Does Elder Bednar understand the Lectures on Faith?

[Serragon]

A hundred or so years ago the church decided to take the Lectures out of the Doctrine and Covenants. Many people on this forum have a copy of their own. I bought mine on Amazon.

I was taught somewhere along the line that the Lectures were not relevant. Then I discovered LDSFF and had to find out for myself.

Elder Bednar quotes from the Lectures as if they are scripture, but somehow misses what they say.

What do you think?

As a direct answer to the OP's original question - Does ANYONE understand the Lectures on Faith, especially when compared to scripture promulgated by LDSCo?

I think if the scriptures consisted of just the 10 commandments and nothing else, there would still be endless confusion and discussion on what they actually "mean".

[Obrien]

A hundred or so years ago the church decided to take the Lectures out of the Doctrine and Covenants. Many people on this forum have a copy of their own. I bought mine on Amazon.

I was taught somewhere along the line that the Lectures were not relevant. Then I discovered LDSFF and had to find out for myself.

Elder Bednar quotes from the Lectures as if they are scripture, but somehow misses what they say.

What do you think?

As a direct answer to the OP's original question - Does ANYONE understand the Lectures on Faith, especially when compared to scripture promulgated by LDSCo?

I think if the scriptures consisted of just the 10 commandments and nothing else, there would still be endless confusion and discussion on what they actually "mean".

HA HA HA!!! ^^^^ is so true - I hadn't ruminated on the OP long enough to get to your pithy and perspicacious point (I am practicing my GA -speak today).

[JLHPROF]

A hundred or so years ago the church decided to take the Lectures out of the Doctrine and Covenants. Many people on this forum have a copy of their own. I bought mine on Amazon.

I was taught somewhere along the line that the Lectures were not relevant. Then I discovered LDSFF and had to find out for myself.

Elder Bednar quotes from the Lectures as if they are scripture, but somehow misses what they say.

What do you think?

As a direct answer to the OP's original question - Does ANYONE understand the Lectures on Faith, especially when compared to scripture promulgated by LDSCo?

I think if the scriptures consisted of just the 10 commandments and nothing else, there would still be endless confusion and discussion on what they actually "mean".

Human nature. We love to debate and we all have a hard time seeing other perspectives of the same facts.

[ransomme]

That would be one way to look at it.

But I think that we are still individuals. It's more like we can all understand truth the same way and work towards goals as one. Where we have an understanding and appreciation for one another like as we do for ourselves. So we aren't drones in a hive mind, rather we just have pure motivations with no guile or narcissism or selfishness. Yeah it's a foreign existence to us here and now. Ok so maybe we will just all be drinking to same Kool aid

Perhaps it's like a perfect body being made up of cells/individuals. Each cell does its own thing in harmony with the rest of the body. There are just no cancers, bacteria, viruses, etc.

Isn't that kind of what people describe in their NDEs. Love, harmony, etc. But those are probably just glimpses, not the entire reality to come.

Right!!! Not drones in a hive mind, but individual autonomous beings in a hive mind with all our agency still intact. We freely go and function according to the laws of agency while always maintaining that connection to the mind of God.

In a way, it's similar to taking the AI factor out of the current transhumanism movement and replacing it with the shared mind of God. Imagine functioning with a speed of thought connection to a spiritual internet. Not saying I believe it, but who knows.

Yeah who on Earth knows?

IDK, and it's bizarre to contemplate. I guess we'll see on the other side.

[Redpilled Mormon]

That would be one way to look at it.

But I think that we are still individuals. It's more like we can all understand truth the same way and work towards goals as one. Where we have an understanding and appreciation for one another like as we do for ourselves. So we aren't drones in a hive mind, rather we just have pure motivations with no guile or narcissism or selfishness. Yeah it's a foreign existence to us here and now. Ok so maybe we will just all be drinking to same Kool aid

Perhaps it's like a perfect body being made up of cells/individuals. Each cell does its own thing in harmony with the rest of the body. There are just no cancers, bacteria, viruses, etc.

Isn't that kind of what people describe in their NDEs. Love, harmony, etc. But those are probably just glimpses, not the entire reality to come.

Right!!! Not drones in a hive mind, but individual autonomous beings in a hive mind with all our agency still intact. We freely go and function according to the laws of agency while always maintaining that connection to the mind of God.

In a way, it's similar to taking the AI factor out of the current transhumanism movement and replacing it with the shared mind of God. Imagine functioning with a speed of thought connection to a spiritual internet. Not saying I believe it, but who knows.

Yeah who on Earth knows?

IDK, and it's bizarre to contemplate. I guess we'll see on the other side.

I don't think we'll be assimilated into a borg collective lol, but I would speculate that if everyone could read each other's minds and feel what the other guy is feeling, it would dramatically change and improve human interactions, without losing any individuality. That's just a guess though.

[Wolfwoman]

A hundred or so years ago the church decided to take the Lectures out of the Doctrine and Covenants. Many people on this forum have a copy of their own. I bought mine on Amazon.

I was taught somewhere along the line that the Lectures were not relevant. Then I discovered LDSFF and had to find out for myself.

Elder Bednar quotes from the Lectures as if they are scripture, but somehow misses what they say.

What do you think?

The LOF was removed as companion reading to the D&C in 1928 by GA Smith. He made other notable changes, one of which was saying that women could no longer give blessings. He also stopped baptisms for health.

Elder Bednar's statement that you must have faith not to be healed shows he does not understand faith. What a crock. The scriptures do not say that.

LOF was not a companion reading to the D&C. It was the DOCTRINE portion of the Doctrine and Covenants! We gave up the doctrine portion of the doctrine and covenants! But actually they became canon by a vote of the church and when they were removed they were not removed by a vote of the church. So I would say they are actually still canon. If we believe in the “by common consent” thing. But if you just believe in “the guys in charge decide everything”, then I guess they’re not.

[Shawn Henry]

LOF was not a companion reading to the D&C. It was the DOCTRINE portion of the Doctrine and Covenants! We gave up the doctrine portion of the doctrine and covenants! But actually they became canon by a vote of the church and when they were removed they were not removed by a vote of the church. So I would say they are actually still canon. If we believe in the “by common consent” thing. But if you just believe in “the guys in charge decide everything”, then I guess they’re not.

Yes indeed!!! Canon throughout Joseph's ministry. The scriptures that 99% of his followers reject as scripture.

[Niemand]

Has Bednar even read the Lectures on Faith?

[Contemplator]

Removing them from canon gave them all the option of picking and choosing what they want.

How many here on this forum actually consider them scripture as JS did, probably less than 5%.

How many believe God is a spirit, like LoF, the BoM, and the Bible say?

How many believe the Holy Ghost is not an actual person, but is the mind of God, just like the LoF say?

Your comments are right on point. One thing about the Holy Ghost, though. Lecture 5 does not mention the Holy Ghost. It describes the Holy Spirit as the mind of God. There is nothing in the lecture that definitively says the Holy Spirit = Holy Ghost. There are other scriptures that use both terms, Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit, as if they refer to different things. The thing described in Lecture 5 (Holy Spirit) sounds a lot like the spirit that is described in D&C 88. Not sure what the answer is, but it is worth thinking more about.

[Shawn Henry]

Removing them from canon gave them all the option of picking and choosing what they want.

How many here on this forum actually consider them scripture as JS did, probably less than 5%.

How many believe God is a spirit, like LoF, the BoM, and the Bible say?

How many believe the Holy Ghost is not an actual person, but is the mind of God, just like the LoF say?

Your comments are right on point. One thing about the Holy Ghost, though. Lecture 5 does not mention the Holy Ghost. It describes the Holy Spirit as the mind of God. There is nothing in the lecture that definitively says the Holy Spirit = Holy Ghost. There are other scriptures that use both terms, Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit, as if they refer to different things. The thing described in Lecture 5 (Holy Spirit) sounds a lot like the spirit that is described in D&C 88. Not sure what the answer is, but it is worth thinking more about.

There is much interchangeability between the two terms, and some may see differences, but the LoF specifically say it's a description of the Godhead. It is describing the third member, so any separation between the terms would exclude the other as not being part of the Godhead. That was the entire point of the lectures, to describe the Godhead. Since both are used in scripture to describe the Godhead, we have to assume LoF's description is showing them to be the same term. Some languages only have one word for both.