Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

marc wrote: February 4th, 2023, 10:51 am Yes, they could have proofread and fine tuned the Lectures much better.
Overall, it definitely could have been written better. Much of it is very dry, but I can't get on board with attributing the discrepancy to proofreading because that was the very purpose of the question. The question was, what is the number. They answer is two.

Another reason proofreading doesn't solve the problem is because after publication in 1835, they had 9 years of reading it before 1844. If there were any mistakes that bad, they would have corrected them, especially if Joseph was teaching what is claimed.

I read Orson's talk, it's good, but I think he was just trying to figure this out just like we are. I quoted some relatable lines.

"But I will not say that the Holy Ghost is a personage, the same as the Father and Son."

"and the Lord has never given me any revelation upon the subject, and consequently I cannot fully make up my mind one way or the other."

"Everyone knows that it is absurd to believe in a personage being present in two places at once."

Regarding the last one, I agree all forms of matter can only be at one place at one time, but not intelligence.

We are still left guessing what the mind of God is right? How about this; it is the collective consciousness of the Gods who have gone before us in all previous iterations of the plan of salvation. All those who have done as Jesus has done. We never do incorporate them into our understanding, but maybe this mind of God is the collective mind of all Gods.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

TheDuke wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 1:19 pm I would say he was busy and LoF was not a high priority.
He and the First Presidency worked on them for months, it was definitely a high priority. If it was anything less they would have not canonized it. If they were any items needing correcting, Joseph easily could have made the changes in the 1844 edition after his alleged new teachings, but he did not. He chose to let the statement stand that there are two personages in the Godhead.

Now I will grant you that there are three members of the Godhead, but there are only two personages. However you reconcile that is, of course, up to you.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

TheDuke wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 1:36 pm FYI found this on the other thread June 16, 1844 part of Joseph's lecture on plural deities. Very darned clear.

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it!
Yes, Marc used that earlier, but it is completely false.

In LoF the HG is not a personage, so this statement is false.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5862
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by TheDuke »

Redpilled Mormon wrote: February 4th, 2023, 11:27 am
That's a reasonable standard for the Bible, but the way the Book of Mormon came to us was by one guy who claimed an angel led him to the location of the plates and gave him divine tools to translate it correctly one time. It was translated directly into English under Divine instruction, and approved by the Divine to go out to the world. So I don't get how it can be partially true/partially false.

Unless you don't believe it was translated from actual plates under the direction of an actual angel under the direction of God himself. If you believe Joseph was fudging any of that and the provenance is thrown into question, then I suppose someone could view it as a nice story with lots of hidden truths, like the Narnia series, or a book containing some doctrinal truths arrived at by reason, like Mere Christianity. Btw I'm not judging if you have that view. I'm in the camp that believes it is completely true and was given directly by God.
You didn't read what I said, but while you're at it, angel or not, it has some editing errors in it that Joseph didn't initially catch, you must admit that, so being close to perfect surely didn't apply to spelling, punctuation, and wording, (like writing son vs. sun). And as far that that I clearly stated that there appears much evidence that anciently (before Mormon) there were many scribes. Does it say they had an angel to capture words that were orally transmitted or written in century's old language before being captured on the final (or interim) plates? Again, unless you think Nephi has 40# of gold in the decade of his departure, while working hard to feed his family with his bow, it must have been actually written later. Many places for small errors. but, who really cares. The principles are true, doesn't matter if only 50 people die when Alma's people left or 20,000 (when only 200 left looking for the Land of Nephi with Zeniff and Noah his grandson and many killed along the way or defected with the evil priests?) a little reading comprehension of the verses does go a long way. But, final answer, as Joseph said the book was translated by the gift and power of god, NO ANGELS were involved in the translation just Joseph, seer stones, a hat and scribe(s).

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

Redpilled Mormon wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 5:15 pm Have you seen the debunk on that quote yet? Saw it in a recent thread somewhere, with links.

But I'm fine if Joseph said it, doesn't matter to me. Book of Mormon teaching trumps Joseph' quotes any day of the week.
Let me know if you come across it again.

But highly suspicious regardless right, the Sermon in the Grove June 16, 1844, as recording in the history of the church, lol.

The church history revisionists claim Joseph spoke contrary to his own scriptures and Duke believes it.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

ransomme wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 5:18 pm
Mosiah 15
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that
God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
You may be right, but I see this text showing otherwise. Verse 1 says God himself comes down and then verse 2 explains that it is only because of the flesh that God is then called the Son of God. It's clearly showing that in the flesh he is the son of God and out of the flesh he is God.

It also says the Father and not a father.

User avatar
JLHPROF
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1087

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by JLHPROF »

Shawn Henry wrote: February 4th, 2023, 11:47 am
TheDuke wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 1:36 pm FYI found this on the other thread June 16, 1844 part of Joseph's lecture on plural deities. Very darned clear.

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it!
Yes, Marc used that earlier, but it is completely false.

In LoF the HG is not a personage, so this statement is false.
I'll be blunt. The LoF has several errors in doctrine and I don't believe most of it is inspired writing except for Lecture 6. And while Joseph may have signed off on them I'm convinced he wrote Lecture 6 and Rigdon the preceding ones. They're basically the 1830s version of https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng

I have more faith in and accept more authority from D&C 130, the Sermon in the Grove, and the King Follett than I do the LoF juvenalia of Church publications. The prophet Joseph was so far beyond the LoF as Christ was beyond the law of Moses.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

JLHPROF wrote: February 4th, 2023, 3:31 pm I'll be blunt. The LoF has several errors in doctrine and I don't believe most of it is inspired writing except for Lecture 6. And while Joseph may have signed off on them I'm convinced he wrote Lecture 6 and Rigdon the preceding ones. They're basically the 1830s version of https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng

I have more faith in and accept more authority from D&C 130, the Sermon in the Grove, and the King Follett than I do the LoF juvenalia of Church publications. The prophet Joseph was so far beyond the LoF as Christ was beyond the law of Moses.
It has errors according to your learned precepts of men you mean. Show me where the BoM and Bible contradict them. They don't.

You have more faith in non-canon than canon, more faith in works with no witnesses than scripture that has met the Law of Witnesses.

Thanks for being blunt though.

User avatar
JLHPROF
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1087

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by JLHPROF »

Shawn Henry wrote: February 4th, 2023, 9:48 pm
JLHPROF wrote: February 4th, 2023, 3:31 pm I'll be blunt. The LoF has several errors in doctrine and I don't believe most of it is inspired writing except for Lecture 6. And while Joseph may have signed off on them I'm convinced he wrote Lecture 6 and Rigdon the preceding ones. They're basically the 1830s version of https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng

I have more faith in and accept more authority from D&C 130, the Sermon in the Grove, and the King Follett than I do the LoF juvenalia of Church publications. The prophet Joseph was so far beyond the LoF as Christ was beyond the law of Moses.
It has errors according to your learned precepts of men you mean. Show me where the BoM and Bible contradict them. They don't.

You have more faith in non-canon than canon, more faith in works with no witnesses than scripture that has met the Law of Witnesses.

Thanks for being blunt though.
Since we don't have a shared canon why would I accept your argument to canon? You reject works I consider scripture. I reject works you consider scripture.
The canon argument only works when the interested parties are operating from the same religious texts.
You don't expect a Hindu to accept an argument based in the Koran.
I suppose a more accurate comparison might be Shia vs Sunni Muslim. Either way the canon argument doesn't work if we don't share a religion or canon.
(I'm also not convinced you understand the significance or actual meaning of the term canon.)

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

JLHPROF wrote: February 4th, 2023, 10:18 pm Since we don't have a shared canon why would I accept your argument to canon? You reject works I consider scripture. I reject works you consider scripture.
You reject what the Lord has revealed in the D&C regarding his word coming forth and you reject the Law of Witnesses. Don't try telling me it is my personal law of witnesses. Everyone knows the definition of "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

User avatar
Dusty Wanderer
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1411

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Dusty Wanderer »

JLHPROF wrote: February 4th, 2023, 10:18 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: February 4th, 2023, 9:48 pm
JLHPROF wrote: February 4th, 2023, 3:31 pm I'll be blunt. The LoF has several errors in doctrine and I don't believe most of it is inspired writing except for Lecture 6. And while Joseph may have signed off on them I'm convinced he wrote Lecture 6 and Rigdon the preceding ones. They're basically the 1830s version of https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng

I have more faith in and accept more authority from D&C 130, the Sermon in the Grove, and the King Follett than I do the LoF juvenalia of Church publications. The prophet Joseph was so far beyond the LoF as Christ was beyond the law of Moses.
It has errors according to your learned precepts of men you mean. Show me where the BoM and Bible contradict them. They don't.

You have more faith in non-canon than canon, more faith in works with no witnesses than scripture that has met the Law of Witnesses.

Thanks for being blunt though.
Since we don't have a shared canon why would I accept your argument to canon? You reject works I consider scripture. I reject works you consider scripture.
The canon argument only works when the interested parties are operating from the same religious texts.
You don't expect a Hindu to accept an argument based in the Koran.
I suppose a more accurate comparison might be Shia vs Sunni Muslim. Either way the canon argument doesn't work if we don't share a religion or canon.
(I'm also not convinced you understand the significance or actual meaning of the term canon.)
You may not personally believe you have a canon, but our church does:
"In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the canonical books are called standard works."

There really is no question that our church has a concept of canon. The question should be how have the LoF been treated according to the church's own qualifications regarding the standard works:
"[using the Bible as an example]...sound guidelines were established that helped to preserve the authoritative books. Among these rules were the following:
(1) Is it claimed that the document was written by a prophet or an apostle?
(2) Is the content of the writing consistent with known and accepted doctrines of the faith?
(3) Is the document already used and accepted in the Church?"
(1) Yes, it was attested to in their own words and accepted as a standard work by the body of the church.
(2) Yes, they were literally meant to explicate the doctrine of their faith at that time.
(3) Yes, it was.
Although the decisions were made in the past as to which writings are authoritative, that does not mean that the canon of scripture is complete and that no more can be added. True prophets and apostles will continue to receive new revelation, and from time to time the legal authorities of the Church will see fit to formally add to the collection of scripture.
So, we believe in a living canon, that it can be added to as revelation is received from God. But nothing in our current views that would support removing "accepted" standard works. However, LoF was remove, and not according to an edict from God, but by a corporate/academic committee. It became outmoded by the "greater light" and "higher understanding", which conversely, hasn't produced the same results, as did the ideas captured in the LoF. When was the last time a revelation was formally added to our collection of scripture? During the time when the LoF doctrine was commonplace among the saints, there were unprecedented spiritual outpourings (and ironically, the bulk of our standard works were produced during that time). I've always found that curious.

User avatar
JLHPROF
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1087

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by JLHPROF »

Shawn Henry wrote: February 5th, 2023, 10:36 am
JLHPROF wrote: February 4th, 2023, 10:18 pm Since we don't have a shared canon why would I accept your argument to canon? You reject works I consider scripture. I reject works you consider scripture.
You reject what the Lord has revealed in the D&C regarding his word coming forth and you reject the Law of Witnesses. Don't try telling me it is my personal law of witnesses. Everyone knows the definition of "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."
I accept the law of witnesses in scripture. I reject your application of this law.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

JLHPROF wrote: February 5th, 2023, 11:07 am I accept the law of witnesses in scripture. I reject your application of this law.
Then name your witnesses for section 130. Who are they?

Who is claiming they know it to be from God and how did God manifest this knowledge to them?

User avatar
JLHPROF
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1087

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by JLHPROF »

Dusty Wanderer wrote: February 5th, 2023, 10:41 am
JLHPROF wrote: February 4th, 2023, 10:18 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: February 4th, 2023, 9:48 pm
JLHPROF wrote: February 4th, 2023, 3:31 pm I'll be blunt. The LoF has several errors in doctrine and I don't believe most of it is inspired writing except for Lecture 6. And while Joseph may have signed off on them I'm convinced he wrote Lecture 6 and Rigdon the preceding ones. They're basically the 1830s version of https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng

I have more faith in and accept more authority from D&C 130, the Sermon in the Grove, and the King Follett than I do the LoF juvenalia of Church publications. The prophet Joseph was so far beyond the LoF as Christ was beyond the law of Moses.
It has errors according to your learned precepts of men you mean. Show me where the BoM and Bible contradict them. They don't.

You have more faith in non-canon than canon, more faith in works with no witnesses than scripture that has met the Law of Witnesses.

Thanks for being blunt though.
Since we don't have a shared canon why would I accept your argument to canon? You reject works I consider scripture. I reject works you consider scripture.
The canon argument only works when the interested parties are operating from the same religious texts.
You don't expect a Hindu to accept an argument based in the Koran.
I suppose a more accurate comparison might be Shia vs Sunni Muslim. Either way the canon argument doesn't work if we don't share a religion or canon.
(I'm also not convinced you understand the significance or actual meaning of the term canon.)
You may not personally believe you have a canon, but our church does:
"In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the canonical books are called standard works."

There really is no question that our church has a concept of canon. The question should be how have the LoF been treated according to the church's own qualifications regarding the standard works:
"[using the Bible as an example]...sound guidelines were established that helped to preserve the authoritative books. Among these rules were the following:
(1) Is it claimed that the document was written by a prophet or an apostle?
(2) Is the content of the writing consistent with known and accepted doctrines of the faith?
(3) Is the document already used and accepted in the Church?"
(1) Yes, it was attested to in their own words and accepted as a standard work by the body of the church.
(2) Yes, they were literally meant to explicate the doctrine of their faith at that time.
(3) Yes, it was.
Although the decisions were made in the past as to which writings are authoritative, that does not mean that the canon of scripture is complete and that no more can be added. True prophets and apostles will continue to receive new revelation, and from time to time the legal authorities of the Church will see fit to formally add to the collection of scripture.
So, we believe in a living canon, that it can be added to as revelation is received from God. But nothing in our current views that would support removing "accepted" standard works. However, LoF was remove, and not according to an edict from God, but by a corporate/academic committee. It became outmoded by the "greater light" and "higher understanding", which conversely, hasn't produced the same results, as did the ideas captured in the LoF. When was the last time a revelation was formally added to our collection of scripture? During the time when the LoF doctrine was commonplace among the saints, there were unprecedented spiritual outpourings (and ironically, the bulk of our standard works were produced during that time). I've always found that curious.
Of course the Church has a canon. Canon are those works that a Church has categorized as binding on them and chosen to use to define their beliefs. Canon is absolutely a thing.
I also have my personal canon (as does Shawn).

What making something officially canon or not doesn't do is change whether or not it's true, inspired, or from God.
Just because a revelation isn't canonized doesn't mean it's not from God. Just because a sermon doesn't make the grade doesn't make it less inspired. And not every document voted into canon has been inspired and was only binding by vote.

Canon doesn't impact divine origin in any way. It's just what was given the weight of organizational approval.

User avatar
Dusty Wanderer
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1411

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Dusty Wanderer »

I just read this yesterday and thought of this thread. Does anyone know what year he said it?
“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods,” (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370)

User avatar
Dusty Wanderer
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1411

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Dusty Wanderer »

JLHPROF wrote: February 5th, 2023, 11:50 am
Dusty Wanderer wrote: February 5th, 2023, 10:41 am
JLHPROF wrote: February 4th, 2023, 10:18 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: February 4th, 2023, 9:48 pm
It has errors according to your learned precepts of men you mean. Show me where the BoM and Bible contradict them. They don't.

You have more faith in non-canon than canon, more faith in works with no witnesses than scripture that has met the Law of Witnesses.

Thanks for being blunt though.
Since we don't have a shared canon why would I accept your argument to canon? You reject works I consider scripture. I reject works you consider scripture.
The canon argument only works when the interested parties are operating from the same religious texts.
You don't expect a Hindu to accept an argument based in the Koran.
I suppose a more accurate comparison might be Shia vs Sunni Muslim. Either way the canon argument doesn't work if we don't share a religion or canon.
(I'm also not convinced you understand the significance or actual meaning of the term canon.)
You may not personally believe you have a canon, but our church does:
"In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the canonical books are called standard works."

There really is no question that our church has a concept of canon. The question should be how have the LoF been treated according to the church's own qualifications regarding the standard works:
"[using the Bible as an example]...sound guidelines were established that helped to preserve the authoritative books. Among these rules were the following:
(1) Is it claimed that the document was written by a prophet or an apostle?
(2) Is the content of the writing consistent with known and accepted doctrines of the faith?
(3) Is the document already used and accepted in the Church?"
(1) Yes, it was attested to in their own words and accepted as a standard work by the body of the church.
(2) Yes, they were literally meant to explicate the doctrine of their faith at that time.
(3) Yes, it was.
Although the decisions were made in the past as to which writings are authoritative, that does not mean that the canon of scripture is complete and that no more can be added. True prophets and apostles will continue to receive new revelation, and from time to time the legal authorities of the Church will see fit to formally add to the collection of scripture.
So, we believe in a living canon, that it can be added to as revelation is received from God. But nothing in our current views that would support removing "accepted" standard works. However, LoF was remove, and not according to an edict from God, but by a corporate/academic committee. It became outmoded by the "greater light" and "higher understanding", which conversely, hasn't produced the same results, as did the ideas captured in the LoF. When was the last time a revelation was formally added to our collection of scripture? During the time when the LoF doctrine was commonplace among the saints, there were unprecedented spiritual outpourings (and ironically, the bulk of our standard works were produced during that time). I've always found that curious.
Of course the Church has a canon. Canon are those works that a Church has categorized as binding on them and chosen to use to define their beliefs. Canon is absolutely a thing.
I also have my personal canon (as does Shawn).

What making something officially canon or not doesn't do is change whether or not it's true, inspired, or from God.
Just because a revelation isn't canonized doesn't mean it's not from God. Just because a sermon doesn't make the grade doesn't make it less inspired. And not every document voted into canon has been inspired and was only binding by vote.

Canon doesn't impact divine origin in any way. It's just what was given the weight of organizational approval.
I agree that truth is truth regardless of how it is classified or bound together. And my understanding is similar to yours in the abstract. But back to the pragmatic.

What is your canon? To what standard do you measure future revelations or interpretations against?

And from my last point above... How do you reconcile the allegedly lacking faith of the early saints being able pierce the veil in so many ways against the greater light that we have not producing the same fruit at the same scale of those early years? Shouldn't the supposed greater light yield greater results?
Last edited by Dusty Wanderer on February 6th, 2023, 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JLHPROF
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1087

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by JLHPROF »

Dusty Wanderer wrote: February 6th, 2023, 11:58 am I just read this yesterday and thought of this thread. Does anyone know what year he said it?
“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods,” (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370)
This is from the Sermon in The Grove June 16, 1844 - Joseph's last discourse. That Shawn rejects in this thread. Joseph taught that the Holy Ghost was a personage and not the mind of God earlier as well. It's clear from this discourse that it was his work on the Book of Abraham that changed his views from the Lectures on Faith "mind of God" to the "personage".

"Everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth, and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth; these personages, according to Abraham’s record, are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the witness or Testator." (TPJS 190) May 1841

He also taught " “The Holy Ghost is now in a state of probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same or a similar course of things that the Son has.”
(The Words of Joseph Smith, p. 245) 27 August 1843

It's evident that regardless of what was in the Lectures on Faith by the 1840s Joseph taught repeatedly that the Holy Ghost was a person, not the mind of God.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4013

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by ransomme »

Shawn Henry wrote: February 4th, 2023, 10:57 am
marc wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 1:05 pm
How would you reconcile this with the event on the Mount of Transfiguration, for example, when Jesus took Peter, James, and John to meet with Elijah and Moses and they heard Jesus Christ's Father speak to them?

Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

After they fell to their faces, Moses and Elijah had departed as did Father in heaven who spoke through the cloud from above. There is no doubt in my mind that above them speaking from the Celestial Kingdom was Jesus Christ's Father-a separate and distinct person just like Joseph described in his sermon at the grove. I do understand and acknowledge your view although respectfully, I disagree.
Intelligence has the power over spiritual and physical matter, regardless of whether that matter is in the same location or not. Imagine a potter with his left hand on one wheel and his right hand on another.

Many eyewitness accounts of the spirit world claim this to be the case. I know subdividing your intelligence is a weird thought at first, but when you are as intelligent as God, I'm sure it's not an issue.

I don't expect to convince any of this though, I'll be happy enough if you simply store it away as a possibility.
It's not that it's not possible, more that it requires unnecessary complication and deception. And it doesn't fit with the greater patterns IMO.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

ransomme wrote: March 6th, 2023, 6:10 am
Shawn Henry wrote: February 4th, 2023, 10:57 am
marc wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 1:05 pm
How would you reconcile this with the event on the Mount of Transfiguration, for example, when Jesus took Peter, James, and John to meet with Elijah and Moses and they heard Jesus Christ's Father speak to them?

Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

After they fell to their faces, Moses and Elijah had departed as did Father in heaven who spoke through the cloud from above. There is no doubt in my mind that above them speaking from the Celestial Kingdom was Jesus Christ's Father-a separate and distinct person just like Joseph described in his sermon at the grove. I do understand and acknowledge your view although respectfully, I disagree.
Intelligence has the power over spiritual and physical matter, regardless of whether that matter is in the same location or not. Imagine a potter with his left hand on one wheel and his right hand on another.

Many eyewitness accounts of the spirit world claim this to be the case. I know subdividing your intelligence is a weird thought at first, but when you are as intelligent as God, I'm sure it's not an issue.

I don't expect to convince any of this though, I'll be happy enough if you simply store it away as a possibility.
It's not that it's not possible, more that it requires unnecessary complication and deception. And it doesn't fit with the greater patterns IMO.
I see the complication, but I don't see the deception. I'm sure God has explained it from the beginning, but when we as a people aren't ready to hear, there is no amount of explaining that will suffice.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

Dusty Wanderer wrote: February 6th, 2023, 11:58 am I just read this yesterday and thought of this thread. Does anyone know what year he said it?
“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods,” (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370)
JLHPROF wrote: February 6th, 2023, 12:32 pm This is from the Sermon in The Grove June 16, 1844 - Joseph's last discourse. That Shawn rejects in this thread.
Yes, of course, I reject it, because it is clearly a lie. Joseph produced and had canonized (twice) scripture that clearly says he didn't always teach that and that he had taught the exact opposite.

You don't have canonized in plain English that the HG is not a personage, but the mind of God, and then claim otherwise.

He signed the LoF attesting that he expected to held accountable for every doctrine advanced.

LoF has meet the Law of Witnesses and stood as canon throughout his ministry. Alleged teachings that Joseph did not witness and purposefully omitted as scripture should never even be considered as being scripture.

JLH, you may have your own canon, but my canon is the works that have met his criteria that he has established. The Lord works through proper channels. He does not bring forth canon through second hand witnesses and he does not contradict previous canon.

I challenge you to acknowledge that JS omitted any such teachings in the 1844 D&C.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4013

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by ransomme »

Shawn Henry wrote: March 6th, 2023, 11:24 am
ransomme wrote: March 6th, 2023, 6:10 am
Shawn Henry wrote: February 4th, 2023, 10:57 am
marc wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 1:05 pm
How would you reconcile this with the event on the Mount of Transfiguration, for example, when Jesus took Peter, James, and John to meet with Elijah and Moses and they heard Jesus Christ's Father speak to them?

Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

After they fell to their faces, Moses and Elijah had departed as did Father in heaven who spoke through the cloud from above. There is no doubt in my mind that above them speaking from the Celestial Kingdom was Jesus Christ's Father-a separate and distinct person just like Joseph described in his sermon at the grove. I do understand and acknowledge your view although respectfully, I disagree.
Intelligence has the power over spiritual and physical matter, regardless of whether that matter is in the same location or not. Imagine a potter with his left hand on one wheel and his right hand on another.

Many eyewitness accounts of the spirit world claim this to be the case. I know subdividing your intelligence is a weird thought at first, but when you are as intelligent as God, I'm sure it's not an issue.

I don't expect to convince any of this though, I'll be happy enough if you simply store it away as a possibility.
It's not that it's not possible, more that it requires unnecessary complication and deception. And it doesn't fit with the greater patterns IMO.
I see the complication, but I don't see the deception. I'm sure God has explained it from the beginning, but when we as a people aren't ready to hear, there is no amount of explaining that will suffice.
I think that it is a sweet doctrine, not a savory one. This is why the early church came up with the idea and decreed it in the 3rd to 4th centuries.

What people need to be prepared to understand is progression, and how the Son became the Father: what it means to be one in Jesus as He is one in the Father.

Post Reply