It's been 170 years: Mormons need to 're-set' their god

[_sock puppet]

If the LoF did not conflict with the evolving view of the Godhead, why were these canonized passages removed from the canon without vote, reference or reason given?

By what authority, bcspace (and other defenders), the POTCOTHCOJCOLDS remove the LoF? They were voted into the Doctrine and Covenants unanimously by general assemblies of POTCOTHCOJCOLDS, one in Kirtland OH and the other in MO. So when was the vote to remove the LoF?

You see, in the context of authority, there is an 'equal dignities' concept. If it took a vote of the general assembly of POTCOTHCOJCOLDS to add the LoF, then it takes a vote of the general assembly of POTCOTHCOJCOLDS to remove the LoF.

[_Buffalo]

The mistake you've made, and you make consistently is assuming that there is a "Mormon God." There isn't,

True enough.

[_Jason Bourne]

Doesn't sound unreasonable to adopt a traditional Christian doctrine until revelation directs otherwise. In any case, that God is a Spirit doesn't conflict with doctrine today. God is a Spirit in the same way we are spirits. No conflict between ancient and modern scripture. No reset needed.

This is really a back peddle into it. The Lectures teach that God is a spirit and contrasts this to Christ being flesh and bones. It was not that God has a spirit inside his body.

Really though I do not see this as a big deal. Joseph Smith may not have known that God had a body until later. If you read the Book of Mormon even though it is more traditional in its theology there are stark differences as well. One thing is that while God may have been a spirit, and Jesus a spirit before he was born, they are embodied spirits. Their spirits look just like their body would/will/did. Also I believe in Moses 4,which is early LDS scripture it states man is made in the express image of God.

[_Jason Bourne]

The mistake you've made, and you make consistently is assuming that there is a "Mormon God." There isn't, there is only God.

Do you ever add anything of substance? How about this-The way Latter-day Saints understand the nature of God. Note I did not use Mormons since I did not want to hear the canned "There is no Mormon Church."

[_Buffalo]

This is really a back peddle into it. The Lectures teach that God is a spirit and contrasts this to Christ being flesh and bones. It was not that God has a spirit inside his body.

Really though I do not see this as a big deal. Joseph Smith may not have known that God had a body until later. If you read the Book of Mormon even though it is more traditional in its theology there are stark differences as well. One thing is that while God may have been a spirit, and Jesus a spirit before he was born, they are embodied spirits. Their spirits look just like their body would/will/did. Also I believe in Moses 4,which is early LDS scripture it states man is made in the express image of God.

That's true, except that creates a problem for the contemporary claim that the first vision gave us our insight into the nature of God - that God had flesh and bones.

[_Jason Bourne]

By what authority, bcspace (and other defenders), the POTCOTHCOJCOLDS remove the LoF? They were voted into the Doctrine and Covenants unanimously by general assemblies of POTCOTHCOJCOLDS, one in Kirtland OH and the other in MO. So when was the vote to remove the LoF?

You see, in the context of authority, there is an 'equal dignities' concept. If it took a vote of the general assembly of POTCOTHCOJCOLDS to add the LoF, then it takes a vote of the general assembly of POTCOTHCOJCOLDS to remove the LoF.

IT is important to note that the Lectures were the doctrine portion of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants and the Revelations to covenant portion. So what we had was doctrine that was canonized by common consent and published by the Church in 1835 that was removed and de-canonized in 1921 without common consent. It is clear that the Lectures were removed because they conflicted with the FP Statement on the Godhead of 1916. Not only do we have God as a spirit in 1835 but we have the Holy Ghost as a non-personage and only the mind of God.

I was a quote from Joseph Fielding once (I just do not have time to dig it up) where he as much said the Lectures were removed to avoid confusion about the nature of God as understood by later revelations.

[_sock puppet]

So what we had was doctrine that was canonized by common consent and published by the Church in 1835 that was removed and de-canonized in 1921 without common consent.

So the removal was not legitimate. It's sort of like the shareholders of a corporation, which we can call COTPOTCOJCOLDS, electing someone (X) to be a director but after a time the other directors and corporate president refuse to recognize X as a director. X is yet a director of COTPOTCOJCOLDS.

Similarly then, the LoF are yet part of the COTPOTCOJCOLDS canon of doctrine.

It is clear that the Lectures were removed because they conflicted with the FP Statement on the Godhead of 1916. Not only do we have God as a spirit in 1835 but we have the Holy Ghost as a non-personage and only the mind of God.

I was a quote from Joseph Fielding once (I just do not have time to dig it up) where he as much said the Lectures were removed to avoid confusion about the nature of God as understood by later revelations.

Exactly. Continuing my board of director analogy, X won't vote the way the other directors and the corporate president do at board meetings, so they've stopped giving him notice of the date and time of future meetings. Nevermind that the shareholders validly elected X as a director.

[_bcspace]

Doesn't sound unreasonable to adopt a traditional Christian doctrine until revelation directs otherwise. In any case, that God is a Spirit doesn't conflict with doctrine today. God is a Spirit in the same way we are spirits. No conflict between ancient and modern scripture. No reset needed.

The LoF, Lecture Fifth, when describing the Godhead, clearly points out the contrast between a spirit-Father and a tabernacle-Son. Yes, it says the Father is spirit, but for the express purpose of showing the contrast to the Son, who has a physical body.

So? How does that conflict or contradict with anything I said?

[_Jason Bourne]

Doesn't sound unreasonable to adopt a traditional Christian doctrine until revelation directs otherwise. In any case, that God is a Spirit doesn't conflict with doctrine today. God is a Spirit in the same way we are spirits. No conflict between ancient and modern scripture. No reset needed.

The LoF, Lecture Fifth, when describing the Godhead, clearly points out the contrast between a spirit-Father and a tabernacle-Son. Yes, it says the Father is spirit, but for the express purpose of showing the contrast to the Son, who has a physical body.

So? How does that conflict or contradict with anything I said?

If you are not bright enough to figure it out yourself I cannot help you.

[_GR33N]

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;--he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fullness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father

The full quote above from the Fifth lecture on Faith.

If the Father possesses all perfection and fullness and the Son possess the fullness of the Father. Then it appears to me that any attribute that the Son has (including a tabernacle of clay) is first possessed by the Father.