satan's plan

[Artaxerxes]

Was JS mistaken when he taught that the Holy Ghost was a personage?

Whether he did or didn't is irrelevant. The point is, he published the Lectures on Faith as the 'doctrine' portion of the D&C. He testified of it and so did two other PSR's.

He also taught that we measure doctrine according to scripture and that you recognize a false doctrine or false revelation by it contradicting previous revelation.

So by his own standard, even he himself cannot contradict scripture. If anyone is teaching contrary to LoF, they are teaching false doctrine. That is the standard the Lord gave us through JS.

It matters that he supported one idea, but okay to disregard that he later corrected himself?

We should compare it to revelation. The lectures on faith were not a revelation.

You are misapplying that standard.

[darknesstolight]

You still have to ignore half the scriptures to de-personify the Holy Ghost

No, you don't because the HG is still the mind of God and God is still a person.

The God - The King is coming here. Don't miss it.

Lol!

...

[darknesstolight]

Was JS mistaken when he taught that the Holy Ghost was a personage?

Whether he did or didn't is irrelevant. The point is, he published the Lectures on Faith as the 'doctrine' portion of the D&C. He testified of it and so did two other PSR's.

He also taught that we measure doctrine according to scripture and that you recognize a false doctrine or false revelation by it contradicting previous revelation.

So by his own standard, even he himself cannot contradict scripture. If anyone is teaching contrary to LoF, they are teaching false doctrine. That is the standard the Lord gave us through JS.

It matters that he supported one idea, but okay to disregard that he later corrected himself?

We should compare it to revelation. The lectures on faith were not a revelation.

You are misapplying that standard.

The Spirit bears witness that they are revelation. Our early mothers and fathers certainly treated it as most sacred revelation.

Only loyalty to current leadership causes man to doubt the true words of Spirit in the LoF.

...

[Artaxerxes]

Was JS mistaken when he taught that the Holy Ghost was a personage?

Whether he did or didn't is irrelevant. The point is, he published the Lectures on Faith as the 'doctrine' portion of the D&C. He testified of it and so did two other PSR's.

He also taught that we measure doctrine according to scripture and that you recognize a false doctrine or false revelation by it contradicting previous revelation.

So by his own standard, even he himself cannot contradict scripture. If anyone is teaching contrary to LoF, they are teaching false doctrine. That is the standard the Lord gave us through JS.

It matters that he supported one idea, but okay to disregard that he later corrected himself?

We should compare it to revelation. The lectures on faith were not a revelation.

You are misapplying that standard.

The Spirit bears witness that they are revelation. Our early mothers and fathers certainly treated it as most sacred revelation.

Only loyalty to current leadership causes man to doubt the true words of Spirit in the LoF.

...

So you're just full on putting words in Joseph's mouth now? He never claimed they were revelations. It was always clear that they were merely lectures, and contrasted that from the second part which WERE revelations.

They did not treat it as a revelation. They treated it as lectures.

[Shawn Henry]

We should compare it to revelation. The lectures on faith were not a revelation.

I never said LoF were revelation. I said they were scripture.

No, we shouldn't compare it to revelation. The canonized scriptures are our standard, not revelation.

All revelation must comport with scripture. That is the standard set forth in scripture. LoF were the scriptural standard that Joseph set and never changed throughout his ministry.

Ask yourself this. What did Joseph choose in the 1844 edition of the D&C. Did he choose to keep LoF as the standard? Yes. Did he choose to include section 130? No, he did not.

[darknesstolight]

Whether he did or didn't is irrelevant. The point is, he published the Lectures on Faith as the 'doctrine' portion of the D&C. He testified of it and so did two other PSR's.

He also taught that we measure doctrine according to scripture and that you recognize a false doctrine or false revelation by it contradicting previous revelation.

So by his own standard, even he himself cannot contradict scripture. If anyone is teaching contrary to LoF, they are teaching false doctrine. That is the standard the Lord gave us through JS.

It matters that he supported one idea, but okay to disregard that he later corrected himself?

We should compare it to revelation. The lectures on faith were not a revelation.

You are misapplying that standard.

The Spirit bears witness that they are revelation. Our early mothers and fathers certainly treated it as most sacred revelation.

Only loyalty to current leadership causes man to doubt the true words of Spirit in the LoF.

...

So you're just full on putting words in Joseph's mouth now? He never claimed they were revelations. It was always clear that they were merely lectures, and contrasted that from the second part which WERE revelations.

They did not treat it as a revelation. They treated it as lectures.

The Spirit bears witness that they are revelation. Our early mothers and fathers certainly treated it as most sacred revelation.

Only loyalty to current leadership causes man to doubt the true words of Spirit in the LoF.

...

[Shawn Henry]

They treated it as lectures.

No they did not treat it as lectures. They treated it as holy scripture, as part of their canon. They treated it as doctrine and even called it the doctrine portion of the D&C.

Do you understand that significance? It was the "doctrine" portion of our scripture!

[Hogmeister]

God's plan circumscribes satan's plan. God is using satan's plan in his own optimal plan.

[Hogmeister]

It matters that he supported one idea, but okay to disregard that he later corrected himself?

We should compare it to revelation. The lectures on faith were not a revelation.

You are misapplying that standard.

The Spirit bears witness that they are revelation. Our early mothers and fathers certainly treated it as most sacred revelation.

Only loyalty to current leadership causes man to doubt the true words of Spirit in the LoF.

...

So you're just full on putting words in Joseph's mouth now? He never claimed they were revelations. It was always clear that they were merely lectures, and contrasted that from the second part which WERE revelations.

They did not treat it as a revelation. They treated it as lectures.

The Spirit bears witness that they are revelation. Our early mothers and fathers certainly treated it as most sacred revelation.

Only loyalty to current leadership causes man to doubt the true words of Spirit in the LoF.

...

I have studied LoF many times and researched about them. I find they have much value in them. However, I believe it was a good call to remove them from the canon/standard works. I find it likely they were at least partly written and influenced by the Christian tradition of Sidney Rigdon. I believe JS was weary of correcting everyone all the time as it inevitably put people off. I believe there are things in the LoF I feel JS let slip in order to preserve peace and good will.

[Luke]

The Spirit bears witness that they are revelation. Our early mothers and fathers certainly treated it as most sacred revelation.

Only loyalty to current leadership causes man to doubt the true words of Spirit in the LoF.

...

So you're just full on putting words in Joseph's mouth now? He never claimed they were revelations. It was always clear that they were merely lectures, and contrasted that from the second part which WERE revelations.

They did not treat it as a revelation. They treated it as lectures.

The Spirit bears witness that they are revelation. Our early mothers and fathers certainly treated it as most sacred revelation.

Only loyalty to current leadership causes man to doubt the true words of Spirit in the LoF.

...

I have studied LoF many times and researched about them. I find they have much value in them. However, I believe it was a good call to remove them from the canon/standard works. I find it likely they were at least partly written and influenced by the Christian tradition of Sidney Rigdon. I believe JS was weary of correcting everyone all the time as it inevitably put people off. I believe there are things in the LoF I feel JS let slip in order to preserve peace and good will.

“Our school for the Elders was now well attended, and with the lectures on theology, which were regularly delivered, absorbed for the time being everything else of a temporal nature. The classes, being mostly Elders gave the most studious attention to the all-important object of qualifying themselves as messengers of Jesus Christ, to be ready to do His will in carrying glad tidings to all that would open their eyes, ears and hearts.” (Joseph Smith, DHC 2:175-176, 1 December 1834)

“During the month of January, I was engaged in the school of the Elders, and in preparing the lectures on theology for publication in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, which the committee appointed last September were now compiling.” (Joseph Smith, DHC 2:180, January 1835)

“We deem it to be unnecessary to entertain you with a lengthy preface to the following volume, but merely to say, that it contains in short, the leading items of the religion which we have professed to believe. The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work. * * * We do not present this little volume with any other expectation than that we are to be called to answer to every principle advanced, in that day when the secrets of all hearts will be revealed, and the reward of every man's labor be given him.” (Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams, Lectures on Faith, Preface, 17 February 1835)

“Elder John Smith, taking the lead of the High Council in Kirtland, bore record that the revelations in said book were true, and that the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled and were profitable for doctrine; whereupon the High Council of Kirtland accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.” (DHC 2:244, 17 August 1835; Messenger and Advocate 1:161)

“The Lectures on Faith were published with the sanction and approval of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and we do not feel that it is desirable to make any alteration in that regard, at any rate, not at present.” (John Taylor, Letter to Orson Pratt, 25 April 1879, CHL)

[Luke]

They did not treat it as a revelation. They treated it as lectures.

So the Lectures on Faith (written by the Spirit of inspiration, approved by Joseph Smith, published as Scripture) were not revelation, but the whims of the modern leaders (which are constantly changing) are revelations?

This is just ridiculous.

I really hate to just pile on insults, but you guys are so full of sh!t and you can't even see it. It's just sad.

[Luke]

The Holy Ghost is:

1. The Mind of God
2. A Personage
3. Many Personages

It is all three.

This is so clear from Scripture and JS' teachings I can't understand why people get so defensive over only one of these truths.

The Mind of God is delivered to mankind via many personages (since there are so many to minister to) and one stands at the head of them all.

So simple to understand.

Angels speak by the office of the Holy Ghost, and they speak the words (the mind) of Christ.

[darknesstolight]

The Spirit bears witness that they are revelation. Our early mothers and fathers certainly treated it as most sacred revelation.

Only loyalty to current leadership causes man to doubt the true words of Spirit in the LoF.

...

So you're just full on putting words in Joseph's mouth now? He never claimed they were revelations. It was always clear that they were merely lectures, and contrasted that from the second part which WERE revelations.

They did not treat it as a revelation. They treated it as lectures.

The Spirit bears witness that they are revelation. Our early mothers and fathers certainly treated it as most sacred revelation.

Only loyalty to current leadership causes man to doubt the true words of Spirit in the LoF.

...

I have studied LoF many times and researched about them. I find they have much value in them. However, I believe it was a good call to remove them from the canon/standard works. I find it likely they were at least partly written and influenced by the Christian tradition of Sidney Rigdon. I believe JS was weary of correcting everyone all the time as it inevitably put people off. I believe there are things in the LoF I feel JS let slip in order to preserve peace and good will.

I hear you. I used to believe the same thing because I was told to believe it by my leaders and I wanted to be loyal to them.

However I changed my mind because...

The Spirit bears witness that they are revelation. Our early mothers and fathers certainly treated it as most sacred revelation.

...

[darknesstolight]

God's plan circumscribes satan's plan. God is using satan's plan in his own optimal plan.

This be true.

...

[Artaxerxes]

They did not treat it as a revelation. They treated it as lectures.

So the Lectures on Faith (written by the Spirit of inspiration, approved by Joseph Smith, published as Scripture) were not revelation, but the whims of the modern leaders (which are constantly changing) are revelations?

This is just ridiculous.

I really hate to just pile on insults, but you guys are so full of sh!t and you can't even see it. It's just sad.

I mean, I'd you just make up things, I guess you can find a conflict anywhere....

[Luke]

They did not treat it as a revelation. They treated it as lectures.

So the Lectures on Faith (written by the Spirit of inspiration, approved by Joseph Smith, published as Scripture) were not revelation, but the whims of the modern leaders (which are constantly changing) are revelations?

This is just ridiculous.

I really hate to just pile on insults, but you guys are so full of sh!t and you can't even see it. It's just sad.

I mean, I'd you just make up things, I guess you can find a conflict anywhere....

What have I made up?

[Artaxerxes]

They treated it as lectures.

No they did not treat it as lectures. They treated it as holy scripture, as part of their canon. They treated it as doctrine and even called it the doctrine portion of the D&C.

Do you understand that significance? It was the "doctrine" portion of our scripture!

Well at least you've given up your unsupportable claim that it was a revelation, so that's progress.

You:They didn't treat them as lectures!

The book itself:

Screenshot_20220801-074951.png (300.42 KiB) Viewed 384 times

[Artaxerxes]

They did not treat it as a revelation. They treated it as lectures.

So the Lectures on Faith (written by the Spirit of inspiration, approved by Joseph Smith, published as Scripture) were not revelation, but the whims of the modern leaders (which are constantly changing) are revelations?

This is just ridiculous.

I really hate to just pile on insults, but you guys are so full of sh!t and you can't even see it. It's just sad.

I mean, I'd you just make up things, I guess you can find a conflict anywhere....

What have I made up?

"but the whims of the modern leaders (which are constantly changing) are revelations"

[Artaxerxes]

We should compare it to revelation. The lectures on faith were not a revelation.

I never said LoF were revelation. I said they were scripture.

No, we shouldn't compare it to revelation. The canonized scriptures are our standard, not revelation.

All revelation must comport with scripture. That is the standard set forth in scripture. LoF were the scriptural standard that Joseph set and never changed throughout his ministry.

Ask yourself this. What did Joseph choose in the 1844 edition of the D&C. Did he choose to keep LoF as the standard? Yes. Did he choose to include section 130? No, he did not.

When you stated: "He also taught that we measure doctrine according to scripture and that you recognize a false doctrine or false revelation by it contradicting previous revelation.

So by his own standard, even he himself cannot contradict scripture"
you were clearly implying that the LoF were a revelation. Otherwise, the test of measuring against previous revelations really wouldn't have any bearing on this discussion.

[Luke]

So the Lectures on Faith (written by the Spirit of inspiration, approved by Joseph Smith, published as Scripture) were not revelation, but the whims of the modern leaders (which are constantly changing) are revelations?

This is just ridiculous.

I really hate to just pile on insults, but you guys are so full of sh!t and you can't even see it. It's just sad.

I mean, I'd you just make up things, I guess you can find a conflict anywhere....

What have I made up?

"but the whims of the modern leaders (which are constantly changing) are revelations"

But this is true. The changing whims of the modern leaders (the word "Mormon" and the policy concerning baptising the children of homosexuals comes to mind) are touted as revelations when they very evidently aren't.

And the fact that you clearly value said changing whims more than the sublime Lectures on Faith is a total disgrace.

[Artaxerxes]

I mean, I'd you just make up things, I guess you can find a conflict anywhere....

What have I made up?

"but the whims of the modern leaders (which are constantly changing) are revelations"

But this is true. The changing whims of the modern leaders (the word "Mormon" and the policy concerning baptising the children of homosexuals comes to mind) are touted as revelations when they very evidently aren't.

And the fact that you clearly value said changing whims more than the sublime Lectures on Faith is a total disgrace.

Doubling down on making things up doesn't suddenly make them true.

[Luke]

What have I made up?

"but the whims of the modern leaders (which are constantly changing) are revelations"

But this is true. The changing whims of the modern leaders (the word "Mormon" and the policy concerning baptising the children of homosexuals comes to mind) are touted as revelations when they very evidently aren't.

And the fact that you clearly value said changing whims more than the sublime Lectures on Faith is a total disgrace.

Doubling down on making things up doesn't suddenly make them true.

Then show me where God said these things.

[Artaxerxes]

"but the whims of the modern leaders (which are constantly changing) are revelations"

But this is true. The changing whims of the modern leaders (the word "Mormon" and the policy concerning baptising the children of homosexuals comes to mind) are touted as revelations when they very evidently aren't.

And the fact that you clearly value said changing whims more than the sublime Lectures on Faith is a total disgrace.

Doubling down on making things up doesn't suddenly make them true.

Then show me where God said these things.

That the Lord said the LoF? I can't. That's the point

[Luke]

But this is true. The changing whims of the modern leaders (the word "Mormon" and the policy concerning baptising the children of homosexuals comes to mind) are touted as revelations when they very evidently aren't.

And the fact that you clearly value said changing whims more than the sublime Lectures on Faith is a total disgrace.

Doubling down on making things up doesn't suddenly make them true.

Then show me where God said these things.

That the Lord said the LoF? I can't. That's the point

I never claimed that the Lord specifically said that the Lectures on Faith were revelations. There's nowhere that I know of where He explicitly said those words.

However, I have claimed that Joseph Smith and others vouched for the Lectures and that they were written under the influence of the Holy Ghost.

You on the other hand no doubt maintain that these recent policy changes are based on revelation given your absolute unwavering devotion to the leaders.

You are the one who is under the burden of providing evidence to prove your point.

[Artaxerxes]

Doubling down on making things up doesn't suddenly make them true.

Then show me where God said these things.

That the Lord said the LoF? I can't. That's the point

I never claimed that the Lord specifically said that the Lectures on Faith were revelations. There's nowhere that I know of where He explicitly said those words.

However, I have claimed that Joseph Smith and others vouched for the Lectures and that they were written under the influence of the Holy Ghost.

You on the other hand no doubt maintain that these recent policy changes are based on revelation given your absolute unwavering devotion to the leaders.

You are the one who is under the burden of providing evidence to prove your point.

Joseph saying "I was engaged in the school of the Elders, and in preparing the lectures on theology for publication " is code for "written under the influence of the Holy Ghost"?

I have the burden of proving a point you made up?