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: 4508

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

marc wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 11:40 am and to whom He prayed publicly and during His quiet moments of solitude.
Are you open to another interpretation?

One manifestation of his spirit was separated by the veil which hid his true self. The will of the Son simply means the will of the carnal flesh. He submitted the flesh to his spirit. Two wills in one person.

I've read several spirit world books that show how we all leave a portion of our spirit in the spirit world when we incarnate. It might not be true, but there is eyewitness testimony for it being true.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5863
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by TheDuke »

Shawn Henry wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 12:14 pm
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.
We care because you are parsing single words and phrases in this OP, not full verses and sections or larger principles. You are comparing at best Sidney's wording of HG vs. Joseph's received in revelation. And because they were written, doesn't mean Joseph worked them word-for-word. Same issue with articles of faith, etc...

It is often the case that when we look for anti-thethical perspectives, which is a good thing to do, we start with a word or two that triggers a difference in understanding. but then we must move away from a word or two into the principles and larger teachings. If we find they support our thesis, then we're on to something. If it turns out it is just a word or two difference, then we need to see why they are different. As I stated before it can be translation, context, or author. As well as time in the line-upon-line learnings. Early 1830's JS is not same as later 1840's JS. Many examples exist. Early on he used many titles for god and used the same titles for different meanings. As in he yet didn't catch all the nuances, and later he did (use of El, Elohim, Jehovah, god, etc...).

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4508

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

TheDuke wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 12:34 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 12:14 pm
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.
We care because you are parsing single words and phrases in this OP, not full verses and sections or larger principles. You are comparing at best Sidney's wording of HG vs. Joseph's received in revelation. And because they were written, doesn't mean Joseph worked them word-for-word. Same issue with articles of faith, etc...

It is often the case that when we look for anti-thethical perspectives, which is a good thing to do, we start with a word or two that triggers a difference in understanding. but then we must move away from a word or two into the principles and larger teachings. If we find they support our thesis, then we're on to something. If it turns out it is just a word or two difference, then we need to see why they are different. As I stated before it can be translation, context, or author. As well as time in the line-upon-line learnings. Early 1830's JS is not same as later 1840's JS. Many examples exist. Early on he used many titles for god and used the same titles for different meanings. As in he yet didn't catch all the nuances, and later he did (use of El, Elohim, Jehovah, god, etc...).
Duke, you're basically saying Joseph was too incompetent to even read them before publication. That's crazy! Do you really think the man you believe to be a dispensational head would not study and take stewardship himself over the work? Do you really think that he would include in the preface that he stands ready to be held accountable for every principle advanced without studying the wording?

Do you attribute that same level of incompetence to his bringing forth of the BoM? Are you really going to say, "Well, Oliver wrote that".

You would have us believe that JS missed the entire question and answer portion.

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

How would Joseph miss that?

You also seem to have missed where I pointed out that Sidney was the one called to write not Joseph.

You also don't have the right to call 130 a revelation. There is no such revelation, even the church claims it as his teachings not a revelation. He never claimed a revelation and he purposefully omitted it from the 1844 D&C.

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10352
Contact:

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by marc »

Shawn Henry wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 12:03 pm
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

...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
Negative sir. I will reread the Lectures to triple check but to my recollection, nowhere in the Lectures does it state as you wrote above that there are "only" two personages in the Godhead. I do see clearly that the question and answer describe two personages in the Godhead. And indeed there are. I have asked people in the past which months have 28 days in them. Most usually reply, "February," to which I then say, "ALL months have 28 days in them. I will concede that it's necessary for people to double check, triple check and read and proofread again and again. No doubt Joseph, Sidney and others should have been more careful with their wording. It is clear to me that they knew there were three members of the Godhead when they wrote the Lectures. I can only imagine how inadequate people feel when they try to convey knowledge, light, and truth received through revelation. Even Moroni claimed that if the Book of Mormon had any mistakes, they were the mistakes of men. How could Ezekiel adequately describe what he saw in vision when he described the creatures who moved in unison with God's throne? All those eyes and wheels and unimaginable things?

Anyway, now I'm rambling. I won't disabuse you of your perspective of the scriptures as you understand them. I won't claim to be completely accurate either. I am, however, sure of myself just as I don't doubt you are sure of yourself. In the final analysis, I think that's what is most important: how sure we are of ourselves in our discipleship. I am very thankful for Sidney and Joseph and others who wrote the Lectures because they convey the knowledge to my mind that seeking Christ's face is paramount and that I cannot expect to obtain the same kind of blessings and glory that our fathers did (Abraham, etc) without going through the same fires. Not everyone cares to seek His face or to receive their Second Comforter while journeying through this mortal life. But for me, nothing matters more. I only share what I do, not because I want to stir up contentions, but because I know there are a few others like me who are seeking the same thing.

Love you, too, brother!

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10352
Contact:

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by marc »

Shawn Henry wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 12:21 pm
marc wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 11:40 am and to whom He prayed publicly and during His quiet moments of solitude.
Are you open to another interpretation?

One manifestation of his spirit was separated by the veil which hid his true self. The will of the Son simply means the will of the carnal flesh. He submitted the flesh to his spirit. Two wills in one person.

I've read several spirit world books that show how we all leave a portion of our spirit in the spirit world when we incarnate. It might not be true, but there is eyewitness testimony for it being true.
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.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5863
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by TheDuke »

Shawn Henry wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 12:55 pm

Duke, you're basically saying Joseph was too incompetent to even read them before publication. That's crazy! Do you really think the man you believe to be a dispensational head would not study and take stewardship himself over the work? Do you really think that he would include in the preface that he stands ready to be held accountable for every principle advanced without studying the wording?

Do you attribute that same level of incompetence to his bringing forth of the BoM? Are you really going to say, "Well, Oliver wrote that".

You would have us believe that JS missed the entire question and answer portion.

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

How would Joseph miss that?

You also seem to have missed where I pointed out that Sidney was the one called to write not Joseph.

You also don't have the right to call 130 a revelation. There is no such revelation, even the church claims it as his teachings not a revelation. He never claimed a revelation and he purposefully omitted it from the 1844 D&C.
Ok, I never said Joseph was incompetent. I would say he was busy and LoF was not a high priority. Read the D&C commandments at that time and show me where it ranks with regard to his other tasks (not even mentioned BTW) in his early 1830's mission. When I edit other peoples stuff, I seldom worry words, especially for an initial lecture as these were initially written. Not like scripture to stand forever. Lastly, you comment on the BoM makes me laugh. It is written how he painstakingly reviewed every word and spelling with his scribe. But, look at the initial manuscripts, riddled with textual errors, and corrected by Joseph several times. Being a "most correct of all books of scriptures" does not equal "being a correct book" or perfect. I think you made my case right there.

But I don't care to prolong this. my initial point is that the spirit of the lord, the light of Christ or the HG will shed truth and you're barking up a tree that is not what the spirit has taught me or generations of LDS that have read all of Joseph's works. There are three members of the godhead. All persons (often referred to as males), two are known to have celestial bodies, and one is known for their spirit. Given ALL life as we know it has physical and spiritual, even this statement of HG doesn't pass muster as Joseph tried to explain about his notion of spirits and spirit children, spirit are matter. I personally feel the HG has a celestial body, but that his role for us is purely in the spirit vs. needing the glory of a body like the Father has and now Jesus has. But, feel free to frolick with other teachings if it helps bring you to where you need to be. We all must deconstruct truths from time to time to construct greater ones.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5863
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by TheDuke »

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!

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3187
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by oneClimbs »

Redpilled Mormon wrote: February 1st, 2023, 6:20 pm
oneClimbs wrote: February 1st, 2023, 10:57 am
I think too many people are taking everything in the lectures absolutely literally
Wait, we can't take a collection of doctrinal tenets literally? I mean, I thought that was the point of having doctrinal tenets. These aren't stories, these are declarations of doctrine. I don't know how we can extrapolate metaphors out of them, or arrive at the conclusion they mean anything other than what they actually say.

I'm really surprised that this view exists; I figured people were either viewing the LoF as being either true/false. I never thought there were people who were interpreting them as fables but that they might contain some good life lessons in a deeper subtext, even if the actual doctrine expressed was untrue.
I see your point, my words are probably not as carefully chosen or explained as the could be. If I could try again, I would say that it seems that some people draw a conclusion from, say, Lecture Fifth and nail down some assumptions and then discredit the whole work based on those assumptions. They believe that it is teaching that God is a spirit without a body and that Jesus has a body and that this is false, therefore the whole thing is false.

My position is that the Lectures are more about characteristics and attributes than an attempt to put the image or corporeal nature of the Godhead into the narrow box of man's conceptions.

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10352
Contact:

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by marc »

oneClimbs wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 3:00 pmMy position is that the Lectures are more about characteristics and attributes than an attempt to put the image or corporeal nature of the Godhead into the narrow box of man's conceptions.
Bingo! One must have a correct understanding of God's attributes and characteristics in order to correctly exercise faith in Him unto the rending of the veil of unbelief. There's a reason it is referred to as the veil of unbelief in the Book of Mormon or rather Jesus Christ Himself refers to it as the veil of unbelief in Ether 4 right after manifesting Himself to the brother of Jared.

User avatar
Redpilled Mormon
captain of 100
Posts: 664

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Redpilled Mormon »

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.)
Well, I don't put much stock in LoF by itself, I see it as an interesting data point.

However since the LoF view of godhead agrees with what the Book of Mormon teaches, and current lds theology does not, that makes me look twice at the LoF to consider that there may be truth there.

It's the Book of Mormon teachings that I put stock in. The LoF supports the Book of Mormon view rather than what's taught by ldscorp. Which is really strange, since the lds church can't be true if the Book of Mormon is false, yet the church still teaches things contrary to the Book of Mormon.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5863
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by TheDuke »

Redpilled Mormon wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 4:41 pm
Yet I just posted Joseph's own word on the subject. Not a passing comment on another discussion in either LoF or BoM, but a lecture, in Joseph's own words on this very subject. Naaa, you must have other reasons to disbelieve current teachings, else Joseph's own words after writing BoM and D&C and supposedly seeing LoF, should be final.

User avatar
Redpilled Mormon
captain of 100
Posts: 664

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Redpilled Mormon »

TheDuke wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 4:45 pm
Redpilled Mormon wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 4:41 pm
Yet I just posted Joseph's own word on the subject. Not a passing comment on another discussion in either LoF or BoM, but a lecture, in Joseph's own words on this very subject. Naaa, you must have other reasons to disbelieve current teachings, else Joseph's own words after writing BoM and D&C and supposedly seeing LoF, should be final.
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.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4014

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by ransomme »

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)
Abinadi is preaching about Christ and not God the Father (the Most High God). You need to understand THEIR Oneness to understand Abinadi.

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.

Father is also a title, an honorific, and an archetype.

Christ as Creator, as Redeemer, as Savior, and as the Atoner is a giver of life and is Father.

In one sense he is Father because he is in the express image of God the Father. (Hebrews 1, and understand image)
In another sense, He is Father to all creation: "And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary." (Mosiah 3:8)
The fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob follow the pattern of Father and its archetype.
In another sense, He is also only Father to those "who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters." (Ether 3:14)
And there are other ways in addition to these.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5863
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by TheDuke »

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.
He says it on many places, I picked the one on the forum. Add KFD. When you say the BoM with a general a vague discussion passed JS direct discussion, you're just saying you know better. You sound like RMN, throwing the prophet of the restoration under the bus. but you are surely allowed to understand things your way.

User avatar
Redpilled Mormon
captain of 100
Posts: 664

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Redpilled Mormon »

TheDuke wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 5:40 pm
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.
He says it on many places, I picked the one on the forum. Add KFD. When you say the BoM with a general a vague discussion passed JS direct discussion, you're just saying you know better. You sound like RMN, throwing the prophet of the restoration under the bus. but you are surely allowed to understand things your way.
Is the Book of Mromon true, or not?

If the Book of Mormon is untrue, then why put any value on anything else Joseph might have said?

If the Book of Mormon is true, then anything Joseph taught which is contrary to it can be discarded.

It's really, really simple to me. Do you disagree with my reasoning?

User avatar
Redpilled Mormon
captain of 100
Posts: 664

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Redpilled Mormon »

ransomme wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 5:18 pm
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)
Abinadi is preaching about Christ and not God the Father (the Most High God). You need to understand THEIR Oneness to understand Abinadi.

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.

Father is also a title, an honorific, and an archetype.

Christ as Creator, as Redeemer, as Savior, and as the Atoner is a giver of life and is Father.

In one sense he is Father because he is in the express image of God the Father. (Hebrews 1, and understand image)
In another sense, He is Father to all creation: "And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary." (Mosiah 3:8)
The fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob follow the pattern of Father and its archetype.
In another sense, He is also only Father to those "who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters." (Ether 3:14)
And there are other ways in addition to these.
I read the section of Mosiah you quoted and it is very clear to me that Abinadi is indeed preaching about both God the Father and Christ, saying they are the same guy. God the most high condescends to clothe himself in flesh. (Mosiah 3 King Benjamin backs this up imo).

I'm familiar with the perspective you've expressed about shades of meaning of what 'father' means; I was raised lds culturally and this is the viewpoint I was brought up with. But it seems very clear to me that the Book of Mormon describes something very different than that.

User avatar
JLHPROF
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1087

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by JLHPROF »

Redpilled Mormon wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 5:15 pm
TheDuke wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 4:45 pm
Redpilled Mormon wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 4:41 pm
Yet I just posted Joseph's own word on the subject. Not a passing comment on another discussion in either LoF or BoM, but a lecture, in Joseph's own words on this very subject. Naaa, you must have other reasons to disbelieve current teachings, else Joseph's own words after writing BoM and D&C and supposedly seeing LoF, should be final.
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.
Why does the Book of Mormon specifically trump Joseph's teachings or revelations? What puts that document in a class by itself? What about the Bible? Doctrine and Covenants? I agree that contradicting scripture is not the best approach.

But all scripture are literally the teachings and records of prophets. So are Joseph's teachings.

Sometimes we sound like the secular Christians -. Pitting Paul against Peter or James.
They're all inspired prophets and they all allowed their opinions, background, and limitations into their records.
I don't weight Paul higher than Joseph Smith or Moses, or Alma, or Peter, or Moroni, or Brigham, or Ezekiel.
All prophets, all men, all inspired, all with errors.

"Well, I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the @#$ when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are; but aside from that I believe the doctrines concerning salvation contained in that book are true, and that their observance will elevate any people, nation or family that dwells on the face of the earth." Brigham Young

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4014

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by ransomme »

Redpilled Mormon wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 9:12 pm
ransomme wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 5:18 pm
Redpilled Mormon wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 9:08 am
An Eye Single wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 10:06 am

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)
Abinadi is preaching about Christ and not God the Father (the Most High God). You need to understand THEIR Oneness to understand Abinadi.

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.

Father is also a title, an honorific, and an archetype.

Christ as Creator, as Redeemer, as Savior, and as the Atoner is a giver of life and is Father.

In one sense he is Father because he is in the express image of God the Father. (Hebrews 1, and understand image)
In another sense, He is Father to all creation: "And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary." (Mosiah 3:8)
The fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob follow the pattern of Father and its archetype.
In another sense, He is also only Father to those "who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters." (Ether 3:14)
And there are other ways in addition to these.
I read the section of Mosiah you quoted and it is very clear to me that Abinadi is indeed preaching about both God the Father and Christ, saying they are the same guy. God the most high condescends to clothe himself in flesh. (Mosiah 3 King Benjamin backs this up imo).

I'm familiar with the perspective you've expressed about shades of meaning of what 'father' means; I was raised lds culturally and this is the viewpoint I was brought up with. But it seems very clear to me that the Book of Mormon describes something very different than that.
If that were true then people making the same claim would have more than 2, maybe 3, passages to point to in the BoM.

But alas they don't.

What is clear is that when Jesus spoke, he spoke to and about a Father separate and distinct and greater than himself.

User avatar
Redpilled Mormon
captain of 100
Posts: 664

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Redpilled Mormon »

JLHPROF wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 9:44 pm
Redpilled Mormon wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 5:15 pm
TheDuke wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 4:45 pm
Redpilled Mormon wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 4:41 pm
Yet I just posted Joseph's own word on the subject. Not a passing comment on another discussion in either LoF or BoM, but a lecture, in Joseph's own words on this very subject. Naaa, you must have other reasons to disbelieve current teachings, else Joseph's own words after writing BoM and D&C and supposedly seeing LoF, should be final.
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.
Why does the Book of Mormon specifically trump Joseph's teachings or revelations? What puts that document in a class by itself? What about the Bible? Doctrine and Covenants? I agree that contradicting scripture is not the best approach.

But all scripture are literally the teachings and records of prophets. So are Joseph's teachings.

Sometimes we sound like the secular Christians -. Pitting Paul against Peter or James.
They're all inspired prophets and they all allowed their opinions, background, and limitations into their records.
I don't weight Paul higher than Joseph Smith or Moses, or Alma, or Peter, or Moroni, or Brigham, or Ezekiel.
All prophets, all men, all inspired, all with errors.

"Well, I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the @#$ when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are; but aside from that I believe the doctrines concerning salvation contained in that book are true, and that their observance will elevate any people, nation or family that dwells on the face of the earth." Brigham Young
You believe that the Book of Mormon was brought across the centuries to us by God, who said it contained the fullness of the gospel, translated to English by divine power, and yet that it contains a bunch of false precepts somehow? I can't work out how you would arrive at that conclusion. Sure the prophets who wrote in it were all only human, and prone to their own errors and opinions on things, but the scriptures that were carried forward to our day by God himself aren't just a collection of half-truths and opinions. God himself bolsters its authenticity by stating it contains the fullness of the gospel. I don't imagine God is such a careless editor that he's currently saying 'whoops, I missed that bit about Abinadi where he totally understood the Godhood all wrong, oh well no biggie'.

You either believe the Book of Mormon is true or you don't. If it's false, then why pay attention to anything Joseph ever said?

But if you believe it's true, then why would you believe any opinion of Joseph's would trump its teachings? That makes no sense to me. Much more rational to go with the 'Joseph lost his way' explanation, than that Joseph gets to make up 'new truth' which contradicts the BoM as he goes along.

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, 1:09 pm Please expound upon multiple definitions of "Father", I'd love to hear how you incorporate that.
Sorry for the delay in my response, and I’m even sorrier to say that I won’t be posting a more detailed response tonight. I’m planning on it, though. :)

For now, I think it would be good to mention a realization I had when I was studying all of this out.

I don’t know what pops into the minds of others when they hear the word “godhead,” but as a consequence of my LDS upbringing, I always pictured a presiding council of heavenly beings consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—three individuals who were one in purpose. But that’s not what “godhead” means according to Webster’s 1828 dictionary. Instead, “godhead” means:

1. Godship; deity; divinity; divine nature or essence; applied to the true God, and to heathen deities.
2. A deity in person; a god or goddess.

The Lectures (and Lecture Fifth, in particular) are trying to describe “godship”—what makes God who he is and why who he is enables us to exercise faith in him. If you read the Lectures through the lens of the KFD and other scriptures that make a distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and with the incorrect idea that a “godhead” is some presiding council, they make no sense. That’s not to say that there isn’t “individuality” between those beings, the way we would normally consider “individuality.” There is, but not in this context. And that is why the Lectures relate better to passages like Mosiah 15–because those passages are also trying to communicate more about “godship” to us than the process of attaining “godship,” which can only be understood with different definitions for “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Ghost.”
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.
Did you mean to say that Joseph Smith rejected the inclusion of section 130 in the 1884 D&C? (Forty years after his death?) I’m unfamiliar with that history, though I will say that it probably wouldn’t matter much to me. As was stated previously, there are other scriptures and writings that make a distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which are appropriate in their contexts. If JS did reject it for inclusion, I could see him doing that simply because there are other “witnesses” of that distinction in scripture and because inclusion would just prove to be another stumblingblock to understanding the Lectures (as has been the case), which are, arguably, more important for most people.

I’ll try to write up my thoughts in more detail on Sunday. :)

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5863
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by TheDuke »

Redpilled Mormon wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 9:05 pm

Is the Book of Mromon true, or not?

If the Book of Mormon is untrue, then why put any value on anything else Joseph might have said?

If the Book of Mormon is true, then anything Joseph taught which is contrary to it can be discarded.

It's really, really simple to me. Do you disagree with my reasoning?
Yes the BoM is true. It WAS at the time (1829) the most correct correct book (of ancient scripture) ever written, according to JS. I have a testimony of the BoM. But, it is not the fullness of the gospel as restored in this the last dispensation. It is NOT fully accurate in every detail. I have repeatedly pointed out issues with Nephi and Jacob, about how it is either embellished or was changed up a bit many years later but before Mormon. How they right of nations, gold, fine linens, yet there were 60-80 poor farmers. It is clear Nephi didn't have 40 pounds of gold gathered up in that period to make the small plates on, so that must have been documented centuries later. Their talk of armies with only a 80 person clan makes no sense. Are the principles or teachings wrong? No, likely just embellished a bit by later scribes, like most ancient scripture. this is just one example So, when I say the BoM is true it is like saying the gospel of Christ is true, but I question some documented scriptures written centuries later in the bible, like commanding the children of Israel to destroy children in conquest, or the real meaning of Paul saying women should not open their mouths in church (synogouges), or righteous native americans will turn white, or a flood in the last 6000 years covered Mt Everest by more than 40', or Eve was truly created from Adam's rib.

True means the spirit testifies of principles and sometimes but rarely facts. Not that 100% of everything written there word-for-word is correct. Like I said see all the editing changes to make real sentences in the first version (I have a copy from Palmyra BTW but hard to parse in the old form for comparison).

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4508

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

marc wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 12:59 pm I won't disabuse you of your perspective of the scriptures as you understand them.
Please do or please try to do so, it very healthy for us to be challenged in our ideas. That's the only way to really test how solid they are.

I would have said February too, lol. It can't be the same though. You didn't ask specifically, "How many days are in February". In LoF we have a specific question, how many personages are in the Godhead. The answer has to match the question. If there are more than two the answer is false and the answer can't be false. This is why I unintentionally added the word only, because of how specific the question is.

There was plenty of opportunity to say that the HG was a personage who employed or distributed the mind of God or the light of Christ throughout the universe, but this was never said. They went straight to saying it was the mind of God.

Obviously, there is something about God's mind being a member of the Godhead that we don't understand. There is a story there that is untold.

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10352
Contact:

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by marc »

Shawn Henry wrote: February 4th, 2023, 10:43 am
marc wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 12:59 pm I won't disabuse you of your perspective of the scriptures as you understand them.
Please do or please try to do so, it very healthy for us to be challenged in our ideas. That's the only way to really test how solid they are.

I would have said February too, lol. It can't be the same though. You didn't ask specifically, "How many days are in February". In LoF we have a specific question, how many personages are in the Godhead. The answer has to match the question. If there are more than two the answer is false and the answer can't be false. This is why I unintentionally added the word only, because of how specific the question is.

There was plenty of opportunity to say that the HG was a personage who employed or distributed the mind of God or the light of Christ throughout the universe, but this was never said. They went straight to saying it was the mind of God.

Obviously, there is something about God's mind being a member of the Godhead that we don't understand. There is a story there that is untold.
Yes, they could have proofread and fine tuned the Lectures much better. But that's also why I linked that discourse by Orson Pratt on the Godhead and the Holy Spirit. I think you'd appreciate it. Here it is again:

The Holy Spirit and the Godhead

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4508

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

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.

User avatar
Redpilled Mormon
captain of 100
Posts: 664

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Redpilled Mormon »

TheDuke wrote: February 4th, 2023, 10:34 am
Redpilled Mormon wrote: February 3rd, 2023, 9:05 pm

Is the Book of Mromon true, or not?

If the Book of Mormon is untrue, then why put any value on anything else Joseph might have said?

If the Book of Mormon is true, then anything Joseph taught which is contrary to it can be discarded.

It's really, really simple to me. Do you disagree with my reasoning?
Yes the BoM is true. It WAS at the time (1829) the most correct correct book (of ancient scripture) ever written, according to JS. I have a testimony of the BoM. But, it is not the fullness of the gospel as restored in this the last dispensation. It is NOT fully accurate in every detail. I have repeatedly pointed out issues with Nephi and Jacob, about how it is either embellished or was changed up a bit many years later but before Mormon. How they right of nations, gold, fine linens, yet there were 60-80 poor farmers. It is clear Nephi didn't have 40 pounds of gold gathered up in that period to make the small plates on, so that must have been documented centuries later. Their talk of armies with only a 80 person clan makes no sense. Are the principles or teachings wrong? No, likely just embellished a bit by later scribes, like most ancient scripture. this is just one example So, when I say the BoM is true it is like saying the gospel of Christ is true, but I question some documented scriptures written centuries later in the bible, like commanding the children of Israel to destroy children in conquest, or the real meaning of Paul saying women should not open their mouths in church (synogouges), or righteous native americans will turn white, or a flood in the last 6000 years covered Mt Everest by more than 40', or Eve was truly created from Adam's rib.

True means the spirit testifies of principles and sometimes but rarely facts. Not that 100% of everything written there word-for-word is correct. Like I said see all the editing changes to make real sentences in the first version (I have a copy from Palmyra BTW but hard to parse in the old form for comparison).
Sounds like you're going with a middle ground 'sorta true, but looks like there's a lot of false stuff there, who can trust that we got the unvarnished copy'.

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.

Post Reply