The List of Incongruence of COTPOTCOJCOLDS and the Book of Mormon

[_zeezrom]

I always thought it was interesting that the doctrine of the nature of the Godhead has changed since the early days of the church. The Lectures on Faith seem quite compatible with the Book of Mormon, but they were jettisoned later in favor of the three-person Godhead.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are truly starting God's work (as opposed to being in the business of starting religions), the first task is to set in order the nature of the worship center. In our case, the worship center is deity. Once that is set in order, then you move out to the branches.

[_Runtu]

EXACTLY. I'm using all caps because it means I'm yelling. Not because I'm mad but rather to hear myself talk over the disco music.

Listening to Arctic Monkeys here, much louder than disco. I think that's the point, too. Joseph presented the book as proof that the Bible was true, but with time the Book of Mormon has become far more important than the Bible for church members.

Here's some Arctic Monkeys to get you over the disco:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK7egZaT3hs

Don't believe the hype.

[_beefcalf]

They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: 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

GR33N,

I had forgotten about the contents of this extended quote... it has been a while since I last read the LoF.

But Smith is offering for us his comparison of the Father and Son, and of their contrasting natures. The Father is a personage of spirit, while the Son is a personage of tabernacle (physical, flesh & bones).

The phrase 'personage of spirit, glory and power' in isolation, does allow for the possible interpretation of him also being physical, but when we reconsider it with the comparison to the Son, it becomes much more difficult to take that position, because the Son is specifically described as being a personage of flesh and bones.

I think this really strengthens the argument that the Lectures on Faith were removed from canon because Lecture Fifth specifically contradicted the 1910's teaching on the LDS Godhead. Of course, the reason it was included in the original 1835 D&C was because at that time, it was perfectly in keeping with the then-current understanding of the Godhead, which was the Nicene Trinity.

[_stemelbow]

Dear stemelbow:

Thank you for expressing interest in our comments on Mormon Discussions. As someone who has been in the LDS Church for 37 years and only stopped believing its truth claims less than a year ago, we always appreciate people who volunteer that we do not know or understand the teachings and/or culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Unfortunately, our quota for today on responding to idiotic trolls currently stands at zero. Should our quota rise above zero in the near future, we will respond accordingly.

thinking of you naked,
DJ

I don't mind if you think of me naked. Anyway, thanks for toning it down a bit even if ya decided to ignore my point, in favor of whimpering about me. I'm glad you have such an extensive history in the Church. But my point remains. You contend that the Church finds importance in the existence of the Book of Mormon rather than in its substance. I say its both, and I suspect you well know that. I simply couldn't let your deception go without comment. Don't worry I return your hate with love anyway. See ya.

[_Runtu]

I don't mind if you think of me naked. Anyway, thanks for toning it down a bit even if ya decided to ignore my point, in favor of whimpering about me. I'm glad you have such an extensive history in the Church. But my point remains. You contend that the Church finds importance in the existence of the Book of Mormon rather than in its substance. I say its both, and I suspect you well know that. I simply couldn't let your deception go without comment. Don't worry I return your hate with love anyway. See ya.

As a source of unique or clarified doctrine, the Book of Mormon is not a pillar of the modern church. But as a witness of the spirit, a conversion tool, it is unsurpassed. But the doctrines of the church mostly are developed in the D&C and some in the PoGP. But, yes, there are some doctrines fleshed out in the Book of Mormon: opposition in all things, how to gain a testimony, infant baptism, and so on.

[_stemelbow]

As a source of unique or clarified doctrine, the Book of Mormon is not a pillar of the modern church. But as a witness of the spirit, a conversion tool, it is unsurpassed. But the doctrines of the church mostly are developed in the D&C and some in the PoGP. But, yes, there are some doctrines fleshed out in the Book of Mormon: opposition in all things, how to gain a testimony, infant baptism, and so on.

And to add to your point, it is quite often quoted and alluded to in its efforts to teach. Of course the LDS Church and its people hold the record important not just for its existence, but also its content. But alas, DJ won't hear such news. Oh well. point made. I'm sure he agrees deep down but will ignore, or deny because of his personal hostility for me. I simply coudln't let his deception go without comment, and thanks for agreeing with me.

[_Joseph]

"to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever"

These are the LAMANITES. The whole thing is a farce as no one in or out of lds-inc can find a real lamanite now. why write a book to save people who are nowhere?

[_Runtu]

And to add to your point, it is quite often quoted and alluded to in its efforts to teach. Of course the LDS Church and its people hold the record important not just for its existence, but also its content. But alas, DJ won't hear such news. Oh well. point made. I'm sure he agrees deep down but will ignore, or deny because of his personal hostility for me. I simply coudln't let his deception go without comment, and thanks for agreeing with me.

I'm not necessarily agreeing with you. I do think it's more important as a witness and conversion tool than it is as a source of doctrine, at least that's been my experience from seminary to my mission and on into my years of activity.

[_stemelbow]

I always thought it was interesting that the doctrine of the nature of the Godhead has changed since the early days of the church. The Lectures on Faith seem quite compatible with the Book of Mormon, but they were jettisoned later in favor of the three-person Godhead.

Indeed...its always been one of the main principals of the Church that we learn line upon line and precept upon precept. Also, i really don't think the leaders of the Church early on, including Joseph Smith were very conscious about explicitly defining the particulars in sermons and such for whatever reason. Maybe their confidence grew? maybe their faith become stronger? Who knows...but it is all very interesting as you mention.

[_stemelbow]

I'm not necessarily agreeing with you. I do think it's more important as a witness and conversion tool than it is as a source of doctrine, at least that's been my experience from seminary to my mission and on into my years of activity.

Alright, agree with your partner then, or argue with me. It sounds rather like semantics to me, but whatever.

I get your point. I think it only works as a witness and conversion tool because of its content. The substance within it is what LDS hold as important regarding it, not to mention that we have it, and how it come to us.