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?
Ummmmm let me see....how about the OP in this thread? The one I referred to above and to which you brightly replied "where?"
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.
Hardly
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.
But when continuing revelation contradicts prio revelation which one should a person believe? Such is the case on this topic. God does not have a body and now he does. God was God from all eternity in 1835 and in 1844 the KFD "refutes" that idea.
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.
You mean your spin on the Church's statements. But it is still clear apologist do not agree on what constitutes doctrine.
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)
This does not work in the context of the Lectures and D&C 130.