The Confounding World of LDS Doctrinal Pronouncements...

[_Jason Bourne]

Just keep playing head games with yourself like this Jason, and soon you'll be up there in lights with Beastie, Tarski, Sethbag, Dude, and the rest in the great and spaciousat building pointing and wagging fingers at the Saints.

Zzzzzzzzzz........

You clearly have no direct evidence here, but semantic quibbles, and this isn't convincing for the reason that (as we all know, right Jason) the Church was restored line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little (right Jason?). Hence, If (and this is "if") Joseph thought God the Father was a personage of Spirit in the 1820s and 1830s, he had certainly changed his mind by the 1840s. And your point is precisely what? How does this effect the divine truth claims of the Church, or its claim to be the only true Church? What does it have to do with anything in this context?

I guess the Fifth Lecture on Faith is not evidence that the Church in 1835 said God is a personage of spirit as contrasted to Jesus being flesh. And remember, these Lectures were considered the doctrine of the 1835 D&C. The historical record is fairly clear.

The doctrines of the Church developed people, just as they did in the New Testament Church. Now, let's take the intellectual training wheels off and see if you can give Joseph the benefit of the doubt for a moment and understand that according to our own history and Joseph's own teachings, there were a number of things he didn't understand in full at the beginning that he clarified and expanded upon much later.

Certainly there are things that could have been revealed line upon line. I already noted that Joseph Smith may not have understood that the Father has a body when the 1835 D&C was published. I also noted that the idea of embodiment, even for a spirit seemed fairly certain in early LDS teaching. I was simply pointing out that your argument that we are all spirit personages as well as physical was a dumb response to this little problem. And it was.

The fact of the matter is that the concepts that God was once a man like we ourselves, that there is an infinite regression and progression of God's in etenity (which, if you and Bro. Oster doesn't' believe, you can, I suppose, continue to the logical conclusion and dump the PofGP,

The teachings of the KFD are not canonized. Though I think by default of common use they are Church doctrine. As for dumping the PoGP there is nothing in there that teaches God was once a man or that there is an infinite regression of Gods. Indeed the scripture explicitly contradict this idea.

major portions of the D&C

The D&C teaches that there is an Eternal God of all other Gods.

D&C 121:28-32

28 A time to come in the which anothing shall be withheld, whether there be bone God or many cgods, they shall be manifest.
29 All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured bvaliantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ.
30 And also, if there be abounds set to the heavens or to the seas, or to the dry land, or to the sun, moon, or stars—
31 All the times of their revolutions, all the appointed days, months, and years, and all the days of their days, months, and years, and all their aglories, laws, and set times, shall be revealed in the days of the dispensation of the fulness of times—
32 According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter into his eternal presence and into his immortal frest.

This passage contradicts the idea that God has not always been God.

and a century and a half of Church teaching) and that all god's have bodies of flesh and bones, as tangible as man's (because all god's, according to core, official LDS scriptural doctrine, must be resurrected beings (you see, all LDS doctrines are conceptually interrelated, such that they logically imply or presuppose the others) ) are doctrines more advanced conceptually than those Joseph received in the early years of his ministry.

This is all fine except that these core teachings do contradict earlier teachings that were canon. This is why the lectures were dropped from canon.

Here's the ninth article of faith:

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.


This applies just as much to the origin and development of Josephs ideas and the accepted Church doctrine in the past as it does for us today. OK, let's argue now over whether the Articles of Faith are official Church doctrine.

Yes they are doctrine. However, does it not make sense that what is revealed later should not dispute that which came earlier.

[_Jason Bourne]

You've another problem trying to plumb the original intent of Joseph's mind regarding his statements in the Lectures regarding The Father and Christ, and that is the following:

1. In LDS theology, The Father is a personage of spirit, embodied in a glorified, resurrected body.

The problem is that this teaching came after the Lectures were made canon. He did not mean this in Lecture Five. Play all the word games you want you cannot get around it.

2. Christ is a personage of spirit embodied in a glorified, resurrected body.

Ok

So, what was Joseph likely referring to here, and how do you know? Was his understanding of these things not fully developed? Perhaps, but this is irrelevant for apologetics. Was this nothing but a slip of the tongue; a rhetorical flourish, or hyperbole (true as far as it goes, but incomplete (is not God, in LDS theology, a "personage of spirit"?))?

You see how you have to play footloose to get around this. Words have meanings. The Fifth Lecture teaches God the Father is a personage of spirit, plain and simple. And it seems this was one of the main reasons they were dropped from canon. THEY CONTRADICTED later teachings.

[_Jason Bourne]

And I've already explained (as have others) why GBH downplayed this idea, and I disagree with you that either of these concepts conflicts with canon. Indeed, the cannon makes much more sense, and is much more beautiful and coherent as a metaphysical system with them intact than without them.

There is nothing in the standard works the teach the Father was once a man as we are now or an infinite regression of Gods. Indeed the canon, including unique LDS canon contradicts this. If you disagree lay out a case for it. These teachings are all from non canonized statement from Joseph Smith and other leaders.

Now you're equivocating with the term "man". What, precisely do you mean when you use this term with respect to God the Father?

Philosophically, I have a problem with The Father being the first god of all gods in all possible worlds, universes, and realities that ever existed before which there was nothing at all. This appears to be a retreat to orthodox sectarian Christianity (if not the Platonism that spawned much of its doctrine in this area), not part of the Restoration.

In contemplating this issue, which has also been of major importance to me, I have not received the witness you have received, nor do I quibble with the term "man" when Joseph says "a man like ourselves". I'm convinced that Joseph's meaning here was, at face value, exactly what it appears to be: that God the Father was born to mortal parents on an earth much like this one, progressed from one degree of intelligence to another, through faith and obedience to eternal law; died, was resurrected to a fullness of Celestial glory, and became the father of our spirits. When you say that he was a man as Jesus was a man. Jesus was born into this world with a mortal body, grew, progressed, learned, and advanced, died, was resurrected, and became a god equal to the Father in glory, intelligence, and power. He is our redeemer and savior, but he, according to the Gospel plan, will become a Father in Heaven himself as his own father did before him. So will we.

THe scriptures teach God the Father existed eternally period.

Why there is any necessity, if you accept this at all, of conceiving of the Father as the first and only god that ever existed, I'm not at all sure. The Gospel as a system doesn't require that, nor is it in any way logically necessary.

Because the scripture says God has always been God. Period.

[_beastie]

Until you can show a compelling reason to believe that it wasn't rhetorical flourish (and the doctrine is still harmonious with the rest of Church teaching regardless), or unless you can demonstrate that this cannot entirely be explained as a part of the doctrinal development of the Church (in which case Joseph did believe that the Father had only a spirit body in the early years of the Church, but modified this in later years as he understood the Gospel in a deeper way), then no matter how many tentacles you flail and ink you squirt, you simply end up, once again, looking more like an intellectual hack with an ax to grind than an intellectually serous interlocutor.

I already provided the compelling reason to believe it wasn't "rhetorical flourish" (and how you imagine that makes any sense anyway is beyond me) right here:

Of particular interest regarding the Lectures on Faith is the following statement: "Elder John Smith, taking the lead of the High Council in Kirtland, bore record that the revelations in said book [the "covenants"] were true, and that the lectures [Lectures on Faith] were judiciously arranged and compiled and were profitable for doctrine; whereupon the High Council of Kirtland accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote" (Messenger and Advocate, 1:161; RDC 108A:4d-e; emphasis added).

That you're too dense to understand it isn't my problem.

[_Coggins7]

Quote:
D&C 121:28-32

28 A time to come in the which anothing shall be withheld, whether there be bone God or many cgods, they shall be manifest.
29 All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured bvaliantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ.
30 And also, if there be abounds set to the heavens or to the seas, or to the dry land, or to the sun, moon, or stars—
31 All the times of their revolutions, all the appointed days, months, and years, and all the days of their days, months, and years, and all their aglories, laws, and set times, shall be revealed in the days of the dispensation of the fulness of times—
32 According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter into his eternal presence and into his immortal frest.

This passage contradicts the idea that God has not always been God.

This is facile, and it does no such thing. At the very, very best, the most you can get out of this is that there was a council of gods around Elohim. Elohim was the "God of all other gods before this world was". Very well. Now, could you point out to me in what manner this passage implies there were not infinite other gods who existed before Elohim who were no part of that grand council and had nothing whatever to do with this earth or with any of Elohim's specific creative activities?

The problem here is that this passage only contradicts previous doctrine if you make make very generous allowances for your own particular theory. If you don't then the passage as it stands makes no claim about anything transpiring before and outside this particular grand council in relation to this particular earth.

To make it clearer, there is no reason to believe that the "other gods" mentioned here do not have reference to a large number of exalted beings who were themselves the children of the Father and who had already achieved their exaltation upon other worlds which had previously passed through their own mortal periods of existence. In other words, these "gods" are other of Elohim's exalted children (including preexistent ones like Jesus Christ), and hence, have no relation to Elohim's father or his father's father, or any number of other gods, far from our own concerns here. In other words, the Father is antecedent to all of the gods mentioned here. If this were not the case, why does the scripture not mention clearly that there were no other existing gods before the father (and of course, in the sense of any relevance to our salvation, there isn't).

This passage mentions nothing of time frame except that it was at the beginning of God's creative activity regarding this earth.

You're piling assumption upon assumption here to reach your desired conclusion, but the scripture itself isn't so enterprising.

[_Coggins7]

You've another problem trying to plumb the original intent of Joseph's mind regarding his statements in the Lectures regarding The Father and Christ, and that is the following:

1. In LDS theology, The Father is a personage of spirit, embodied in a glorified, resurrected body.

The problem is that this teaching came after the Lectures were made canon. He did not mean this in Lecture Five. Play all the word games you want you cannot get around it.

2. Christ is a personage of spirit embodied in a glorified, resurrected body.

Ok

So, what was Joseph likely referring to here, and how do you know? Was his understanding of these things not fully developed? Perhaps, but this is irrelevant for apologetics. Was this nothing but a slip of the tongue; a rhetorical flourish, or hyperbole (true as far as it goes, but incomplete (is not God, in LDS theology, a "personage of spirit"?))?

You see how you have to play footloose to get around this. Words have meanings. The Fifth Lecture teaches God the Father is a personage of spirit, plain and simple. And it seems this was one of the main reasons they were dropped from canon. THEY CONTRADICTED later teachings.

I'm not playing word games, I'm only pointing out that the inferential linkage within your core argument is fragile at best. For heaven's sake Jason, the New Testament apostles didn't completely understand that the Lord was going to be physically resurrected until after he was dead and they had seen him with there own eyes. No one has ever said that the teaching of the Gospel would be without imperfections because of the imperfect humans through whom it comes. But in the Lord's true church, any such gets corrected.

Even if the original intent of Josephs' words are in contradiction to previous teaching in that Jesus and the Father are not different physically, this does not invalidate the lectures. I don't know what Joseph meant or what the context of his words were. What I do know is that you are second guessing him in an attempt to justify your own personal movement away from the Church.

Well, I'd just be careful how you judge the Lord's servants from your cubby hole almost two centuries removed from him and without the benefit of being able to ask him yourself what he meant.

But of course, anything to delegitimize teachings that rub you the wrong way (after all, if they do that then, well, they couldn't be true now, could they?).

[_Coggins7]

Of particular interest regarding the Lectures on Faith is the following statement: "Elder John Smith, taking the lead of the High Council in Kirtland, bore record that the revelations in said book [the "covenants"] were true, and that the lectures [Lectures on Faith] were judiciously arranged and compiled and were profitable for doctrine; whereupon the High Council of Kirtland accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote" (Messenger and Advocate, 1:161; RDC 108A:4d-e; emphasis added).

Which means that the Lectures on Faith as a whole were profitable for doctrine. Does it say that every word in them is so profitable? Not in the text you posted. The Bible is profitable for doctrine as well, as a whole, and yet we also accept the fact that there are numerous passages in that work that are not inspired (including the entire Song of Solomon). Could it be possible that there is one doctrine here that was not clear in Joseph's mind at the time, and yet the entire corpus still be "profitable for doctrine?".

No, of course not. That doesn't fit the secular leftist rockin' Dawkins its-all-just-a-big-cosmic-accident template does it? My, what you Brights won't do to win an argument.

[_Coggins7]

There is nothing in the standard works the teach the Father was once a man as we are now or an infinite regression of Gods.

I think you really need to get with the program or go back to Sunday School and pay attention this time around. The standard works do not define all of our accepted doctrine and belief. You are in a church led by the principle of modern, continuing revelation, not the Catholic Church or Evangelical Protestantism with its "deposit of faith".

Doctrine is whatever comes by the power of the Holy Spirit, whether it finds its way into the standard works or not. And you are also dog dead wrong in your primary assertion. There is a plethora of scriptures which logically imply, explicitly or implicitly that the Father shares with the son not only his nature and powers, but his experiences and path of development. Go back to the New Testament and see where Jesus quite clearly and unambiguously says that he does nothing but what he has seen the Father do.

I could multiply examples such as this all night but I have neither the patience nor the time to do so. This thread has just about exhausted its intellectual credibility.

[_Jason Bourne]

This is facile, and it does no such thing. At the very, very best, the most you can get out of this is that there was a council of gods around Elohim. Elohim was the "God of all other gods before this world was". Very well. Now, could you point out to me in what manner this passage implies there were not infinite other gods who existed before Elohim who were no part of that grand council and had nothing whatever to do with this earth or with any of Elohim's specific creative activities?

The council of gods was held before this world was and it was headed by THE ETERNAL GOD of ALL other Gods. Eternal means forever, He was God. The language is plain and simple and the only way to get where you get is to dance a dance that just is not in the text. The Lectures teach it, the Bible teaches it. The Book of Mormon teaches it. God has been God forever, from eternity to eternity. Joseph himself when introducing the ideas taught the the KFD said we have supposed the God was God for all eternity but he was going to "refute" that idea. So even the prophet said we have supposed this but I am going to tell you something new.

I note that you ignore the little sticky point of the Lectures being decanonized shortly after the FP statement on the Godhead.

Look, it is plain and clear that there was a big change in LDS teaching about God. It may have been revelation but it certainly contradicted prior teachings. You cannot get around it. You taunt me for being trying to be intellectual. Well read your own posts man. The silly dance you posture and pose with is rather silly. Just admit there were changes and that you are fine with it because you believe it was revealed. Why God would reveal one thing and then another now is another question.

Were the lectures doctrine? Why were they dropped from canon? What about other passages that teach God was always God. Were they doctrine? Are they now? Just where does one find LDS doctrine?

The problem here is that this passage only contradicts previous doctrine if you make make very generous allowances for your own particular theory. If you don't then the passage as it stands makes no claim about anything transpiring before and outside this particular grand council in relation to this particular earth.

My generous allowance for my theory happens to be what all of Christendom believed about God as well as the LDS Church for it first 8 years or so.

This passage mentions nothing of time frame except that it was at the beginning of God's creative activity regarding this earth.

You're piling assumption upon assumption here to reach your desired conclusion, but the scripture itself isn't so enterprising.

THe passage says eternal God OF ALL OTHER GODS. And the reader can determine who is piling assumption upon assumption but it seems you do what you accuse me of the make the passage fit to later teachings.

[_cksalmon]

Could it be possible that there is one doctrine here that was not clear in Joseph's mind at the time, and yet the entire corpus still be "profitable for doctrine?".

Hi Coggins--

It's certainly logically possible (but, as you know, that's a fairly low bar to meet). But, then, the work was unanimously voted by the "High Council of Kirtland" to be "accepted and acknowledged ... as the doctrine and covenants of their faith." Here, I can't see that "doctrine and covenants" has merely a later, solely titular, referent in view (that would be anachronistic, to my mind). Rather, it appears that the "doctrine" section (i.e., the Lectures on Faith) was unanimously and actually accepted as the "doctrine" of the LDS faith.

It would seem then that the unanimously accepted doctrine of the LDS faith was later revised to reflect beliefs not current in the congregation at the time of voting.

CK "Don't tell me that unanimous acceptance by the Church of given doctrine is definitive of actual doctrine--it's not" Salmon