BC's View of LDS Doctrine -- Is It Doctrine?

[_Droopy]

My point is that because BCspace, you, BRM, JFS, or anyone else has an opinion on what is or is not official doctrine, doesn't make it truth. Y'all don't speak for the church, nor does whomever wrote the press release on LDS.org.

Actually, when in harmony with the official positions of the Church, and when guided by the Holy Spirit, we do.

The rest rises or falls upon its merits.

[_Jason Bourne]

Another old hobby horse we've been over again and again and again, for which no suitable plausibility will suffice to sooth the Bourne beast.

And you fail miserably every time in attempting to explain away the issues. You have done so again.

Joseph Fielding Smith said that:

1.The lectures on faith, although published by the Church, came with a disclaimer that they were "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons" according to the official statement made regarding their removal. McConkie stated that "They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars."

I have studied this carefully. The Lecture were presented to all the priesthood quorums of the Church as well as the revelations when the 1835 D&C was to be published. They accepted the Lectures as the Doctrine of the D&C and the revelations as the Covenants of the D&C. You can read the minutes of the meeting Droopy as well as the title page to the 1835 D&C. The Church down played them in 1921 when the removed them clearly because of the conflict in doctrine. But in 1835 the members of the Church accepted them as doctrine. And the doctrine about the Godhead clearly changed.

A. They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith

.

So what? There are items in the D&C that are not revelations.

B. They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.

Not true according the the 1835 D&C. They were the doctrine and the D&C specifically referred to them as such.

D. They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Clearly they had doctrine in that the Church did not want in its canon hence they removed it in 1921.

D. It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants.

Of course. This confirms my point. Talmadge wrote the 1916 FP statement on the Godhead and the Lectures conflicted directly with that as well as D&C 130. So they removed them.

It seems that Jason has not been able to avoid, for some reason, the confusion and contention Elder Talmadge sought to avoid.

Of course I can avoid the confusion. I am not confused at all. The Church believed in 1835 that God the Father was a spirit as well as the fact that God was God from all eternity. Either Joseph was wrong in 1835 or wrong in 1838 an 1844. In 1921 the Church clearly decided he was wrong in 1835 so they dumped the lectures. What don't you understand about that. The Lectures were canon dude. You cannot escape that as much as you want to. So based on the Church doctrine today something in LDS canon was wrong.

Hence, the "God is a spirit" comment (as is Jesus Christ, as is the Holy Ghost, as are we all) looms less and less important as we realize the lectures may, indeed, contain hyperbole, theory, and even rhetorical flourish that makes in, although valuable, unsuitable for inclusion within a corpus of texts understood to have come, unambiguously, through direct revelation.

Lecture 5 calls God a personage of spirit and contrasts God to the Son who is personage of tabernacle. Slice and dice all you want you cannot escape this fact.

[_Jason Bourne]

As Jason simply refuses to allow the early Apostles or the Church any benefit of the doubt upon the matter of the Lectures (and other matters), we need, again, to do his homework for him and make the implicit explicit.

Section 5 of the Lectures says the following:

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 fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him...

As I noted in another thread, long ago, but which is always rejected out of hand because it does not fit the template here, while this statement does seem to indicate that the Father is different than the Son in that he is a spirit while the Son is corporeal, the statement as a whole (and anyone with a modicum of substantive understanding of basic LDS doctrine would quickly point out) cannot be used to support the thesis of a doctrinal inconsistency. Why? because our text here makes in quite clear that "he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father..."

In other words, Christ and the Father are one; they are alike. This logically must mean that the attributes possessed by the Father are those possessed by the Son. Hence, if the Father is a personage of Spirit, then the Son is also (which is doctrinal). If the Son is a personage of tabernacle (a specific requirement of his Messiahship, which is perhaps why the author of this section of the Lectures created the bifurcation), then the Father must also express this attribute or innate feature. This is all perfectly consistent with the statements of Jesus in the New Testament that "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father" and "I and my Father are one" and that Christ, as Paul said, is the "express" image of his Father's "person".

Ants can actually exhaust themselves and die going around sugar bowls of this kind.

Let's not.

Here is where you theory fails. It is clear in early LDS theology that there was a belief that spirits were embodied. Indeed we see that in Ether when the Brother of Jared sees the pre-mortal Christ. So the Father being a spirit means his spirit has form and definition and would look like a man should we see him. And thus Christ is his express image just as Christ looked like he would when born when he appeared to the Brother of Jared.

[_antishock8]

My point is that because BCspace, you, BRM, JFS, or anyone else has an opinion on what is or is not official doctrine, doesn't make it truth. Y'all don't speak for the church, nor does whomever wrote the press release on LDS.org.

Actually, when in harmony with the official positions of the Church, and when guided by the Holy Spirit, we do.

The rest rises or falls upon its merits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking

[_Droopy]

I have studied this carefully. The Lecture were presented to all the priesthood quorums of the Church as well as the revelations when the 1835 D&C was to be published. They accepted the Lectures as the Doctrine of the D&C and the revelations as the Covenants of the D&C. You can read the minutes of the meeting Droopy as well as the title page to the 1835 D&C. The Church down played them in 1921 when the removed them clearly because of the conflict in doctrine. But in 1835 the members of the Church accepted them as doctrine. And the doctrine about the Godhead clearly changed.

Yes, and then, as bc has pointed out, they went back, thought better of it because of some statements that were made, and removed it. You cannot move on from this simple issue Jason because you have no intention of doing so, not because of any lack of plausible explanations.

So what? There are items in the D&C that are not revelations.

So the Lord's servants decided to remove them because of certain statements within them, that's what. And so?

Not true according the the 1835 D&C. They were the doctrine and the D&C specifically referred to them as such.

I have Joesph Fielding Smith and you here. Smith has the gun and you have the shovel. You dig.

D. It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants.




Of course. This confirms my point. Talmadge wrote the 1916 FP statement on the Godhead and the Lectures conflicted directly with that as well as D&C 130. So they removed them.

Quote:

No, it destroys your point altogether. There is doctrine in the Lectures, but also difficult wording and statements. It was removed for that reason.

And rama lama ding dong. I'll pick this up below.

[_Jason Bourne]

I have studied this carefully. The Lecture were presented to all the priesthood quorums of the Church as well as the revelations when the 1835 D&C was to be published. They accepted the Lectures as the Doctrine of the D&C and the revelations as the Covenants of the D&C. You can read the minutes of the meeting Droopy as well as the title page to the 1835 D&C. The Church down played them in 1921 when the removed them clearly because of the conflict in doctrine. But in 1835 the members of the Church accepted them as doctrine. And the doctrine about the Godhead clearly changed.

Yes, and then, as bc has pointed out, they went back, thought better of it because of some statements that were made, and removed it. You cannot move on from this simple issue Jason because you have no intention of doing so, not because of any lack of plausible explanations.

So what? There are items in the D&C that are not revelations.

So the Lord's servants decided to remove them because of certain statements within them, that's what. And so?

Not true according the the 1835 D&C. They were the doctrine and the D&C specifically referred to them as such.

I have Joesph Fielding Smith and you here. Smith has the gun and you have the shovel. You dig.

D. It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants.




Of course. This confirms my point. Talmadge wrote the 1916 FP statement on the Godhead and the Lectures conflicted directly with that as well as D&C 130. So they removed them.

Quote:

No, it destroys your point altogether. There is doctrine in the Lectures, but also difficult wording and statements. It was removed for that reason.

And rama lama ding dong. I'll pick this up below.

I have one simple question for you Droopy.

It is really simple.

Let me lay it out.

BC states that anything published by the Church is doctrine.

So for 86 years, from 1835 to 1921, we have the Lectures published by the Church. Indeed they were published as part of Canon. They held the status of Canon based on a vote of the entire priesthood quorums of the Church in 1835. So we have doctrine that states the Father is a personage of spirit, not physical body, but spirit as well as being God for all eternity.

Now I am not sure when D&C 130 entered Canon. I know it was not 1838 because there was not a D&C published then. But from say 1844 at least and forward they conflicted dramatically with other published material that should and could be considered doctrine. And in 1844 Joseph Smith refuted, in his own words, the idea that God was God from all eternity (which idea really still conflicts with the standard works of the Church).

So if the what the Church publishes is doctrine which doctrine was the truth for say 70 years or so?

And if the whatever the Church publishes is doctrine, according to BC, then here is an example of the Church publishing conflicting doctrine and this on a fairly critical issue, the nature of God.

You really don't see this as problematic?

[_Jason Bourne]

Not true according the the 1835 D&C. They were the doctrine and the D&C specifically referred to them as such.

I have Joesph Fielding Smith and you here. Smith has the gun and you have the shovel. You dig.

And I have the title page of the 1835 D&C which says the lectures were the doctrine of the D&C. Clearly Smith downplayed them when they were de-canonized. How could he not?

[_Droopy]

Here is where you theory fails. It is clear in early LDS theology that there was a belief that spirits were embodied. Indeed we see that in Ether when the Brother of Jared sees the pre-mortal Christ. So the Father being a spirit means his spirit has form and definition and would look like a man should we see him. And thus Christ is his express image just as Christ looked like he would when born when he appeared to the Brother of Jared.

Early LDS theology. Oh brother. Swallowed the Dialogue party line hook sinker, and tackle box haven't you?

What you have shown above is not that my theory fails but that you are willfully impervious to any plausible alternative explanations. It doesn't fit your template, and it doesn't justify your overall perception of the Church. Its of little use to you.

You know, the entire thing could be nothing more than rhetorical flourish? Why might I think that? Because in a truly vast plethora of published gospel works, sermons, and talks, by GAs from the nineteenth century to the present, and within the D&C itself, we have the physicality of the Father taught clearly and consistently, Then we find one, single, solitary statement that might conflict with this general teaching (but only if interpreted in a very narrow manner and outside of the context of other passages in the lectures right next to it), and create an issue. Sorry Jason, I'm well beyond falling for this kind of thing. Indeed, I was always well beyond it.

One other point. Its not at all clear that when the Lectures were written, Joseph knew that the Father was corporeal. He saw the Father, but didn't' touch him. The lectures were published in 1835, but section 130, containing the clear teaching about the physical nature of both the Father and the Son wasn't revealed until 1843

Joseph learned about God and the Gospel line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little.
Joseph's knowledge was growing and expanding throughout his ministry.

Anyway, I don't think your listening.

Apostasy lite. All the flavor, half the calories.

[_Droopy]

And I have the title page of the 1835 D&C which says the lectures were the doctrine of the D&C. Clearly Smith downplayed them when they were de-canonized. How could he not?

And as bc pointed out, a number of General Authorities decided that, based upon some difficult statements made in the text, it was decided that, doctrinal or not, it would no longer be official doctrine.

You are rambling on and on over quibbles that I and others have quite easily negotiated and offered plausible counter-explanations. You refuse to consider them logically or thoroughly. I'm just wondering now what the consequences for you; for your present world view and philosophy of life, would be were you to give in on this issue. If you were to admit that this really poses no problem for Church doctrine or history, what other aspects of your own philosophy would this impact, and why?

[_Jason Bourne]

Early LDS theology. Oh brother. Swallowed the Dialogue party line hook sinker, and tackle box haven't you?

Actually Droopy, this something I picked up from Robert Millet in BYU studies. Want to look more foolish?

What you have shown above is not that my theory fails but that you are willfully impervious to any plausible alternative explanations. It doesn't fit your template, and it doesn't justify your overall perception of the Church. Its of little use to you.

Actually Coggy old fool, this helps the Church. When I explored the lecture issue in depth I found that from the Book of Mormon forward the idea about spirits is that they have a spirit body, they are embodied. This is in contrast to classical theology that a spirit is some ethereal formless thing present everywhere. So when I read Lecture five and see the Father is a spirit I can argue that in LDS thought, even in 1835, he was not a spirit in the vernacular of classical theology.

You know, the entire thing could be nothing more than rhetorical flourish? Why might I think that? Because in a truly vast plethora of published gospel works, sermons, and talks, by GAs from the nineteenth century to the present, and within the D&C itself, we have the physicality of the Father taught clearly and consistently, Then we find one, single, solitary statement that might conflict with this general teaching (but only if interpreted in a very narrow manner and outside of the context of other passages in the lectures right next to it), and create an issue. Sorry Jason, I'm well beyond falling for this kind of thing. Indeed, I was always well beyond it.

When I ran into this dilemma, and it was a dilemma for me, I searched high and low for something that demonstrated that LDS believed the Father was corporeal. Before 1838 I found only one thing. Just one. And it was not published by the Church. It was criticism published in an Ohio paper that the LDS believed in a heathen God that had body and parts. That was published in 1835 or 1836.

One other point. Its not at all clear that when the Lectures were written, Joseph knew that the Father was corporeal. He saw the Father, but didn't' touch him. The lectures were published in 1835, but section 130, containing the clear teaching about the physical nature of both the Father and the Son wasn't revealed until 1843

THis is the best argument anyone can make. It is one that I have argued myself. It does not remove the fact that the Church published conflicting doctrine for many years about the nature of God.

Joseph learned about God and the Gospel line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little.
Joseph's knowledge was growing and expanding throughout his ministry.

This does not help the problem of the Church publishing conflicting doctrine for year, which was really the point of bringing the lectures up. And it also signifies, in my opinion, more than line upon line. Joseph's theology changed dramatically in a space of a few years and his later doctrine did not just enlighten about GOd but it reversed a number of critical thing. Brigham Young continued this with some of his wild theology as well. Really it was not until 1916 that many issues about the Godhead seemed settled.

Anyway, I don't think your listening.

And you are?

Apostasy lite. All the flavor, half the calories.

You know Coggins I try not to be rude to you and was not going to be until I read your nasty commentary that you cannot seem to resist adding to most your posts. And I had a very rude comment that I just decided not to end with. You are a very unhappy man it seems. Why can't you be civil?