TOTPOTC: Joseph Smith - CH 2: God the Eternal Father

[_Tidejwe]

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith - Chapter 2: God the Eternal Father

This is supposed to be the lesson everyone studies this coming Sunday (Jan 20th) unless they had ward or stake Conference already this year in January, or if they skipped the intro lesson.

Anyone have any thoughts on the matter? (Preferably somehow related to the lesson or material itself) What would you bring up or ask a question on, and why? Did you pick out anything interesting in the material?

[_Jason Bourne]

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith - Chapter 2: God the Eternal Father

This is supposed to be the lesson everyone studies this coming Sunday (Jan 20th) unless they had ward or stake Conference already this year in January, or if they skipped the intro lesson.

Anyone have any thoughts on the matter? (Preferably somehow related to the lesson or material itself) What would you bring up or ask a question on, and why? Did you pick out anything interesting in the material?

Why did Lecture Five of the Lecture on Faith teach the that Father was a personage of spirit?

Why did it teach that the Father and Son were the only two personages in the Godhead and why did it relegate the HG to a non personage Mind of the Father?

It seems that the Lecture were canon until 1921. Why did the Church drop them from canon?

Why doesn't the Book of Mormon support the later teaching of Joseph Smith that he gave in 1844 about the Father and the Godhead?

Is it doctrine that the Father was once a mortal man? If yes was he a man like us or a man in the way Jesus was?

[_The Nehor]

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith - Chapter 2: God the Eternal Father

This is supposed to be the lesson everyone studies this coming Sunday (Jan 20th) unless they had ward or stake Conference already this year in January, or if they skipped the intro lesson.

Anyone have any thoughts on the matter? (Preferably somehow related to the lesson or material itself) What would you bring up or ask a question on, and why? Did you pick out anything interesting in the material?

Why did Lecture Five of the Lecture on Faith teach the that Father was a personage of spirit?

Why did it teach that the Father and Son were the only two personages in the Godhead and why did it relegate the HG to a non personage Mind of the Father?

It seems that the Lecture were canon until 1921. Why did the Church drop them from canon?

Why doesn't the Book of Mormon support the later teaching of Joseph Smith that he gave in 1844 about the Father and the Godhead?

Is it doctrine that the Father was once a mortal man? If yes was he a man like us or a man in the way Jesus was?

Because he is both spirit and flesh.

Because the Holy Ghost hadn't introduced himself personally to Joseph yet. That was rectified later.

The Church dropped them because they are not and never were Revelations. Later Prophets still commended their study and one lamented how little-known they were becoming.

Because Joseph knew more than most in the Book of Mormon.

No, it is not doctrine in the sense that you must believe it though it is taught. We have no idea. Speculate to your heart's content.

[_Tidejwe]

The Church dropped them because they are not and never were Revelations. Later Prophets still commended their study and one lamented how little-known they were becoming.

Am I to understand by your comment that unless something was given as "REVELATION" that it is not scripture or Canon? I can think of plenty of sections of the D&C that were not given as revelation. Why were they not similarly removed? Also, the First vision account in many ways wasn't given as revelation, and how did they decide WHICH VERSION should be used and why discard the others? I can also think of several books in the Old Testament, and some writings in the Book of Mormon which would similarly be disqualified as scripture. So why pick on the Lectures on faith and not all the other non-revelation scriptures?

[_harmony]

So why pick on the Lectures on faith and not all the other non-revelation scriptures?

Because they were embarrassing. Much like the King Follette discourse is embarrassing. We don't teach that, you know. Even our prophet says so.

[_Jason Bourne]

Why did Lecture Five of the Lecture on Faith teach the that Father was a personage of spirit?

Why did it teach that the Father and Son were the only two personages in the Godhead and why did it relegate the HG to a non personage Mind of the Father?

It seems that the Lecture were canon until 1921. Why did the Church drop them from canon?

Why doesn't the Book of Mormon support the later teaching of Joseph Smith that he gave in 1844 about the Father and the Godhead?

Is it doctrine that the Father was once a mortal man? If yes was he a man like us or a man in the way Jesus was?

Because he is both spirit and flesh.

Sorry Nehor. That one does not work in Lecture Five. It states the Father is a personage of spirit then states the Son is a personage of tabernacle. It contrasts the Son against the Father:

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.

Because the Holy Ghost hadn't introduced himself personally to Joseph yet. That was rectified later.

So for 15 years Joseph Smith from the FV Joseph Smith did not know who or what the HG was?

The Church dropped them because they are not and never were Revelations. Later Prophets still commended their study and one lamented how little-known they were becoming.

They were not revelations. But they were the doctrine portion of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. The revelations were the covenant part. They were accepted as part of the D&C by sustaining vote of the presiding quorums of the Church. They were part of the canon. They were actualy the first segment of planned series of lectures on various docrtinal topics. There were and still are other sections of the D&C that were not revelations that are considered canon. The original article on marriage that was later removed, the article on government, letters from Joseph Smith, the manifesto and the declaration on the priesthood. None of these are revelations but are still canon. The Lectures were canon from 1835 until 1921 when they were removed without any sustaining vote at all.

It seems that they most likely were removed because particularly after the 1916 FP statement on the Godhead they seemed to conflict with the LDS position on the Godhead. How they were little known is a puzzle since every copy of the D&C included them. That they are little known now may be true because of their de-canonization.

Because Joseph knew more than most in the Book of Mormon.

So when Joseph Smith tranlated the Book of Mormon you are saying that he knew more then what he Book of Mormon prophets recorded. So if what he knew conflicted with what they knew why did he no correct it? And why take 16 years to do so? Also, you just contradicted yourself where you said in 1835 he did not know about the HG.

No, it is not doctrine in the sense that you must believe it though it is taught. We have no idea. Speculate to your heart's content.

So the teaching of the KFD are not doctrine. But they are in Gospel Essentials and the new Joseph Smith manual. The idea that God was once a man certainly was taught as doctrine when I was growing up as well.

[_Tidejwe]

Sorry Nehor. That one does not work in Lecture Five. It states the Father is a personage of spirit then states the Son is a personage of tabernacle. It contrasts the Son against the Father:

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.

They were not revelations. But they were the doctrine portion of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. The revelations were the covenant part. They were accepted as part of the D&C by sustaining vote of the presiding quorums of the Church. They were part of the canon. They were actualy the first segment of planned series of lectures on various docrtinal topics. There were and still are other sections of the D&C that were not revelations that are considered canon. The original article on marriage that was later removed, the article on government, letters from Joseph Smith, the manifesto and the declaration on the priesthood. None of these are revelations but are still canon. The Lectures were canon from 1835 until 1921 when they were removed without any sustaining vote at all.

It seems that they most likely were removed because particularly after the 1916 FP statement on the Godhead they seemed to conflict with the LDS position on the Godhead. How they were little known is a puzzle since every copy of the D&C included them. That they are little known now may be true because of their de-canonization.

So when Joseph Smith tranlated the Book of Mormon you are saying that he knew more then what the Book of Mormon prophets recorded. So if what he knew conflicted with what they knew why did he no correct it? And why take 16 years to do so? Also, you just contradicted yourself where you said in 1835 he did not know about the HG.

This is all very interesting. Somehow, I've never caught on to that before. Thank you for sharing. Now I will have to check a little deeper and see when it actually really started being preached (by Joseph or the church in general) that God has a body of flesh, etc. Since it seems you're already a few steps ahead in particular subject, care to point me in the right direction (besides the 1916 FP statement which you've already mentioned of course)?

[_Jason Bourne]

This is all very interesting. Somehow, I've never caught on to that before. Thank you for sharing. Now I will have to check a little deeper and see when it actually really started being preached (by Joseph or the church in general) that God has a body of flesh, etc. Since it seems you're already a few steps ahead in particular subject, care to point me in the right direction (besides the 1916 FP statement which you've already mentioned of course)?

It seems that it was around 1838 that the teaching about God being corporeal really started to come into play. The letter that is now D&C 130 seems to be the first offical mention of the Father having a body. Though it is not really clear. In 1836 there was a newspaper article that is excerpted as follows:

"They [the Mormons] contend that the God worshiped by the Presbyterians and all other sectarians is no better than a wooden god. They believe that the true God is a material being, composed of body and parts; and that when the Creator formed Adam in his own image, he made him about the size and shape of God himself." Milton V. Backman, Jr. “Truman Coes’s 1836 Description of Mormonism,” BYU Studies 17 Spring 1977, p. 357, 354

So as early as 1836 there seems to have indication of LDS teaching that God the Father had a body. Additionally there are some journal excerpts from some members that joined the Church around this time that also reference at least a doctrine that God and Jesus were individual persons and that this was different then the classical teachings of the day about the trinity. Yet the Lectures are really more traditional and even binatarian in nature. Of course there is debatge about who authored the lectures and most evidence points to Rigdon. But Joseph oversaw the process and approved them as well.

So, at least up till 1835 there was not a hard and fast teaching that God the father has a body.

[_ludwigm]

...
Is it doctrine that the Father was once a mortal man? If yes was he a man like us or a man in the way Jesus was?

...
No, it is not doctrine in the sense that you must believe it though it is taught. We have no idea. Speculate to your heart's content.

Yes, it is doctrine:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEACHINGS OF PRESIDENTS OF THE CHURCH
BRIGHAM YOUNG
CHAPTER 4 : Knowing and Honoring the Godhead
Suggestions for Study
"The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this Church. How do you feel, knowing that God, through His own experience, “knows all that we know regarding the toils [and] sufferings” of mortality?"
Page 34
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "Teaching of ... BY" is listed on the " Melchizedek Priesthood Lessons" page.
Is this "Teaching" official? Is the LDS.org official?

[_Coggins7]

Because they were embarrassing. Much like the King Follette discourse is embarrassing. We don't teach that, you know. Even our prophet says so.

You can go home now Harmony, your cage is clean.