Can the Fifth Lecture on Faith be agreed to D&C 130

[_mentalgymnast]

Hi Jason,

If you have the time, here's a good place to continue in regards to your understanding of the development of Mormon thought as it relates to the HG, God, and the Godhead.

http://mormonmisc.podbean.com/

The following podcasts are most applicable:

Development of Mormon Thought on the Holy Ghost

Development of Joseph Smith’s Concept of God

Discussion of God With Martin Tanner

Defining Mormon Concepts of Deity

There are some other podcasts in the list that you may find helpful also. I listened to these (and others) while working out at the gym (good place to do heavy lifting...but maybe not so much heavy thinking) and if I'm not mistaken some of the issues between LoF and the D&C are discussed. Being as I was at the gym when listening to these programs my comprehension was less than optimal. Anyways, enjoy.

Regards,
MG

An easy way to download these mp3 files is to go to itunes store and type in: "van hale Mormon miscellaneous" in the search field. Then subscribe and pick the relevant podcasts.

Regards,
MG

[_Jason Bourne]

He is a personage of Spirit and omnipresent. He's also embodied.

Which is the answer to the question. LDS doctrine includes the notion that God is a Spirit. Continuing revelation includes the physical body. Thus there is no contradiction. That a work of doctrine be out-dated onthe point of not including God's physical body does not render it valueless, hence it is not unreasonable to see it's publication long after the doctrine was enhanced.

Of course antiMormons here choose not to accept the principles guiding LDS doctrine and therefore will always be relegated to talking past us instead of to us.

BC

You miserably fail to harmonize the lecture quoted in the OP and the later doctrine. Your comments above do not do that. This is because the two cannot be harmonized. I demonstrated this clearly.

Dr. Peterson's stance really is a better position. But his position is that the Lectures have teachings that really were not doctrinal, at least if I read him right. Also, he discounts them because he think the later disgraced Rigdon is the primary author. One wonders how this argument would go if Rigdon had remained faithful to what became the SLC based LDS Church. And so what if Rigdon was the author? Also, was not Rigdon a member of the First Presidency? Did he not have a mandate through revelation to hold such a position? Was he not in good standing at the time the Lectures were published? Was he not a prophet, seer and revelator? So what if he was the primary author which can be debated. THe fact is the Lectures were canonized by a process that is not really all that different from the way something ends up in canon today. Interestingly they were removed by a process very different from the way that items are canonized. The leadership just took them out. No vote of the Church what so ever.

Now Dr Peterson's other position is not unreasonable. Joseph Smith did not have the power or influence to control the direction of the Church and even the doctrine perhaps as much as the FP does today. And his understanding about God may have been in error at the time of the Lectures. But how do we know? maybe it was correct at the time of the Lectures but incorrect later in the 1840's when his teachings about God really overturned a lot of what was in the Lectures and even really what was in the Bible as well. So Dr Peterson presents the idea that it was not a clean cut and dry process for getting doctrine. OK. But really the Church portrays it like it is and was. Leaders tell us Joseph Smith knew more about God when we walked out of the grove in 1820 than all the theologians of the past 1800 years. But it when one understands the messy process of the LDS doctrinal development about the Godhead it does not seem like her really did. And if one continues through BYs odd teachings about God and then we move to 1916 when we have the FP statement about the Godhead, there seems to be a lot of confusion about the Godhead. Anyway, I am ok with that process. My point is that it is a rough road and the revelation our leaders have in the Church has not seemed a whole lot better for coming to what the doctrine really is than the other Christian sects of history.

This is really my point and the lectures provide a fine example.


Now for BC this blows a hole in your position that whatever the Church publishes is doctrine. Here we have something published in canon that Dr Peterson argues was really not doctrinal. And it conflicted with the what was viewed as doctrine for quite some time while the two were published together.

[_Jason Bourne]

Hi Jason,

If you have the time, here's a good place to continue in regards to your understanding of the development of Mormon thought as it relates to the HG, God, and the Godhead.

http://mormonmisc.podbean.com/

The following podcasts are most applicable:

Development of Mormon Thought on the Holy Ghost

Development of Joseph Smith’s Concept of God

Discussion of God With Martin Tanner

Defining Mormon Concepts of Deity


MG

Thanks

I will certainly listen to them as I an highly interested in this issue.

There are some other podcasts in the list that you may find helpful also. I listened to these (and others) while working out at the gym (good place to do heavy lifting...but maybe not so much heavy thinking) and if I'm not mistaken some of the issues between LoF and the D&C are discussed. Being as I was at the gym when listening to these programs my comprehension was less than optimal. Anyways, enjoy.

Regards,
MG

[_Rollo Tomasi]

That Joseph Smith must have approved them at some level seems likely to me. But it also seems clear -- the Bushman biography demonstrates this eloquently -- that Joseph was not the omnipotent and omniscient person Mormon tradition has made him out to be, always in firm command of everything in the Church, and particularly not in the pre-Nauvoo period. He deferred to the better-educated Sidney Rigdon on many matters, where, nowadays, I feel no need to do so.

Does this still leave issues to be resolved with the Lectures on Faith? Sure. But it points toward a possible resolution of several of them.

Certainly possible. I think this issue reflects Joseph Smith's own evolution of belief and understanding (the whole "line upon line" thing). Clearly the First Vision did not establish for him that God the Father was a being of flesh and bones -- this apparently didn't come until over 20 years later (as did many of his teachings about the nature of God and the Godhead). Yes, Lecture on Faith No. 5 and D&C 130 are inconsistent on the physical nature of God the Father, but this could simply reflect a change (i.e., increase) in understanding, not necessarly something fraudulent. Just my $.02.

[_Jason Bourne]

That Joseph Smith must have approved them at some level seems likely to me. But it also seems clear -- the Bushman biography demonstrates this eloquently -- that Joseph was not the omnipotent and omniscient person Mormon tradition has made him out to be, always in firm command of everything in the Church, and particularly not in the pre-Nauvoo period. He deferred to the better-educated Sidney Rigdon on many matters, where, nowadays, I feel no need to do so.

Does this still leave issues to be resolved with the Lectures on Faith? Sure. But it points toward a possible resolution of several of them.

Certainly possible. I think this issue reflects Joseph Smith's own evolution of belief and understanding (the whole "line upon line" thing). Clearly the First Vision did not establish for him that God the Father was a being of flesh and bones -- this apparently didn't come until over 20 years later (as did many of his teachings about the nature of God and the Godhead). Yes, Lecture on Faith No. 5 and D&C 130 are inconsistent on the physical nature of God the Father, but this could simply reflect a change (i.e., increase) in understanding, not necessarly something fraudulent. Just my $.02.

I agree that it is not fraudulent. But it does demonstrate that the restoration was bumpy and not as clean and straight forward as it seems to be portrayed. Also it lends questions of which teaching about God is the correct one? The ones in 1835 that seem more along the lines of traditional Christianity or the later ones in 1840's that diverge rather radically?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

That Joseph Smith must have approved them at some level seems likely to me. But it also seems clear -- the Bushman biography demonstrates this eloquently -- that Joseph was not the omnipotent and omniscient person Mormon tradition has made him out to be, always in firm command of everything in the Church, and particularly not in the pre-Nauvoo period. He deferred to the better-educated Sidney Rigdon on many matters, where, nowadays, I feel no need to do so.

Does this still leave issues to be resolved with the Lectures on Faith? Sure. But it points toward a possible resolution of several of them.

Certainly possible. I think this issue reflects Joseph Smith's own evolution of belief and understanding (the whole "line upon line" thing). Clearly the First Vision did not establish for him that God the Father was a being of flesh and bones -- this apparently didn't come until over 20 years later (as did many of his teachings about the nature of God and the Godhead). Yes, Lecture on Faith No. 5 and D&C 130 are inconsistent on the physical nature of God the Father, but this could simply reflect a change (i.e., increase) in understanding, not necessarly something fraudulent. Just my $.02.

I agree that it is not fraudulent. But it does demonstrate that the restoration was bumpy and not as clean and straight forward as it seems to be portrayed. Also it lends questions of which teaching about God is the correct one? The ones in 1835 that seem more along the lines of traditional Christianity or the later ones in 1840's that diverge rather radically?

I agree. This can also be seen in the Book of Mormon, particulary the parts that were translated right after the 116 pages were lost (Joseph Smith did not go back and restart the translation with the small plates, but started from where he left off when the 116 pages were lost; after the rest was done, he translated the small plates, from which we have 1 Nephi and 2 Nephi (and perhaps others)). Starting, I think, with Abinadi, the description of God and the Trinity sounds incredibly consistent with traditional Christianity (the Trinity was "all in one," etc.). LDS theology today concerning God and the Godhead seems very different than what is described in that part of the Book of Mormon, in my opinion.

[_bcspace]

BC

You miserably fail to harmonize the lecture quoted in the OP and the later doctrine. Your comments above do not do that. This is because the two cannot be harmonized. I demonstrated this clearly.

Where?

Dr. Peterson's stance really is a better position. But his position is that the Lectures have teachings that really were not doctrinal, at least if I read him right. Also, he discounts them because he think the later disgraced Rigdon is the primary author. One wonders how this argument would go if Rigdon had remained faithful to what became the SLC based LDS Church. And so what if Rigdon was the author? Also, was not Rigdon a member of the First Presidency? Did he not have a mandate through revelation to hold such a position? Was he not in good standing at the time the Lectures were published? Was he not a prophet, seer and revelator? So what if he was the primary author which can be debated. THe fact is the Lectures were canonized by a process that is not really all that different from the way something ends up in canon today. Interestingly they were removed by a process very different from the way that items are canonized. The leadership just took them out. No vote of the Church what so ever.

Now Dr Peterson's other position is not unreasonable. Joseph Smith did not have the power or influence to control the direction of the Church and even the doctrine perhaps as much as the FP does today. And his understanding about God may have been in error at the time of the Lectures. But how do we know? maybe it was correct at the time of the Lectures but incorrect later in the 1840's when his teachings about God really overturned a lot of what was in the Lectures and even really what was in the Bible as well. So Dr Peterson presents the idea that it was not a clean cut and dry process for getting doctrine. OK. But really the Church portrays it like it is and was. Leaders tell us Joseph Smith knew more about God when we walked out of the grove in 1820 than all the theologians of the past 1800 years. But it when one understands the messy process of the LDS doctrinal development about the Godhead it does not seem like her really did. And if one continues through BYs odd teachings about God and then we move to 1916 when we have the FP statement about the Godhead, there seems to be a lot of confusion about the Godhead. Anyway, I am ok with that process. My point is that it is a rough road and the revelation our leaders have in the Church has not seemed a whole lot better for coming to what the doctrine really is than the other Christian sects of history.

This is really my point and the lectures provide a fine example.

My position is much simpler and still fits. I agree that confusion on this issue might ultimately have been the LoF's demise, but we can see from my argument that it need not have been the case.

Now for BC this blows a hole in your position that whatever the Church publishes is doctrine.

How so? I've made it clear that because of continuing revelation, doctrine changes. In this case, it changed just as one would expect it too. Line upon line, precept upon precept.

Here we have something published in canon that Dr Peterson argues was really not doctrinal.

Peterson is not the arbiter of what is and is not LDS doctrine. I'd rather go by the Church's own statements.

And it conflicted with the what was viewed as doctrine for quite some time while the two were published together.

That God is a spirit remains LDS doctrine. We now know that such a spirit also has a physical body. Even we are considered spirits (James 2:26).

[_guy sajer]

I thought that God revealed truth to the prophet. But apparently sometimes Sidney Rigdon does (or did).

If the Prophet defers to others on points of doctrine and, it appears, gets doctrine wrong on occasion, how does this differentiate him from others professing to understand the mind and will of God? I mean, where's the real value added?

Certainly a much different picture than God directly revealing his word to his chosen mouthpiece on earth as Chapel Mormons are prone to believe, and which the Church teaches directly and by implication.

I don't have to believe that the Lectures on Faith were "revealed" -- a thought that has never crossed my mind before -- or to believe that the Prophet receives express divine dictation on every issue at every hour of every day, or to believe that Joseph was completely in command at every stage and that Church structures and principles were thoroughly and immutably in place ab initio, in order to recognize an enormous amount of "value added."

And, as I've pointed out several times before, whenever I've taken the Shades test, I've come out an unambiguous "chapel Mormon."

Dan you're misconstruing my remarks, plus you are using a straw man by suggesting I've somehow implied that a Prophet receives express divine dictation on every issue at every our of every day etc.

On critical issues of doctrine (and the nature of God and other issues covered in the Lectures of Faith fall, in my opinion, in the category of critical doctrines) it appears to me that this is an area in which revelation would be quite helpful. If the Prophet (God's numero uno mouthpiece uniquely selected to communicate the mind and will of God to his children etc.) defers to others on such important issues, why then the need for a Prophet? If he makes important doctrinal statements based on opinion or based on opinions of others, rather than revelation, why the need for someone with a presumed pipeline to God? More, how do we know whether other doctrinal statements are based on revelation, based on personal opinion, or based on deference to someone else's opinion? Which again raises the question, what is the value added of a Prophet in this case?

Plus, the Church clearly teaches, and the Chapel Mormons clearly believe, that God reveals important doctrine to his Prophet and that, therefore, members of obliged to obey the Prophet, which is the same as obeying God.

Such issues may not bother you, who appears to have created a rather complicated belief framework, but they are issues that concern others. They concerned me, and this was one of many inconsistencies I found in Mormonism that convinced me it was no more than an invention of humans. (I found the type of complex, ex-post rationalization you engage in to be very unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons.)

Are you willing to concede that such things can create legitimate confusion, doubt, and even, after a point, disbelief among sincere believers, or should this all be a non-issue for them as it is for you?

[_bcspace]

Are you willing to concede that such things can create legitimate confusion, doubt, and even, after a point, disbelief among sincere believers, or should this all be a non-issue for them as it is for you?

I believe these things are caused by not taking all doctrines and principles into account. Should be a non-issue.

[_guy sajer]

Are you willing to concede that such things can create legitimate confusion, doubt, and even, after a point, disbelief among sincere believers, or should this all be a non-issue for them as it is for you?

I believe these things are caused by not taking all doctrines and principles into account. Should be a non-issue.

Big surprise. Nobody in the world thinks like you, yet in your mind, the entire world SHOULD think like you, and more, the entire world is wrong not to think like you.

If there were a God, I'd pray to him/her that you would never, ever be called to a position of authority in which you are counseling people who are struggling (as humans do) with such and related issues. Your potential to f*** with vulnerable peoples' minds is unlimited.