the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine

[marc]

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.

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

[gdemetz]

Where in D&C does it state that all matter is spirit? Also, I agree with many of the posts here. The scriptures, as well as Joseph Smith and other prophets have clearly taught that the Father has a tangible body of flesh and bone. Statements such as some quoted above should not be taken out of context, and perhaps they were incidences of someone misspeaking anyway. Joseph Smith even warned about teachings that were non scriptural. He even told people not to believe him if he misspoke and said something contrary to scripture.

[awake]

Joseph Smith even warned about teachings that were non scriptural. He even told people not to believe him if he misspoke and said something contrary to scripture.

I agree with you on this. I would really like to have the reference for his teaching on this, for I know Joseph believed even he had to teach according to the scriptures or we wouldn't be able to believe him to be a true prophet. Do you happen to know where to find his statement on this? Thanks.

[marc]

The scriptures, as well as Joseph Smith and other prophets have clearly taught that the Father has a tangible body of flesh and bone.

Correct. Also, keep in mind which Father is being described. This is another key. Jehovah, who is Jesus Christ, is the Father of all creation (remember the temple endowment) and we become His seed because of His atonement . Of course, even Jehovah has a Father in Heaven as Joseph Smith witnessed in his first vision. Understanding which Father is which (the flesh is subject to the spirit=the Son is subject to the Father/each of us is a tabernacle of flesh, in which our own spirits dwell) enables us to make these distinctions when reading the scriptures.

[Matthew.B]

Where in D&C does it state that all matter is spirit?

I reversed the order than the direct quotation from the D&C (131:7-8), which reads:

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

The essential doctrine is that "spiritual" and "physical" matter is the same but distinctly different- "spirit" is more refined and pure. Thus the building blocks of the spiritual and physical bodies are the same, on the tiniest level, but of different organizations and quantities. In this sense, all "physical" matter (to our understanding) is also "spiritual" matter- a fact reinforced by D&C 29:34, that asserts that to God (who is in possession of "purer eyes") "all things unto me are spiritual" and that He has never given a commandment that was "temporal"- despite dietary laws during the OT and our current dispensation. If dietary laws and laws regarding sleeping patterns cannot be considered "temporal" but "spiritual" to God, it stands to reason that the physical matter those laws deal with (food and the human body) are also "spiritual", in their nature, to God.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I opened Lectures on Faith last night, and the preface by John A. Widstoe contained an interesting quotation from History of the Church regarding the nature of the doctrine taught therein:

"These "Lectures on Theology" here referred to were afterwards prepared by the Prophet, (see page 180) and published in the Doctrine and Covenants under the title "Lectures on Faith." They are seven in number, and occupy the first seventy-five pages in the current editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. They are not to be regarded as of equal authority in matters of doctrine with the revelations of God in the Doctrine and Covenants, but as stated by Elder John Smith, who, when the book of Doctrine and Covenants was submitted to the several quorums of the Priesthood for acceptance, (August 17, 1835,) speaking in behalf of the Kirtland High council, "bore record that the revelations in said book were true, and that the lectures judicially were written and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine." The distinction which Elder John Smith here makes should be observed as a marking the difference between the Lectures on Faith and the revelations of God in the Doctrine and Covenants." (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 176)

It seems to me that the Lectures on Faith contain the distilled wisdom gained through the revelations and visions of God to Joseph Smith, should be held in high esteem, and quite possibly/probably should have been removed from being printed with the Doctrine and Covenants, thus leading to diminished stature among the members. However, it is too far a stretch to say they are on par with the revelations contained in the D&C, inasmuch as those revelations contain the exact words (or as close to possible) given to the prophet Joseph from the great Jehovah by divine revelation.

Despite my disagreement with the OP in that regard, I am still anxious to reread the Lectures and am looking forward to the list of 20 "lost" doctrines.

Edit: Formatting

[ATL Wake]

Bring it on! I'm in for the challenge!

[freedomforall]

Here is a post from Mar 2011 I submitted concerning "Official Church Doctrine."

There is a difference in "Doctrine" and Official Doctrine." The operative word is "official."

Taken from the website:
Mormons commonly assume official publications, policies, procedures, pronouncements, and pontifications are Official Doctrine. While they are necessary and important for the running of the Church, they don’t meet the standard Elder Roberts described above as something “…the Church is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted.”

More recently (2007) the Church issued a press release defining Official Doctrine as established by

The First Presidency … and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles… counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price).”

Think about it, there were a lot of Joseph Smith's revelations, talks and such that were voted on and became official church doctrine...this is where we got the Doctrine and Covenants and Joseph Smith's revision of the bible. HOWEVER, there are a lot of his inspirations that were never canonized. Therefore, were never accepted as scripture. I have such a booklet containing many of them.

Another example is "The Lectures On Faith." They were in the early publications of the D&C but were later removed because they were not accepted as canonized scripture. Yet we are told they are good for our learning and understanding, and should be studied. President Joseph Fielding Smith said: “These lectures are of great value and should be studied. . . I consider them to be of extreme value in the study of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” Bruce R. McConkie has classified the lectures as “some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all scholars.”

I have read them and think they are great. Besides, I followed President Smith's counsel to do so. I have read "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" because President Benson said to. Now I know a lot more about the Gads, and what to do.

What I'm saying here is: don't stop reading The Ensign and other publications. One has to determine what is official doctrine contained therein in order to not be tossed around by opinion. Let the scriptures be the guide. Likewise, we attend "Gospel Doctrine classes" to learn from "official church doctrine."

For instance, when I was coming back into church I bought and read "Believing Christ" by Steven E Robinson. That man did a lot for me in my quest for truth and understanding of the Atonement. His writings strengthened my resolve to change. His writings are in the Ensign, BUT, are not canonized scripture, right? "Mormon Doctrine" is not canonized scripture. Book after book we buy generally have included in the front...a disclaimer that states it is not official church doctrine in some form or another, but it's there.

Again, we must learn "doctrine"; we must discern the difference between "official church doctrine" and testimony.

The websites and quotes therein are not my writings. I found it interesting how church members blindly assume that everything a Prophet or any other GA is speaking is absolute, solid, official church doctrine. It is clear that they, too, are human and subject to error as is anyone else. That is why we are counseled to seek a personal witness. Come to think of it, what did Joseph Smith do?

[Matthew.B]

Think about it, there were a lot of Joseph Smith's revelations, talks and such that were voted on and became official church doctrine...this is where we got the Doctrine and Covenants and Joseph Smith's revision of the bible. HOWEVER, there are a lot of his inspirations that were never canonized. Therefore, were never accepted as scripture. I have such a booklet containing many of them.

Is there a title to this booklet? Is it in electronic form that you know of? Do tell...

[Rensai]

Bring it on! I'm in for the challenge!

Same goes for me.

[awake]

Taken from the website:
Mormons commonly assume official publications, policies, procedures, pronouncements, and pontifications are Official Doctrine. While they are necessary and important for the running of the Church, they don’t meet the standard Elder Roberts described above as something “…the Church is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted.”

More recently (2007) the Church issued a press release defining Official Doctrine as established by

The First Presidency … and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles… counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price).”

True, thus even the Church Handbook is not doctrine, and if it says something contrary to what the scriptures teach then the scriptures always trump it.

[freedomforall]

Think about it, there were a lot of Joseph Smith's revelations, talks and such that were voted on and became official church doctrine...this is where we got the Doctrine and Covenants and Joseph Smith's revision of the bible. HOWEVER, there are a lot of his inspirations that were never canonized. Therefore, were never accepted as scripture. I have such a booklet containing many of them.

Is there a title to this booklet? Is it in electronic form that you know of? Do tell...

From this thread there are a lot of website references: http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... =3&t=16472" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

See: http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploa ... ctrine.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[freedomforall]

Think about it, there were a lot of Joseph Smith's revelations, talks and such that were voted on and became official church doctrine...this is where we got the Doctrine and Covenants and Joseph Smith's revision of the bible. HOWEVER, there are a lot of his inspirations that were never canonized. Therefore, were never accepted as scripture. I have such a booklet containing many of them.

Is there a title to this booklet? Is it in electronic form that you know of? Do tell...

There is a two volume book set called "Unpublished Revelations" compiled by Fred C Collier. Volume One includes Lectures On Faith: http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/lectures_on_faith.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ithink]

Discernment seems to be in short supply here if this thread is any indication. Good grief people wake up! The wolves will have you for lunch..

Why do you need discernment to determine if what used to be taught is now no longer taught, or has been altered from what used to be taught?

Take tithing for instance, a popular topic on this forum: it is very clear and can be proved very easily that tithing is not taught as it once was. No discernment is required, just an ability to nod your head and admit it is true.

Take drinking for instance, where Joseph ordered a bottle the night before he died. We all know he rejected some alcohol when his leg was operated on (before the WoW existed), but do we all know he was "depressed" and wanted a drink with his friends before he died? And why could he do this? Because the WoW used to be out there "without constraint". Now, it is anything but. Simply put, it has changed.

There are two examples of things that have changed, and no discernment is required to acknowledge that they have.

So what was it you were trying to say?

[karend77]

Here is a link to a class offered in Texas by CES Institute, on the Lectures on Faith with talks by recent General Authorities.

http://www.ldsces.org/xml/iws/60500/Fal ... adings.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[awake]

Take drinking for instance, where Joseph ordered a bottle the night before he died. We all know he rejected some alcohol when his leg was operated on (before the WoW existed), but do we all know he was "depressed" and wanted a drink with his friends before he died? And why could he do this? Because the WoW used to be out there "without constraint". Now, it is anything but. Simply put, it has changed.

Yes, I have been wondering about this lately. Didn't even the Savior and Apostles drink wine, like with the Sacrament? How was that possible if he was perfect? I'm not quite understanding this one.

[gdemetz]

"THE FATHER HAS A BODY OF FLESH AND BONES AS TANGIBLE AS MAN'S. THE SON ALSO." That's correct now. All spirit is matter, but all matter is obviously not spirit.

[gruden2.0]

Take drinking for instance, where Joseph ordered a bottle the night before he died. We all know he rejected some alcohol when his leg was operated on (before the WoW existed), but do we all know he was "depressed" and wanted a drink with his friends before he died? And why could he do this? Because the WoW used to be out there "without constraint". Now, it is anything but. Simply put, it has changed.

Yes, I have been wondering about this lately. Didn't even the Savior and Apostles drink wine, like with the Sacrament? How was that possible if he was perfect? I'm not quite understanding this one.

How is it possible? He brought the cup to His lips and drank!

Wine has only been verboten since Heber J. Grant's administration. He was a tee-totaler. There actually used to be a winery in Utah owned by the church for purposes of the sacrament, since the Lord required the church to use wine of the members' own making.

When you think about it, wine is actually a superior symbol for the blood of Christ than water (blood is not clear - it's red!), and that is what was used for some time until Pres. Grant stopped the practice.

Wine was used at all times in the scriptures. It's only the last century it's been declared out of bounds. Something worth thinking about.

[gdemetz]

Are you sure that was a bottle of fermented wine? Anyway, the quote by Joseph Smith which I was asked for is from the Times and Seasons of April 1, 1844 (I assume that it was no April fools joke.):

"If any man writes to you, or preaches to you, doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Doctrine and Covenants, set him down as an imposter."

I am not trying to state here that any true prophet or apostle would be an imposter, but they may, when not speaking in the true spirit of revelation, also be wrong.

[soloheart]

To Etherial Blue,

Though I agree that Lectures on faith is inspired word, I do not agree President Grant and his counselors were misguided enough to remove it from the canon. You assume unreliably on what went thru in the minds of those leaders at a time to cause it to be removed. I think you are disguised as a wolf in a sheep skin in order to plant a seed of none-confidence in the heads of the Church. Follow the majority of the First presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, then all of us will not be deceived.

So either you are disguised or being deceived. Lectures on Faith is still available for those who ask, knock, and seek. What if it was removed to avoid condemnation on the Church as a whole? And only those with eye and ear, could find it and the rest is spared from condemnation which condemnation comes by ignoring this light and truth.

[awake]

Are you sure that was a bottle of fermented wine? Anyway, the quote by Joseph Smith which I was asked for is from the Times and Seasons of April 1, 1844 (I assume that it was no April fools joke.):

"If any man writes to you, or preaches to you, doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Doctrine and Covenants, set him down as an imposter."

Thanks so much for the reference.

[soloheart]

This has Lectures on Faith in several different langauges as well as other books: http://ldstranslations.org/

[freedomforall]

Well, don't hold your breath on my account. I know there is a place in LoF where it defines the Father is a personage of spirit, glory and power and in D&C it clearly states that He has a body of flesh and bones. There's a lot of history here that goes with the Lectures and right now, my studies are focused elsewhere. I'm finishing up the Book of Mormon again, still getting through Jesus the Christ and my studies of Isaiah.

Coach, that was the part I was trying to refer to/remember in one of my posts above - the God is spirit part.

I have not read this, however, since it has been brought to our attention as to God being spirit, perhaps this may bring some insight.

Four Accounts and Three Critiques of Joseph Smith’s First Vision
http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences ... rst-vision" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[awake]

To Etherial Blue,

Though I agree that Lectures on faith is inspired word, I do not agree President Grant and his counselors were misguided enough to remove it from the canon. You assume unreliably on what went thru in the minds of those leaders at a time to cause it to be removed. I think you are disguised as a wolf in a sheep skin in order to plant a seed of none-confidence in the heads of the Church. Follow the majority of the First presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, then all of us will not be deceived.

No one is a wolf just because they question things that leaders do or say or even if they disagree with what leaders do or say.

It is a very righteous and wise act to question everything and think and study for ourselves. Blind obedience is not righteousness.

I believe that it's at least possible for the majority of the Twelve and the First Presidency to fall. For at least half, if not more, of the original apostles in Joseph Smith's day were excommunicated or fell.

[soloheart]

Here is a link to a class offered in Texas by CES Institute, on the Lectures on Faith with talks by recent General Authorities.

http://www.ldsces.org/xml/iws/60500/Fal ... adings.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you Karend77. This awesome.

Here is Lectures on Faith in other languages: http://ldstranslations.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; For example, Russian one is complete. Spanish one is being underway, etc.

[freedomforall]

To Etherial Blue,

Though I agree that Lectures on faith is inspired word, I do not agree President Grant and his counselors were misguided enough to remove it from the canon. You assume unreliably on what went thru in the minds of those leaders at a time to cause it to be removed. I think you are disguised as a wolf in a sheep skin in order to plant a seed of none-confidence in the heads of the Church. Follow the majority of the First presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, then all of us will not be deceived.

No one is a wolf just because they question things that leaders do or say or even if they disagree with what leaders do or say.

It is a very righteous and wise act to question everything and think and study for ourselves. Blind obedience is not righteousness.

I believe that it's at least possible for the majority of the Twelve and the First Presidency to fall. For at least half, if not more, of the original apostles in Joseph Smith's day were excommunicated or fell.

This point has been made several times, yet seems to still be under debate. Thanks for your post.