Jason Bourne wrote:I posted this on another thread but as BC crows about winning on this one I though it worth its own thread.
I see no plausible explanation other than the two items of official doctrine conflict. The doctrine certainly changed from 1835 to 1843 and from whenever D&C 130 was put in the D&C (not sure when it was) to 1921 there was official doctrine the conflicted. Can anyone else come up with a plausible explanation?
That is simply because it is a waste of time. Your one liners are worthless really. The interchange got boring. But you mind is made up on this issue and I guess so is mine. I find your argument weak. One reason is I use to make a similar argument as you do but I saw the weakness of it so I abandon it. It is clear that the Lectures mean. If you want to spin it to mean something that came later more power to you.
It's quite clear as I pointed out that the doctrines don't conflict, the one builds upon the other. You can remove the latest one and what remains is still true. The reason you don;t respond anymore to it is because you know you've been checkmated
.
Hardly checkmate. I know your inflated ego needs to think this. But no they do not build they conflict.
LECTURE FIFTH
Of Faith.
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.
Note above that the Father is a personage of spirit-period and that contrasted against the son who is tabernacle, and made or fashioned after man.
It is clear that the 1835 theology does not allow for the Father to have a physical body. there is no body and spirit together doctrine here so this idea fails.
It is a direct conflict with this:
D&C 130:22
22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.
Note once again the idea of physical body is contrasted against that of a spirit. A personage of spirit, the same language that Lecture 5 uses about the Father is able to dwell in us and the two are contrasted.
There is no harmonizing this at all. In 1835 the Father is a spirit personage, not a body with a spirit, and in 1843 he is now with a tangible body, and note in 1835 it was only Jesus with the body like a man's body.
Checkmate BC.
This is becoming really, really, really dreary and gray Jason. Your preoccupation with this quibble has become well nigh a personal fetish. One piece of exotic foreign cuisine in a cafeteria of otherwise standard fare.
The bare fact that you cannot work through this tiny problem (which has been plausibly explained and put to rest by me and others here time and again) is indicative, not so much of the intractability of the problem, but of the mind fixated upon it. Others have negotiated this with, what would have to be understood, as compared to your incessant beating of this drum, ease.
You have not checkmated bc. The problem Jason, is that you don't really even have any pieces on the board at all. As I've said before, what we have here is not an absolute contrast but just a hyperbolic contrast, the spiritual nature of the Father (shared by the Son and all of us) contrasted with the physical body of the Son
in his capacity as mortal messiah; as the incarnate Son of God. This is not an
ontological contrast but simply
theological.
You're not using the mind God gave unto you to work through this. You are thoroughly dedicated to seeing only an intractable problem here, for whatever reason, and will accept no plausible interpretation other then one that coincides with your own. Whatever the explanation, unless it preserves your idea of an irreconcilable official doctrinal difference, it will be unwelcome.
I see.