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

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:39 pm

Can something be doctrine at one point then be overturned by later revelation as not doctrine?

Sure. Something might also be doctrine at the beginning as a matter of course but not supported by any revelation or inspiration until it is so overturned.

So we can have two doctrines that are both true? Back to the lectures. The primary problem is you ahd two conflicting doctrines published at the same time in LDS canon. Both could not be true.

Thus we get to the bottom of it. Thanks for proving how disingenuous you are.

How so? You pointed out two instances of what you thought was doctrine but gave no evidence for such. perhaps you did elsewhere on this thread, but I don't see that I have any obligation to go find it.

Come now. I have given plenty of evidence. I have noted over and over that the lectures were published by the Church in the Church canon. Lecture five teaches the father is a spirit and that the HG is a non personage. How can you say I gave no evidence. I also notes the AG was preached in GC and published in the Deseret News. Do you deny this? Do I really need to give you a reference for this?

You want to give a defination then you refuse to be held to it. But both these items were published by the Church and this made them doctrinal at least at one point in time.

Depending on what was also published.

So here comes all the qualifiers.

Indeed as noted the doctrine of God being spirit and not body was canonized as part of the doctrine of the D&C.

I am familiar with the LoF #5 argument. I simply don't agree with it

You are clearly wrong then. You have given non compelling argument otherwise. It is quite clear in what is says and it is quite clear that the Church leaders were concerned about the conflicting doctrine so they removed it from the canon. Droopy even gave a quote from JFS that said as much above.

But you proved my point. You will cherry pick when your feet are put to the fire.

You've not yet given any evidence of su

I certainly have. One wonders what evidence you need?

Post by **_bcspace** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:39 pm

So we can have two doctrines that are both true? Back to the lectures. The primary problem is you ahd two conflicting doctrines published at the same time in LDS canon. Both could not be true.

Why don't you provide the examples and we'll discuss it?

Come now. I have given plenty of evidence. I have noted over and over that the lectures were published by the Church in the Church canon. Lecture five teaches the father is a spirit and that the HG is a non personage. How can you say I gave no evidence.

Did you provide a reference or a quote somewhere?

I also notes the AG was preached in GC and published in the Deseret News. Do you deny this? Do I really need to give you a reference for this?

Yes. I want to know exactly where you are comming from and what the context is.

I am familiar with the LoF #5 argument. I simply don't agree with it

You are clearly wrong then. You have given non compelling argument otherwise.

Where is yours?

It is quite clear in what is says and it is quite clear that the Church leaders were concerned about the conflicting doctrine so they removed it from the canon.

Then what is the problem?

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:39 pm

Why don't you provide the examples and we'll discuss it?

I have done this already.

Come now. I have given plenty of evidence. I have noted over and over that the lectures were published by the Church in the Church canon. Lecture five teaches the father is a spirit and that the HG is a non personage. How can you say I gave no evidence.

Did you provide a reference or a quote somewhere?

Go read the Fifth Lecture on Faith and D&C 130. Then get back to me.

Post by **_bcspace** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:09 pm

Go read the Fifth Lecture on Faith and D&C 130. Then get back to me.

Already done, several times, long ago. What is your point?

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:28 pm

bcspace wrote:
Go read the Fifth Lecture on Faith and D&C 130. Then get back to me.

Already done, several times, long ago. What is your point?

Are you really this dense or just being obtuse on purpose?

Post by **_bcspace** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:09 pm

Already done, several times, long ago. What is your point?

Are you really this dense or just being obtuse on purpose?

Are you this ignorant of LDS doctrine? Did God somehow lose His spirit when it become known that He also has a physical body? Are the LoF somehow now completely useless because of this revelation? What is the problem?

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:17 am

Are you this ignorant of LDS doctrine?

Hardly

Did God somehow lose His spirit when it become known that He also has a physical body?

The Fifth Lecture taught God was spirit and that he did not have a body. D&C 130 says he has a body. The two conflict. Both could not be true at the same time. I think this is about the 10th time I have pointed this out. The Lectures also teach ( as well as all other LDS Canon) that God was God from all eternity. Joseph Smith refuted (his words) this idea in 1844. So now we have lesson manuals that say God was once a man. This conflicts with prior and current LDS canon in the form of the Lectures and indeed the current scriptures. The lectures were also binitarian not trinitarian like D&C 130.

Are the LoF somehow now completely useless because of this revelation? What is the problem?

I quite like the Lectures. They do however conflict with current LDS doctrine on the Godhead in many ways three of which I have listed above.

Really I think we have ended the usefulness of this debate. Your point is whatever the Church publishes is doctrine. My point is fine, I agree but then don't back peddle and say certain things were never doctrine. I believe I have demonstrated some things that were conflicting doctrines published by the Church simultaneously. We could explore other things that were taught as doctrine but are now argued as opinion even though given in a GC and published in a Church owned paper, like AG, if you wish but maybe on another thread.

My expectations is that you will back peddle from what you think constitutes doctrine when confronted with such things or find some loop hole to argue that they item was not published by the church or falls out of your definition for some other reason.

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:38 am

The Fifth Lecture taught God was spirit and that he did not have a body. D&C 130 says he has a body. The two conflict. Both could not be true at the same time.

1. God is a spirit.
2. God is a spirit with a physical body.

Both can be true at the same time. This is an excellent example of continuing revelation in action. First you have the LoF. Then you have D&C 130, not giving any contradictory information but adding to our knowledge. So what if the LoF remains with the D&C for a long period of time after? It still contains valuable information.

James 2:26 says essentially the same thing about us. We are spirits too as the body is dead without the spirit.

Another good (and broader) example of this is the KJV which we have not abandoned depsite the fact that we now also have the JST excerpts.

I think this is about the 10th time I have pointed this out.

Appreciated, but we are doing very well already thank you very much.

The lectures were also binitarian not trinitarian like D&C 130.

Incorrect on both counts. The trinity is not defined here nor is there a binitarian god. You refer to LoF 5:2k but you have not read to LoF 5:2m in which we see that all three constitute the Godhead, not two. Therefore, it is more likely that "Mind" is a name title describing function rather than a state of existence.