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

[_Jason Bourne]

This is becoming really, really, really dreary and gray Jason.

Then don't read it or respond. Your vacuous comments add little.

Your preoccupation with this quibble has become well nigh a personal fetish.

If you would do more than a drive by post once in a while and if you would bother to read the thread you may understand this is not just a quibble. First. BC continues to declare himself the winner based on the ridiculous explanation that Lecture 5 can meant the Father had body and a spirit and this was just referring to his spirit.

Also, if the words of Joseph Smith mean anything it was he who said repeatedly that it is the first and fundamental principle of the gospel to know the Character and nature of God. This is stated in the Lecture and later in the KFD as well where the things about God's nature were radically changed. It seems important to know who God and what God's nature is. This was supposed to be a main point of the restoration. Yet it seems to be a moving target. If you think that is a quibble I am not sure what to make of it. I find it uttely foolish and believe you need to pass it off as a quibble so it won't trouble you too much.

One piece of exotic foreign cuisine in a cafeteria of otherwise standard fare.

I know you think you have a flare with words. You don't.

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.

Your explanations fall short. Words have meanings. I broke down the words in question here. There is absolutely know way a rational person can conclude that at the time of the Lectures whoever wrote them believes God was a spirit and did not have a physical body at all. They do not point to a personage of spirit and body.

You have not checkmated bc.

You are free to conclude whatever you want. I think I have provided a better analysis than he has when he claimed to check mate me.

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.

Please use the words of the Lecture as well as the words of D&C 130 to demonstrate this. You cannot. This is simply your spin after the fact because later LDS theology contradicted it. As noted words have meaning. The words in question compare and contrast a spirit to a physical being and show how they are different. I see know way to reach the conclusion you do.

You're not using the mind God gave unto you to work through this.

Because I conclude differently than you? RIGHT!

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.

And you accept something that contradicts yours? What is the difference here? But you see the difference is I have spent hundreds of hours pursuing the issue of the Godhead in LDS thought. I have argued the way you and BC do. But I have come to see how the arguments fail. So yes, I have looked at the plausible explanations.

I see.

No you really don't.

[_Jason Bourne]

Sorry Daniel, but, given past experience here, I don't think that, or any other conceivable argument (they've all been tried, I believe) will help Jason with this issue at all.

I don't actually think he desires any "help" with it at this point.

I desire truth. Do you? As noted above so what if Rigdon wrote them? I have read the Reynolds article Dr Peterson referenced, at least ten times. It is not conclusively but even if Rigdon wrote every word so what? Was he not a prophet, seer and revelator? Was he not in good standing at the time? Had he stayed in the Church would you down play it then? Do you or Dr Peterson down play his witness to the revelation in D&C 76 as well?

I am happy with good honest answers. The best answer it the Lectures were never doctrine and should have never been included in canon but that is a tough nut to crack as well.

[_Droopy]

But you see the difference is I have spent hundreds of hours pursuing the issue of the Godhead in LDS thought.

And at 50 and as a life long LDS, I've very probably spent, given my penchant for reading, study, and reflection at the expense of watching television, movies, etc, thousands of hours persuing the same thing.


MATE!

[_bcspace]

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.

What he can't accept is that God being described as a personage of spirit does not preclude adding to that description later. The fact of the matter is that the only way for there to be a conflict is if having a body does not allow one to have a spirit also.

But most anti's heads spin anyway at the thought that the LDS Church might actually believe it's own doctrine. Such destroys too many of their chestnut arguments.

[_ludwigm]

But you see the difference is I have spent hundreds of hours pursuing the issue of the Godhead in LDS thought.

And at 50 and as a life long LDS, I've very probably spent, given my penchant for reading, study, and reflection at the expense of watching television, movies, etc, thousands of hours persuing the same thing.
MATE!

I have a sister-in-law.
She reads the Bible more than one hour a day, since >50 years. (She is 65.)

She is calvinist - but this is not important here.
The important is that she is - a little - infantile. She cooks, clears, does for herself. And in fact doesn't understand the words she's reading.

Spending hours to study something is one thing.
I don't talk about understanding.
I am talking about the will of understanding.

About this issue too many word was said and written by prominent leaders. Too many of them are conflicting. (Yes, You can say "conflicting for an anti" and You win.)
If the leaders can not or dare not make a tabula rasa - it is not the fault of the common members.

[_Chap]

What he can't accept is that God being described as a personage of spirit does not preclude adding to that description later

'Course it doesn't preclude anything. There is another problem, though, which it may be hard for your to deal with:

LDS deity: I hereby revelate that I am a personage of spirit.

Audience: We get it. So you are a spirit, just like people have always said. Not like us spirit-body hybrids. Good of you to keep us informed.

[Time passes]

LDS deity: by the way, I hereby revelate that I have a body too.

Audience then splits into three.

Section (a): Yea, Lord, wondrous and inscrutable are thy works and thy words: truly thou art a personage of spirit, but thou hast a body too! How hard is it for mortals to comprehend the ways of the gods!

Section (b): Are you messing with us? You must have known how we would have interpreted what you said the first time round, and what you are saying now is radically different from that - a deity with a body? Could you think a bit before you revelate next time, please?

Section (c): Look, it's the man behind the curtain! He's just making it up as he goes along. C'mon, let's get out of here.


The more people see this kind of thing, the larger group (b) and group (c) will become. Particularly group (c). Of course, group (c) is just the guys who are too dumb to understand bcpsace's explanations, and never had a real testimony of the truth of the prophets, so who cares about them?

[_Jason Bourne]

But you see the difference is I have spent hundreds of hours pursuing the issue of the Godhead in LDS thought.

And at 50 and as a life long LDS, I've very probably spent, given my penchant for reading, study, and reflection at the expense of watching television, movies, etc, thousands of hours persuing the same thing.


MATE!

You are delusional and still don't deal with the issue. Both you abd BC simply parrot the same thing and do not deal with what the words say. I am 48 and have no doubt I am just as well read if not better, on things LDS than you are.

[_Jason Bourne]

What he can't accept is that God being described as a personage of spirit does not preclude adding to that description later. The fact of the matter is that the only way for there to be a conflict is if having a body does not allow one to have a spirit also.

Because is it a stupid elementary school answer. No apologist that has dealt with this issue worth their salt makes this argument at all. Millet had written on this issue and he conceded that the Fifth Lecture teaches God is a spirit. The best answer he gives is Joseph Smith may not have known about God having a body in 1835. But he does not give your stupid answer.

You seem unable to deal with the plain language and words that were written. You cannot reach your conclusion when you read what they say.

But most anti's heads spin anyway at the thought that the LDS Church might actually believe it's own doctrine. Such destroys too many of their chestnut arguments.

I am not an anti. I am an active member with honest questions and concerns. This is one of number.

[_The Nehor]

What he can't accept is that God being described as a personage of spirit does not preclude adding to that description later

'Course it doesn't preclude anything. There is another problem, though, which it may be hard for your to deal with:

LDS deity: I hereby revelate that I am a personage of spirit.

Audience: We get it. So you are a spirit, just like people have always said. Not like us spirit-body hybrids. Good of you to keep us informed.

[Time passes]

LDS deity: by the way, I hereby revelate that I have a body too.

Audience then splits into three.

Section (a): Yea, Lord, wondrous and inscrutable are thy works and thy words: truly thou art a personage of spirit, but thou hast a body too! How hard is it for mortals to comprehend the ways of the gods!

Section (b): Are you messing with us? You must have known how we would have interpreted what you said the first time round, and what you are saying now is radically different from that - a deity with a body? Could you think a bit before you revelate next time, please?

Section (c): Look, it's the man behind the curtain! He's just making it up as he goes along. C'mon, let's get out of here.


The more people see this kind of thing, the larger group (b) and group (c) will become. Particularly group (c). Of course, group (c) is just the guys who are too dumb to understand bcpsace's explanations, and never had a real testimony of the truth of the prophets, so who cares about them?

And thus the wheat and chaff are differentiated. Praise God for his wisdom.

[_Jason Bourne]

And thus the wheat and chaff are differentiated. Praise God for his wisdom.

I have always found it a sad thing when members make this statement. Do they really glory in the idea that so many of their brothers and sisters may not be with them because they are chaff? Do they really praise God as a Father that will sift his children in such a way? I know you are not a Father but I have no desire to treat my children as wheat and chaff.