I addressed in the other thread and repeated here. In other words, you have no answer yet.

My position is much simpler and still fits. I agree that confusion on this issue might ultimately have been the LoF's demise, but we can see from my argument that it need not have been the case.

Hardly

Occam's razor cuts you to the quick.

But when continuing revelation contradicts prio revelation which one should a person believe? Such is the case on this topic. God does not have a body and now he does. God was God from all eternity in 1835 and in 1844 the KFD "refutes" that idea.

I've shown you how there is no conflict whatsoever. Once you address it, you can stop going around in circles.

Peterson is not the arbiter of what is and is not LDS doctrine. I'd rather go by the Church's own statements.

You mean your spin on the Church's statements.

Simply adhereing to the Church's own defintion is not spin.

But it is still clear apologist do not agree on what constitutes doctrine.

What an apologists thinks the Church teaches dosen't matter if it's contrary to what the Church actually does teach.

That God is a spirit remains LDS doctrine. We now know that such a spirit also has a physical body. Even we are considered spirits (James 2:26)

This does not work in the context of the Lectures and D&C 130.

Why not? God remains a personage of spirit just as we are and clothed in a physical body.

Post by **_cksalmon** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:06 pm

bcspace wrote:I've shown you how there is no conflict whatsoever. Once you address it, you can stop going around in circles.

Not that I've seen. You've stated that there is no conflict over and again, but you haven't demonstrated it.

In what way can a physically-embodied being omnipresent?

Post by **_bcspace** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:11 pm

Not that I've seen. You've stated that there is no conflict over and again, but you haven't demonstrated it.

I have by showing that having a spirit and a body is not incompatible.

In what way can a physically-embodied being omnipresent?

If I had a security system which enabled me to know everything going on in a remote location and communicate with it, I could be said to actually be there by the inhabitants of that location. Whether or not God has such a system or His senses are that good or some other thing is up to you.

Post by **_Runtu** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:12 pm

bcspace wrote:
Not that I've seen. You've stated that there is no conflict over and again, but you haven't demonstrated it.

I have by showing that having a spirit and a body is not incompatible.

In what way can a physically-embodied being omnipresent?

If I had a security system which enabled me to know everything going on in a remote location and communicate with it, I could be said to actually be there by the inhabitants of that location. Whether or not God has such a system or His senses are that good or some other thing is up to you.

That's omniscience, not omnipresence.

Post by **_KimberlyAnn** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:15 pm

I was taught that the Father had a physical body and was not omnipresent. Supposedly, His influence was everywhere, even though He physically could be in only one place at one time. Doesn't make much sense.

I was also taught the same thing about the Holy Ghost. He was spirit matter and also not omnipresent, but His influence was felt by worthy Mormons everywhere. (And especially strongly by Nehor. ;)

KA

Post by **_The Nehor** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:17 pm

Runtu wrote:That's omniscience, not omnipresence.

Not all LDS believe he is omnipresent. I do.

Post by **_Runtu** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:18 pm

The Nehor wrote:
Runtu wrote:That's omniscience, not omnipresence.

Not all LDS believe he is omnipresent. I do.

I was talking about bcspace's analogy, not about what people believe.

Post by **_cksalmon** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:18 pm

bcspace wrote:
Not that I've seen. You've stated that there is no conflict over and again, but you haven't demonstrated it.

I have by showing that having a spirit and a body is not incompatible.

In what way can a physically-embodied being omnipresent?

If I had a security system which enabled me to know everything going on in a remote location and communicate with it, I could be said to actually be there by the inhabitants of that location. Whether or not God has such a system or His senses are that good or some other thing is up to you.

No offense, but that's pretty lame. You're just changing the definition of what it means to actually be "present" in all places at all times. An embodied God, the location of whose body can be described with spatial coordinates, is obviously not present at all spatial coordinates simultaneously. You certainly don't have to believe in omnipresence, but I'm not sure why you feel the need to butcher the term just in order to rescue LoF from doctrinal contradictions.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:19 pm

Runtu wrote:
I was talking about bcspace's analogy, not about what people believe.

Sorry, not sure why I quoted you on that. I was clarifying my own position from earlier.