Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5868
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by TheDuke »

Shawn Henry wrote: February 1st, 2023, 10:08 am
On the line here, we have Lectures on Faith that state God the Father is a "personage of spirit" and the Holy Ghost is the mind of God versus section 130 that claims God the Father has a body of flesh and bones and that the Holy Ghost is an actual person.
I guess I am extremely confused at the disconnect?

As far as the father being spirit, it says it in the D&C as well. We are all spirit. It says that as well. We were spirit before we became a soul (spirit and flesh). Everything is spirit, nothing is temporal. Every where we turn the scriptures say every thing, and every one is spirit. Yet we are also physical. I don't see the conflict. W/o spirit there is no life. W/o physical body there is not living thing. Of course the father is spirit. but the father is also physical, just like us (conceptually, but a perfect body and more advanced spirit). If you cannot see this then you don't accept any of JS teachings, even those of Abraham.

As far as the HG being the mind of god, that is also pretty obvious. It is BTW figurative. the brain of the father is not the HG, Duh! The HG is a being that shares the mind of god. BTW it says "god" not the Father, there is a difference. We obtain the mind or will or desire or truths of god when we communicate via the HG. We are told this is the light of truth. All truth comes from god, the light of truth communicates all truth to us from god. HG gives us the mind and will of god via the light of truth. Read 88 & 93 it is all consistent.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

marc wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 11:40 am Yes. Father=creator. Son=created. Father=Spirit. Son=flesh. All things were created by Him who is the Father and who took upon himself flesh, a creation. This is Jesus Christ/Jehovah. We haven't yet touched upon His Father, though. We are concerning ourselves only with how Jesus is both Father and Son.

Father is a personage of spirit, flesh, bone, glory. When one keeps an estate and is continually added upon, previous estates do not cease to exist. Thus is our spirit clothed in flesh and will soon be added upon as we become clothed in glory, one estate adding to the previous.
I like how you wrote that and I agree. However, we still have the sticky problem of a "personage of spirit" taking upon himself a "personage of tabernacle" and then laying down that "personage of tabernacle" and then resurrect with flesh and bone and still refer to himself as a "personage of spirit" just as the beginning. Perhaps it is something as simple as saying that the spirit is the master and the true self, and the flesh is simply like putting on a suit. Idk, but it's nice to ponder these things.

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10354
Contact:

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by marc »

I don't have a sticky problem with it. A tabernacle is just a dwelling for the spirit. It's a type of estate.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

TheDuke wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 11:42 am It is BTW figurative. the brain of the father is not the HG, Duh! The HG is a being that shares the mind of god.
No, it specifically says the opposite. It says there are two personages in the Godhead. The HG is not a personage. LoF says it is the mind of God.

Read Marc posts, he has a gift for explaining it better than I do.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5868
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by TheDuke »

Shawn Henry wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 12:33 pm
TheDuke wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 11:42 am It is BTW figurative. the brain of the father is not the HG, Duh! The HG is a being that shares the mind of god.
No, it specifically says the opposite. It says there are two personages in the Godhead. The HG is not a personage. LoF says it is the mind of God.

Read Marc posts, he has a gift for explaining it better than I do.
thanks but I don't need the make up and attributes of the godhead or gods in general to be explained to me. What I was trying to discuss is the "terminology" and what is figurative and what is "literal". If that is not your intent to understand then I have nothing to contribute here. Especially given The father, the son, the holy ghost, the 12 apostles, and I are all one......... as Jesus said in the NT

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

marc wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 12:33 pm I don't have a sticky problem with it. A tabernacle is just a dwelling for the spirit. It's a type of estate.
Yes, you understand it well enough, but I still submit that section 130 is not from God because it a twisted truth that is incorrectly written. It gives the members the false impression that the flesh is the apex of advancement, well above spirit, as if flesh could be above spirit. God calling himself a personage of spirit lets us know that the spirit is above the flesh. One takes our thought process in the right direction and the other does not.

130 also implies that you are locked into whatever body you have at the time of resurrection, which I think is backwards. As I see it, once your spirit is advanced enough, it can, at the speed of thought, take the form of any one of their previous incarnations and probably any physical form they choose and if you choose, your spirit can shed its physical form at will to return to only being spirit for whatever reasons there are.

I'm not hard set on these ideas and I'm open to your feedback.

An Eye Single
captain of 100
Posts: 185

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by An Eye Single »

Shawn Henry wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 10:37 am
An Eye Single wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 10:06 am Words have multiple definitions. Any confusion or seeming contradictions about this topic were cleared up for me once I realized that I had to apply different definitions of the same word to different scriptures and LoF. “Father” means different things in different places. So does “Son.” So does “Holy Ghost.”

Once you use the correct definition in the correct context, any contradictions between the scriptures in D&C 130 and LoF vanish.
So, you just twist the context to suit your preconceived desires?
Well, no. :)

I think it would be better to say that we have to consider different definitions for these words to better understand the contexts in which each of them is used—each context teaching us a different aspect of God and of the process by which we learn about him and become more like him. Those words can be used when God is trying to teach us about himself, and they can be used when he is trying to teach us about the process, and it’s good to know when he is teaching us about each one as opposed to the other.

We process words and their definitions in terms of context all the time in our everyday language, without even thinking about it most of the time. When a word used in a conversation has more than one definition, we immediately bring to our conscious mind the definition that best fits the context. And I get that it’s totally possible to try to fit square pegs into round holes. Human beings are really good at doing that. However, there isn’t anything wrong with applying different definitions to different contexts when specific definitions render overall meanings plain, reasonable, and edifying.
Personage of spirit and body of flesh and bone are opposites. One has to be wrong.
Not if there are multiple definitions for “Father.”
Also, you fail to address the fact that section 130 misses all established criteria for canonization. Why give contextual consideration in the first place?
Canonization is just the result of common consent. There are benefits to that. There are also drawbacks. But regardless, even if section 130 wasn’t part of LDS canon, I have found it to be very helpful in understanding both God and his work and glory.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

TheDuke wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 12:38 pm thanks but I don't need the make up and attributes of the godhead or gods in general to be explained to me. What I was trying to discuss is the "terminology" and what is figurative and what is "literal". If that is not your intent to understand then I have nothing to contribute here. Especially given The father, the son, the holy ghost, the 12 apostles, and I are all one......... as Jesus said in the NT
That is my intent, so let's talk figurative versus literal and maybe you can tell me how this could be figurative and not literal.

Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead?
A. Two: the Father and the Son.

That's a direct quote from LoF. How is that not literal? There's no figurative there. You can't get more literal than that.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

An Eye Single wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 12:51 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 10:37 am
An Eye Single wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 10:06 am Words have multiple definitions. Any confusion or seeming contradictions about this topic were cleared up for me once I realized that I had to apply different definitions of the same word to different scriptures and LoF. “Father” means different things in different places. So does “Son.” So does “Holy Ghost.”

Once you use the correct definition in the correct context, any contradictions between the scriptures in D&C 130 and LoF vanish.
So, you just twist the context to suit your preconceived desires?
Well, no. :)

I think it would be better to say that we have to consider different definitions for these words to better understand the contexts in which each of them is used—each context teaching us a different aspect of God and of the process by which we learn about him and become more like him. Those words can be used when God is trying to teach us about himself, and they can be used when he is trying to teach us about the process, and it’s good to know when he is teaching us about each one as opposed to the other.

We process words and their definitions in terms of context all the time in our everyday language, without even thinking about it most of the time. When a word used in a conversation has more than one definition, we immediately bring to our conscious mind the definition that best fits the context. And I get that it’s totally possible to try to fit square pegs into round holes. Human beings are really good at doing that. However, there isn’t anything wrong with applying different definitions to different contexts when specific definitions render overall meanings plain, reasonable, and edifying.
Personage of spirit and body of flesh and bone are opposites. One has to be wrong.
Not if there are multiple definitions for “Father.”
Also, you fail to address the fact that section 130 misses all established criteria for canonization. Why give contextual consideration in the first place?
Canonization is just the result of common consent. There are benefits to that. There are also drawbacks. But regardless, even if section 130 wasn’t part of LDS canon, I have found it to be very helpful in understanding both God and his work and glory.
I agree with what you said above about context, thanks for taking the time to type that out.

Please expound upon multiple definitions of "Father", I'd love to hear how you incorporate that.

Canonization is more than just common consent. All throughout scripture the Lord emphasizes the importance of his word being established by two or three witnesses. This is our key to avoiding deception. It is very important to remember that JS never claimed 130 to be a revelation and purposefully rejected it for inclusion into the 1884 D&C.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4014

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by ransomme »

Shawn Henry wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:49 am Just throwing in relevant cut and paste from Being There about how Jesus is God the Father.

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."
John 4:24

God - is a spirit, and came down in the Flesh - who is the son - Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is God the Father - the Son - and the Holy Ghost - being 1 person -
as these scriptures I've posted testify.


Doctrine and Covenants 20:28,

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God,
infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

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.


Ether 4
12 And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. I am the same that leadeth men to all good; he that will not believe my words will not believe me—that I am; and he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. For behold,
I am the Father,
I am the light, and the life, and the truth of the world.



2 Nephi 32
3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.

If angels "speak the words of Christ "- "by the power of the Holy Ghost",
and "will tell you all things what ye should do"
then the "words of Christ" must be His spirit - the Holy Ghost -
that "will tell you all things what ye should do"




and if by saying "I AM THE FATHER"
doesn't mean
"I AM THE FATHER"
then English has become useless.

Ether 4
12 And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. I am the same that leadeth men to all good; he that will not believe my words will not believe me—that I am; and he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. For behold,
I am the Father,
I am the light, and the life, and the truth of the world.


and if by saying
"God himself shall come down among the children of men"
doesn't mean
"God himself shall come down among the children of men"
then again, English has become useless.

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.
It's true that our language is not pure and undefiled, but it is also true that it is not useless. Simply, there is a deeper meaning to the words. It means that its depths need to be explored. IMO to understand the nature of God one has to explore things like love, oneness, express image, agency, the covenants, the patterns, and much more.

Just look at your big font statements:

I am the Father, I am the light, and the life, and the truth of the world.

That does not say I am the God the Father, the Most High God. It's talking about Jesus as God the Creator of the world, about Jesus as God who is the Father (author and finisher) of our faith, about Jesus as God our King, the advocate before the Father the Most High God, etc. I think that the differences between the Father and Son are understandable and fitting.

God himself shall come down among the children of men,
and shall redeem his people.


As established already, Jesus is also God.

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10354
Contact:

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by marc »

Shawn Henry wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 12:49 pm
marc wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 12:33 pm I don't have a sticky problem with it. A tabernacle is just a dwelling for the spirit. It's a type of estate.
Yes, you understand it well enough, but I still submit that section 130 is not from God because it a twisted truth that is incorrectly written. It gives the members the false impression that the flesh is the apex of advancement, well above spirit, as if flesh could be above spirit. God calling himself a personage of spirit lets us know that the spirit is above the flesh. One takes our thought process in the right direction and the other does not.

130 also implies that you are locked into whatever body you have at the time of resurrection, which I think is backwards. As I see it, once your spirit is advanced enough, it can, at the speed of thought, take the form of any one of their previous incarnations and probably any physical form they choose and if you choose, your spirit can shed its physical form at will to return to only being spirit for whatever reasons there are.

I'm not hard set on these ideas and I'm open to your feedback.
I don't see the flesh as the apex of advancement nor do I know anybody who believes this. I explained this in my PDF essay. Let's look at the following scripture about Jehovah/Jesus's manifestation to the brother of Jared:

Ether 3:14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

After Jesus Christ became mortal (flesh and blood) and died, he was resurrected with an immortal body (flesh and bone-no more blood). Thereafter, Jesus was clothed in glory (body of burnings). Even after His resurrection, He could appear to His disciples in a closed room. He entered without needing to use the door. So being a God consisting of spirit, flesh, bone, and glory means a refined being can pass through any coarse, crude material of this Telestial sphere. Some might even call this vibrating at a higher frequency, but that's another subject altogether.

Many people still get hung up on the Lectures on Faith teaching that there are only two personages in the Godhead, but that's not what it states. It states:

"There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space..."

Another way of saying this is ALL THINGS that were made were created by two personages. For the sake of this discussion, we'll call them Jehovah and Elohim. This makes the temple endowment more relatable. So saying that all things were made by two members of the Godhead is not the same as saying there are only two members of the Godhead. The lectures are contextualizing two members with relation to all things that were created. As a matter of fact, at the bottom of this lecture the Holy Ghost is acknowledged:

"Question 15: Do the Father, Son and Holy Spirit constitute the Godhead?
They do. (5:2) Let the student commit this paragraph to memory."

As a further witness, here's a snippet of Joseph's Smith's sermon in the Grove in 1844:

"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."--https://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/PDF/GROVE.pdf

Hopefully this sheds a little more light on the context of the wording employed by the writers of the Lectures on Faith and that Joseph (in my opinion) always knew what he was talking about. It's we the members throughout the last two centuries who have failed to understand because of our limited reading comprehension AND because almost all of us have not been in God's presence as Joseph, Sidney, and others were. Joseph and Sidney spent an hour in God's presence (Philo Dibble story) and section 76 given in 1832 is the result of that revelation. Joseph once said if we could gaze into heaven five minutes, we'd know more about it than all the writings of the books combined that mentioned the subject. And those two spent substantially more than five minutes gazing into heaven. I am quite sure they knew what they were talking about when the Lectures were prepared in 1835...

This vision of glories happened after Joseph and Sidney moved to the John Johnson home in Hiram, Ohio, on September 12, 1831 to prepare texts of Joseph's translation of the Bible and had begun laboring with the Gospel of John. Upon examining John 5:29, they were shown a multifaceted vision beginning with a vision of the Father and the Son in the highest glory. One witness, Philo Dibble, present in the room recalled that the two men sat motionless for about an hour. One would say, "What do I see," and describe it, and the other would say, "I see the same" (Source: Juvenile Instructor 27 [May 15, 1892]:303-304).

Before this, they saw both Jesus Christ and God the Father and after this, "The Prophet Joseph said: Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that they exist and that they are two separate personages."--Source: Minutes, Salt Lake City School of the Prophets, October 3, 1883.

It takes a lot of digging, compiling, and praying to understand these things by the Spirit. It also takes a certain amount of reading comprehension. I know I stumbled for years because my reading comprehension was lacking. But through years of pondering and praying, and asking the Lord to allow me to be able to explain it so that a child could understand, I was then able to comprehend the Lectures.

That's why I posted earlier that LoF > S 130.

User avatar
Dusty Wanderer
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1415

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Dusty Wanderer »

"The HG is a being that shares the mind of god."

So if I could receive the mind of god, would that make my ghost holy, too?

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10354
Contact:

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by marc »

I shared this many years ago on this forum. I think it's a good time for me to reread it:

The Holy Spirit and the Godhead

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Luke »

marc wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 4:49 pm I shared this many years ago on this forum. I think it's a good time for me to reread it:

The Holy Spirit and the Godhead
It’s such a good discourse.

An Eye Single
captain of 100
Posts: 185

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by An Eye Single »

Luke wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 6:21 pm
marc wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 4:49 pm I shared this many years ago on this forum. I think it's a good time for me to reread it:

The Holy Spirit and the Godhead
It’s such a good discourse.
Agreed. Lots of good stuff in there.

User avatar
thaabit
captain of 100
Posts: 231
Location: Utah

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by thaabit »

blitzinstripes wrote: February 1st, 2023, 6:30 pm Anyone find it interesting that there is no mention of the HG in the endowment, esp as far as the story of the creation and Adam and Eve? Why absolutely no mention of the third member of the Godhead? Where was He and what was he doing in the pre-existence and the dawn of creation?

Unless you deduct that Adam /Michael is He.
That's because the endowment is about receiving the Second Comforter. The assumption is that you've already received the First Comforter before entering the temple. Notice that the baptismal ordinance and the sacrament both talk about receiving the First Comforter, ie, the Holy Ghost, and nothing about receiving the Second Comforter. All things in order.

User avatar
Redpilled Mormon
captain of 100
Posts: 664

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Redpilled Mormon »

Shawn Henry wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 12:57 pm
TheDuke wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 12:38 pm thanks but I don't need the make up and attributes of the godhead or gods in general to be explained to me. What I was trying to discuss is the "terminology" and what is figurative and what is "literal". If that is not your intent to understand then I have nothing to contribute here. Especially given The father, the son, the holy ghost, the 12 apostles, and I are all one......... as Jesus said in the NT
That is my intent, so let's talk figurative versus literal and maybe you can tell me how this could be figurative and not literal.

Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead?
A. Two: the Father and the Son.

That's a direct quote from LoF. How is that not literal? There's no figurative there. You can't get more literal than that.
It's really surprising that people are wringing figurative and metaphorical truths out of a treatise on doctrinal tenets, which I always presumed (by definition) was intended as strictly literal.

I can understand someone coming to the conclusion that the Lectures on Faith wasn't true, but I'm confused at how someone would come to the conclusion that while the doctrinal statements were incorrect, they could be interpreted as metaphorical 'truths' with some hidden subtext and meaning.

User avatar
Redpilled Mormon
captain of 100
Posts: 664

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Redpilled Mormon »

An Eye Single wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 10:06 am
marc wrote: February 1st, 2023, 2:15 pm I agree that Jesus is both Father and Son as Abinadi explained in the Book of Mormon and as is mentioned repeatedly in scripture; however, Jesus Christ's Father is also a Father. And it was to His Father that he cried out to while hanging on the cross and to whom Jesus prayed to when he knelt down at Bountiful with the people of Nephi.
This is so important to understand!

Words have multiple definitions. Any confusion or seeming contradictions about this topic were cleared up for me once I realized that I had to apply different definitions of the same word to different scriptures and LoF. “Father” means different things in different places. So does “Son.” So does “Holy Ghost.”

Once you use the correct definition in the correct context, any contradictions between the scriptures in D&C 130 and LoF vanish.
Abinadi didn't say that Jesus was 'a' father, he said Jesus was 'The' Father. Not just one father among many, but 'The' Father, who created all things. I don't think he's just listing off arbitrary titles that could apply to anyone. At least that's the way I read it... (Mosiah 15, for anyone who wants to go take a peek)

User avatar
John Tavner
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4154

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by John Tavner »

Redpilled Mormon wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 9:08 am
An Eye Single wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 10:06 am
marc wrote: February 1st, 2023, 2:15 pm I agree that Jesus is both Father and Son as Abinadi explained in the Book of Mormon and as is mentioned repeatedly in scripture; however, Jesus Christ's Father is also a Father. And it was to His Father that he cried out to while hanging on the cross and to whom Jesus prayed to when he knelt down at Bountiful with the people of Nephi.
This is so important to understand!

Words have multiple definitions. Any confusion or seeming contradictions about this topic were cleared up for me once I realized that I had to apply different definitions of the same word to different scriptures and LoF. “Father” means different things in different places. So does “Son.” So does “Holy Ghost.”

Once you use the correct definition in the correct context, any contradictions between the scriptures in D&C 130 and LoF vanish.
Abinadi didn't say that Jesus was 'a' father, he said Jesus was 'The' Father. Not just one father among many, but 'The' Father, who created all things. I don't think he's just listing off arbitrary titles that could apply to anyone. At least that's the way I read it... (Mosiah 15, for anyone who wants to go take a peek)
Which also matches John 1.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

Redpilled Mormon wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 9:01 am It's really surprising that people are wringing figurative and metaphorical truths out of a treatise on doctrinal tenets, which I always presumed (by definition) was intended as strictly literal.

I can understand someone coming to the conclusion that the Lectures on Faith wasn't true, but I'm confused at how someone would come to the conclusion that while the doctrinal statements were incorrect, they could be interpreted as metaphorical 'truths' with some hidden subtext and meaning.
Exactly! They have to choose between two and non-canon gets chosen over canon, with Lectures on Faith receiving a mocking pat on the head.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5868
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by TheDuke »

So, we are hanging on a word or two from LoF and don't even really know that the original words are and/or who wrote them. According to the biggest pusher of them, it is likely Rigdon wrote most of them and more so that they are not in actual text as we don't have the actual texts but reconstructions. Has anyone really looked into what we do have. There doesn't seem to be anything (yet anyway) like JS Papers with acceptable original copies, even drafts. Likely most concepts were accepted by JS, maybe even some text, but it seems it was lost and reconstructed from pieces later.

This is directly from LoF website.
"there is no known manuscript copy of any of the lectures. Although no Joseph Smith-era published version states who authored the lectures, they were traditionally attributed to Joseph Smith. Modern scholars, however, largely agree that Rigdon authored most or all of the lectures"

So, no known authorship, no known pedigree for text, but lets ignore cannonized scriptures when conflict exists (BTW I didn't see the conflict but then I already know the answer and can see the intended meaning.)

Valo
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Valo »

Dusty Wanderer wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 4:37 pm "The HG is a being that shares the mind of god."

So if I could receive the mind of god, would that make my ghost holy, too?
...

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10354
Contact:

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by marc »

Redpilled Mormon wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 9:08 am
An Eye Single wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 10:06 am
marc wrote: February 1st, 2023, 2:15 pm I agree that Jesus is both Father and Son as Abinadi explained in the Book of Mormon and as is mentioned repeatedly in scripture; however, Jesus Christ's Father is also a Father. And it was to His Father that he cried out to while hanging on the cross and to whom Jesus prayed to when he knelt down at Bountiful with the people of Nephi.
This is so important to understand!

Words have multiple definitions. Any confusion or seeming contradictions about this topic were cleared up for me once I realized that I had to apply different definitions of the same word to different scriptures and LoF. “Father” means different things in different places. So does “Son.” So does “Holy Ghost.”

Once you use the correct definition in the correct context, any contradictions between the scriptures in D&C 130 and LoF vanish.
Abinadi didn't say that Jesus was 'a' father, he said Jesus was 'The' Father. Not just one father among many, but 'The' Father, who created all things. I don't think he's just listing off arbitrary titles that could apply to anyone. At least that's the way I read it... (Mosiah 15, for anyone who wants to go take a peek)
Red, if you are addressing me, I did not claim that Abinadi said Jesus was "a" Father. I know what Abinadi taught. I also know what Jesus Christ claimed and taught during His mortal ministry and to whom He prayed publicly and during His quiet moments of solitude.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

marc wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 1:46 pm Many people still get hung up on the Lectures on Faith teaching that there are only two personages in the Godhead, but that's not what it states.
Marc, it says exactly that, that there are only two personages in the Godhead, I listed the quote earlier. Here it is again:

Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead?
A. Two: the Father and the Son

It does say prior to that that "these three" constitute the Godhead, but that is referring to the Father, the Son, and the Mind of God.

Even after the question you quoted: "Question 15: Do the Father, Son and Holy Spirit constitute the Godhead?
They do. (5:2) Let the student commit this paragraph to memory.", is the answer of what the mind of God is, it is the Holy Spirit.

So read question 13 and 14 to understand 15. (There are no numbers in my edition)

The Holy Spirit is the mind of God. At no time is it described as a personage or a person. This is a huge problem for section 130.

I love what you said here: "So being a God consisting of spirit, flesh, bone, and glory means a refined being can pass through any coarse, crude material of this Telestial sphere. Some might even call this vibrating at a higher frequency, but that's another subject altogether."

The below is not another witness, but is clearly false:

"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."--https://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/PDF/GROVE.pdf

We can know this to be false because Joseph is never on record saying this. There is far too much evidence of the History of the Church being altered. He never said the HG was a personage and why would he, it is completely contradictory to LoF declaring it to be the mind of God.

No one is doubting Joseph and Sidney saw two personages like they said. They purposefully chose the word "personages". They never said two persons. One person can manifest in multiple personages. The BoM shows us how this one person has different personages and like is says, Jesus is THE Father. His tabernacle of clay is simply one of his manifestations.

By the way, you might not, but 99% of LDS do consider the flesh to be the apex.

Love you brother, I'm grateful for you challenging me. I see it how I see it, but I'm very open to seeing it differently. Have patience with me. :D

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

TheDuke wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 11:19 am So, we are hanging on a word or two from LoF and don't even really know that the original words are and/or who wrote them. According to the biggest pusher of them, it is likely Rigdon wrote most of them and more so that they are not in actual text as we don't have the actual texts but reconstructions. Has anyone really looked into what we do have. There doesn't seem to be anything (yet anyway) like JS Papers with acceptable original copies, even drafts. Likely most concepts were accepted by JS, maybe even some text, but it seems it was lost and reconstructed from pieces later.

This is directly from LoF website.
"there is no known manuscript copy of any of the lectures. Although no Joseph Smith-era published version states who authored the lectures, they were traditionally attributed to Joseph Smith. Modern scholars, however, largely agree that Rigdon authored most or all of the lectures"

So, no known authorship, no known pedigree for text, but lets ignore cannonized scriptures when conflict exists (BTW I didn't see the conflict but then I already know the answer and can see the intended meaning.)
Duke, this is ridiculous! Who cares who authored them! Mickey Mouse could be the author, it wouldn't matter. Joseph attested to them and had them canonized in 1835 and 1844.

Why would anyone care about the originals manuscripts when they were printed in the 1835 D&C? We know what the originals say because they were printed.

Some scholars say Joseph authored two of them, but again, authorship doesn't matter.

We should all be pleased if Sidney wrote them all, because Sidney was called by God in the D&C to write for Joseph. Joseph was not called to write. This is also confirmed in 2 Ne 3 where we learn the Spokesman is to write for the Seer.

Post Reply