The de-canonization of the Lectures on Faith

[_bcspace]

Are you saying the doctrine regarding the Godhead was still developing in 1835?

Possibly.

[_honorentheos]

Are you saying the doctrine regarding the Godhead was still developing in 1835?

Possibly.

Are you saying your opinion is yet developing?

[_moksha]

The Lectures on Faith had some serious disagreements with polygamy theology, which at the time took precedence. Once it was removed torpidity prevented its reinstatement.

[_DrW]

honorentheos,

Thank you for the time and effort you put into your upthread posts on this issue. You make a strong case using Church documents to which BC responds with one-line bald assertions having no other purpose than to obscure the target. This is all he can do.

I enjoyed reading what you wrote and wonder how one has the patience you have shown to be able to sort through the relevant documentation (shovel through all of the bs) to show again that the LDS Church is not built on a firm foundation.

You have clearly demonstrated that when the congregation asks in song "How Firm a Foundation", the answer (whether they know it or not) is bovine bio-sludge.

[_honorentheos]

Thank you, DrW. I appreciate your insight on many topics, and consider your compliment high praise.

I enjoyed reading what you wrote and wonder how one has the patience you have shown to be able to sort through the relevant documentation (shovel through all of the bs) to show again that the LDS Church is not built on a firm foundation.

It helped that I was revisting information I had been reading over the Christmas holiday when I began the stalled project that is the Thread Dedicated to Rectified History.

Pertaining to this thread, I'm very interested in bc's direction. If, as he's indicated above, he is open to the idea LDS doctrine regarding the Godhead was still evolving in 1835 then he is much more aligned with critical thought than I would have originally supposed. I'm not sure how he reconciles this with the first vision narrative. I won't hold my breath, but I'd be curious to hear his explaination.

[_Jason Bourne]

Clearly the Lectures on faith were decononized because they very much conflicted with developments/changes in the LDS doctrine about the Godhead. The Lectures were much more classical and even Protestant in their theology except the Godhead is presented in Lecture five as binary rather that trinitrianis. And the Father is explicitly referred to as a personage of spirit and distinguished as such by comparison to the son who is a personage of flesh.

It was rather confusing to have these lectures, which were also referred to as the doctrine of the 1835 Doctine & Covenant, to be in the canon in light of the theology James Talmedge outlined in the 1916 FP statement on the Godhead. Easy solution was to remove them and say they were never on par with scripture.

An interesting side note is that McConkie loved the Lectures on Faith and wanted to put them back in the canon.

[_DrW]

Pertaining to this thread, I'm very interested in bc's direction. If, as he's indicated above, he is open to the idea LDS doctrine regarding the Godhead was still evolving in 1835 then he is much more aligned with critical thought than I would have originally supposed. I'm not sure how he reconciles this with the first vision narrative. I won't hold my breath, but I'd be curious to hear his explanation.

Thanks, honorentheos.

As you point out; how is it reasonable for a present day believing Mormon talk about an "evolving view" of the Godhead in 1835 when Joseph Smith claimed to have seen Elohim and Jesus Christ, in the flesh, in the spring of 1820?

To reasonable folks, an evolving view is nothing more than a kind euphemism for making it up as you go along. It is abundantly clear that this is exactly how Mormon doctrine and teachings do evolve, and this example illustrates clearly why it is a necessity that they continue to do so.

In the Book of Mormon, canonized LDS scripture supposedly revealed through the power of God to Joseph Smith, we find passages that are also entirely inconsistent with the somewhat delayed, and now "official" (rev. 5.x?) version of the First Vision.

"Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have light... they shall become my sons and my daughters." Ether 3:14.

and;

"And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son... And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation..."

Thus, it would appear that changing the revelatory status of LoF really didn't solve the persistent nature of the Godhead problem. And it is doubtful that BC has any kind of evidence backed insight into this issue that would represent a faithful point of view. And if he does, it is unlikely that he would venture to hold it up to scrutiny on this board.

The only reasonable option for the mopologists in a situation like this is to pop smoke to obscure the target and retreat. BC has shown that he can execute the first move fairly well. Sometimes he fails to follow through, though.

[_Bhodi]

To reasonable folks, an evolving view is nothing more than a kind euphemism for making it up as you go along.

This is an odd stance from a claimed nuclear engineer, since the science has had an evolving view for decades. Why is evolving understanding acceptable to science, but unacceptable to religion? Did you ever find "Charlie's Place"? Charlie is an alligator if that helps.

[_sock puppet]

To reasonable folks, an evolving view is nothing more than a kind euphemism for making it up as you go along.

This is an odd stance from a claimed nuclear engineer, since the science has had an evolving view for decades. Why is evolving understanding acceptable to science, but unacceptable to religion? Did you ever find "Charlie's Place"? Charlie is an alligator if that helps.

Either JSJr saw two personages or one in the grove in 1820. Did he really need to have it evolve from one into two, the more he thought about it in the years afterwards?

[_DrW]

To reasonable folks, an evolving view is nothing more than a kind euphemism for making it up as you go along.

This is an odd stance from a claimed nuclear engineer, since the science has had an evolving view for decades. Why is evolving understanding acceptable to science, but unacceptable to religion? Did you ever find "Charlie's Place"? Charlie is an alligator if that helps.

Bhodi,

First question is why do you continue to embarrass yourself by failing to take the time to understand what it is you are reading?

I never claimed to be a nuclear engineer. I simply related the fact, of which many on this board are aware, that I worked for many years at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Since you seem to be unaware, Hanford is the home of my former employer, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, a DOE Lab in which I would guess that only some 10-15% of the staff are nuclear scientists or engineers.

Second question is why would you think I (or anyone else reading this thread) would be interested in "Charlie's Place"?

Here is the answer to your question about why evolving understanding is acceptable in science and not in Mormonism. Science is pretty much defined as a process of exploration and applications of the resultant knowledge in the quest for truth.

Meanwhile, Mormonism claims to be a source of absolute truth. This claim is reflected in expressions and beliefs such as:

- The Everlasting Gospel;
- Eternal Truths of the Gospel;
- God will never allow the Prophet to lead the Church astray;
- Jesus, the Messiah, is the same yesterday and today—and forever. Hebrews 13:8

And let's not forget the infamous:
"When the Prophet speaks, the thinking has been done", and the teaching that
The mantle is far more important than the intellect.

When it becomes so painfully obvious that Mormonism does not have any semblance of pretty much any truth, let alone absolute truth, that the leaders are forced to change scriptures to reflect science, one could reasonably ask themselves the following: why not simply look to science in the first place and save a ton of guilt, embarrassment, heartache, intellectual capital, time and money?