DiscussMormonism.com

I posted this on another thread but as BC crows about winning on this one I though it worth its own thread.

I see no plausible explanation other than the two items of official doctrine conflict. The doctrine certainly changed from 1835 to 1843 and from whenever D&C 130 was put in the D&C (not sure when it was) to 1921 there was official doctrine the conflicted. Can anyone else come up with a plausible explanation?

That is simply because it is a waste of time. Your one liners are worthless really. The interchange got boring. But you mind is made up on this issue and I guess so is mine. I find your argument weak. One reason is I use to make a similar argument as you do but I saw the weakness of it so I abandon it. It is clear that the Lectures mean. If you want to spin it to mean something that came later more power to you.

[/quote]

It's quite clear as I pointed out that the doctrines don't conflict, the one builds upon the other. You can remove the latest one and what remains is still true. The reason you don;t respond anymore to it is because you know you've been checkmated

.


Hardly checkmate. I know your inflated ego needs to think this. But no they do not build they conflict.

LECTURE FIFTH
Of Faith.
SECTION V

[Lec 5:1a] In our former lectures we treated of the being, character, perfections, and attributes of God.

[Lec 5:1b] What we mean by perfections is, the perfections which belong to all the attributes of his nature.

[Lec 5:1c] We shall in this lecture speak of the Godhead; we mean the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

[Lec 5:Second Amendment] There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things - by whom all things were created and made that are created and made, whether visible or invisible;

[Lec 5:2b] whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space.

[Lec 5:2c] They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness.

[Lec 5:2d] The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man - or rather, man was formed after his likeness and in his image.

Note above that the Father is a personage of spirit-period and that contrasted against the son who is tabernacle, and made or fashioned after man.

It is clear that the 1835 theology does not allow for the Father to have a physical body. there is no body and spirit together doctrine here so this idea fails.

It is a direct conflict with this:

D&C 130:22

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

Note once again the idea of physical body is contrasted against that of a spirit. A personage of spirit, the same language that Lecture 5 uses about the Father is able to dwell in us and the two are contrasted.

There is no harmonizing this at all. In 1835 the Father is a spirit personage, not a body with a spirit, and in 1843 he is now with a tangible body, and note in 1835 it was only Jesus with the body like a man's body.

Checkmate BC.

Jason Bourne wrote:I posted this on another thread but as BC crows about winning on this one I though it worth its own thread.
...

I see no plausible explanation other than the two items of official doctrine conflict. The doctrine certainly changed from 1835 to 1843 and from whenever D&C 130 was put in the D&C (not sure when it was) to 1921 there was official doctrine the conflicted. Can anyone else come up with a plausible explanation?There is no harmonizing this at all. In 1835 the Father is a spirit personage, not a body with a spirit, and in 1843 he is now with a tangible body, and note in 1835 it was only Jesus with the body like a man's body.

No wonder the Lectures on Faith were removed from the D&C in 1921 or so (most members today don't even know they existed). But, yeah, I've always seen this as a stark conflict. Fifteen years after the First Vision, one would think Joseph Smith had this all figured out. But, just like the First Vision account itself, points of Church doctrine/history evolved over the years, and I think this was just one instance.

Jason Bourne wrote:Checkmate BC.

I think you're quite right that there is a serious conflict here, but it's certainly not the only one. LoF 2.2 (p. 17, p. 26) teaches that God is "omnipresent," hardly a possibility for a physically-embodied being. On page 41 (the preliminary Q&A of §3, the doctrines taught in §2 about his attributes (e.g., omnipresence) are deemed "correct.

................................

One of the more interesting discrepancies [also from 5.2] between LoF and the later D&C is that LoF doesn't consider the Holy Spirit a person at all, but rather the "mind" shared between the ather and the Son.

Moreover, from §5's Q&A (p. 55):

Q: How many personages are there in the Godhead?
A: Two: the Father and the Son.

A later question implies that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together constitute the Godhead, but the Holy Spirit is included only insofar as "it" is the shared mind of Father and Son, not an individual person.

He is a personage of Spirit and omnipresent. He's also embodied.

cksalmon wrote:

Jason Bourne wrote:Checkmate BC.

I think you're quite right that there is a serious conflict here, but it's certainly not the only one. LoF 2.2 (p. 17, p. 26) teaches that God is "omnipresent," hardly a possibility for a physically-embodied being. On page 41 (the preliminary Q&A of §3, the doctrines taught in §2 about his attributes (e.g., omnipresence) are deemed "correct.

................................

One of the more interesting discrepancies [also from 5.2] between LoF and the later D&C is that LoF doesn't consider the Holy Spirit a person at all, but rather the "mind" shared between the ather and the Son.

Moreover, from §5's Q&A (p. 55):

Q: How many personages are there in the Godhead?
A: Two: the Father and the Son.

A later question implies that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together constitute the Godhead, but the Holy Spirit is included only insofar as "it" is the shared mind of Father and Son, not an individual person.

Yes there are other issues that the Lectures raise as well. BC and I have been arguing about this one point though thus I emphasized it.

The Nehor wrote:He is a personage of Spirit and omnipresent. He's also embodied.

How can this be?

It might help to understand that the Lectures on Faith were very probably written by Sidney Rigdon, and not by Joseph Smith:

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/books ... chapid=274

Jason Bourne wrote:

The Nehor wrote:He is a personage of Spirit and omnipresent. He's also embodied.

How can this be?

I would assume by redefining "omnipresent" so that it really doesn't mean that the Father is present everywhere. (Or, The Nehor is making fun of bcspace's "harmonizations.")

Jason Bourne wrote:

The Nehor wrote:He is a personage of Spirit and omnipresent. He's also embodied.

How can this be?

A wizard did it.

Daniel Peterson wrote:It might help to understand that the Lectures on Faith were very probably written by Sidney Rigdon, and not by Joseph Smith:

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/books ... chapid=274

Dan,

The issue here is that bcspace has been claiming that if the church publishes something, it's "doctrine." It sounds like you agree with the rest of us that such is not the case.