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: 4511

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

Precepts wrote: February 1st, 2023, 1:46 pm What are your thoughts on the First Vision?

JSH 1:
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

Two personages
Yes, two personages. Two personages of the same person.

The first vision account in Joseph's handwriting, the 1832 account, describes only one person. Trust the one in Joseph's own handwriting over the other accounts not in his own handwriting.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4511

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

Baurak Ale wrote: February 1st, 2023, 1:49 pm I think he can say what he wants. What about "thou shalt not kill" and "save alive nothing that breathes"?
The jury on the OT is still out until we get the New Translation when Joseph resumes his work.

You are still omitting the Lord saying that he does not vary from that which he says. Unchanging beings do not change.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4511

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

marc wrote: February 1st, 2023, 1:55 pm LoF and S 130 are both instructionals.

S 130= Brief instructions about various subjects.

LoF= How to obtain the knowledge (covenant term) of the glory of God. In other words, it is how one obtains a manifestation of God to one's self. It's a how-to guide to rending the veil of unbelief (Ether 4) and being brought back into God's presence like Enoch, the brother of Jared, and Moses.

LoF>S 130.
Care to appease me in answering these questions?

1. Does section 130 meet the Law of Witnesses?
2. Does section 130 have the vote of the First Presidency and the other priesthood quorums?
3. Did section 130 even have Joseph's sustaining vote?
4. Did Joseph purposely omit it from the 1844 edition?

If section 130 fails all these, why would you call it instructional?

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10353
Contact:

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by marc »

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.

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10353
Contact:

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by marc »

Shawn Henry wrote: February 1st, 2023, 2:12 pm
marc wrote: February 1st, 2023, 1:55 pm LoF and S 130 are both instructionals.

S 130= Brief instructions about various subjects.

LoF= How to obtain the knowledge (covenant term) of the glory of God. In other words, it is how one obtains a manifestation of God to one's self. It's a how-to guide to rending the veil of unbelief (Ether 4) and being brought back into God's presence like Enoch, the brother of Jared, and Moses.

LoF>S 130.
Care to appease me in answering these questions?

1. Does section 130 meet the Law of Witnesses?
2. Does section 130 have the vote of the First Presidency and the other priesthood quorums?
3. Did section 130 even have Joseph's sustaining vote?
4. Did Joseph purposely omit it from the 1844 edition?

If section 130 fails all these, why would you call it instructional?
Because an instructional is merely educational material. It's informative.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4511

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

marc wrote: February 1st, 2023, 2:17 pm Because an instructional is merely educational material. It's informative.
How is 130 instructional when it contradicts canon? And who is doing the instructing? Enter here the precepts of men.

I translate your not answering the above questions as you not having adequate answers, but I still love you.

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10353
Contact:

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by marc »

Shawn Henry wrote: February 1st, 2023, 2:32 pm
marc wrote: February 1st, 2023, 2:17 pm Because an instructional is merely educational material. It's informative.
How is 130 instructional when it contradicts canon? And who is doing the instructing? Enter here the precepts of men.

I translate your not answering the above questions as you not having adequate answers, but I still love you.
Shawn, I imagine that in all the history of instructionals, not all were absolutely correct. Advancements in medicine, technology, etc improve the quality and correctness of instructionals. Furthermore, in this case, whether it contradicts canon is beside the point. And for the sake of argument, you being correct doesn't diminish its conditions meeting the definition of an instructional. At this juncture, I don't have enough information as I have not studied it out to provide you with your desired request. But I love you, too, brother.

User avatar
Baurak Ale
Nauvoo Legion Captain
Posts: 1068
Location: The North Countries (Upper Midwest, USA)

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Baurak Ale »

Shawn Henry wrote: February 1st, 2023, 2:06 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: February 1st, 2023, 1:49 pm I think he can say what he wants. What about "thou shalt not kill" and "save alive nothing that breathes"?
The jury on the OT is still out until we get the New Translation when Joseph resumes his work.

You are still omitting the Lord saying that he does not vary from that which he says. Unchanging beings do not change.
Joseph already gave his opinion on the contradictions I cited. Here is the quote:

STPJS, 256:
God said, 'Thou shalt not kill;' at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is...."
As for being an unchanging being (D&C 3:2), I take that to refer to his station, not his being. As an intelligence he has not changed in his pursuit of righteousness, but he has changed in terms of increasing light and truth to the present. He will not vary from what he says until the circumstances require that he says something else, which I grant he may do whenever he pleases.

Any view less than this is dogmatic and confines him to the prison of language to which he is clearly not bound:

D&C 19:4 – 12:
4 Surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.
5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.
6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.
7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.
8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.
9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.
10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—
11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.
12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.
God here is clearly explaining that things are not always as they appear and that he reserves the right to explain things more fully to select audiences as he sees fit. What may appear as a contradiction to us may be in reality the removal of a previously-necessary withholding of information. I don't care how blatantly deceptive any instance of that may appear, I still grant him that right. Joseph Smith complained of people accusing God of these things in his day too:

STPJS, 194:
A man would command his sons to dig potatoes and saddle his horse, but before he had done either he would tell him to do something else. This is all considered right; but as soon as the Lord gives a commandment and revokes that decree and commands something else, then the Prophet is considered fallen."

User avatar
Dusty Wanderer
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1412

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Dusty Wanderer »

If the LoF are accurate, then a correct idea about the character of God is necessary to producing the kind of faith that ushered in the foundational occurrences of the restoration, no? This time period is referred to by some as the "RLDS-like" or "back to Kirtland" (as if we're turning on all this spiritual progress) or "days of limited understanding" phase of the early restored church.

Well, wouldn't this "deeper" understanding or "greater light and knowledge" also yield a deeper commune with heaven by those that possessed this knowledge? Should it not ultimately produce the kind of faith that results in a greater abundance of those having manifestations of God and His angels, while still in the flesh?

Ironically enough, the greatest heavenly outpouring of this dispensation occurred shortly before and after the LoF were composed and canonized. I'm not saying that it was a result of the Lectures themselves, since much of it had already occurred ; but I think the Lectures expose the understanding of the Godhead at the time that their faith was sufficient to pierce the veil as much as it did.

I've wondered if some of this "greater light" that came after such great manifestations may actually be a stumbling block to my faith, if my goal is to pierce the veil while in the flesh.
Last edited by Dusty Wanderer on February 2nd, 2023, 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Luke »

Dusty Wanderer wrote: February 1st, 2023, 3:27 pm I've wondered if some of this "greater light" that came after such great manifestations may actually be a stumbling block to my faith, if my goal is to pierce the veil while in the flesh.
It’s not. I can guarantee it’s not. The greatest light and knowledge I have been given always came after acquiring a greater understanding for these things.

User avatar
Redpilled Mormon
captain of 100
Posts: 664

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Redpilled Mormon »

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.

User avatar
Redpilled Mormon
captain of 100
Posts: 664

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Redpilled Mormon »

Baurak Ale wrote: February 1st, 2023, 3:16 pm
STPJS, 256:
God said, 'Thou shalt not kill;' at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is...."

This is the 'Hitler is Divine! Whatever he says is right must be right!' paradox. If Joseph really taught this, then it's simply evidence that he was a fallen prophet by that point, as this axiom cannot be true. Or rather, if we accept this axiiom as true, then man has no agency to choose right/wrong and God is not eternal and unchanging, and therefore untrustworthy. I do not believe God changes the definition of what is good whenever the whim strikes him. I believe in a God that is omniscient and eternally omnipotent, and that when he set up the laws of universe that he did it perfectly, and doesn't have to go back and 'edit' what constitutes righteousness/wickedness to suit temporary circumstances.

User avatar
Redpilled Mormon
captain of 100
Posts: 664

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Redpilled Mormon »

Luke wrote: February 1st, 2023, 10:09 am As I said in the other thread, your criteria for what determines truth is completely arbitrary. Totally made up.
Well but Shawn at least has listed out what he believes the requirements are for determining truth. I'd like to hear a fair rebuttal to his assertion. If you have different guidelines/parameters for determining truth, would you mind listing them so that we can compare/contrast with what Shawn put forward?

blitzinstripes
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2294

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by blitzinstripes »

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.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4511

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

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 what I used to think years ago, but now that I know LoF is canon, I know it to be the mind of the Lord.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4511

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

Redpilled Mormon wrote: February 1st, 2023, 6:29 pm
Luke wrote: February 1st, 2023, 10:09 am As I said in the other thread, your criteria for what determines truth is completely arbitrary. Totally made up.
Well but Shawn at least has listed out what he believes the requirements are for determining truth. I'd like to hear a fair rebuttal to his assertion. If you have different guidelines/parameters for determining truth, would you mind listing them so that we can compare/contrast with what Shawn put forward?
Luke and JHLPROF don't do that because their criteria shows their weakness. It would look something like this:

1. Joseph said the following quote.
2. Joseph's scribe said Joseph said the following.
3. So and so, who is not one of Joseph's scribes said Joseph said the following.
4. Brigham's history revisionists rewrote what Joseph said.

An Eye Single
captain of 100
Posts: 185

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by An Eye Single »

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.

Valo
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Valo »

You should take LoF literally and believe it and don't mix any other ideas.

...

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4511

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

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?

Personage of spirit and body of flesh and bone are opposites. One has to be wrong.

Also, you fail to address the fact that section 130 misses all established criteria for canonization. Why give contextual consideration in the first place?

Valo
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Valo »

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?

Personage of spirit and body of flesh and bone are opposites. One has to be wrong.

Also, you fail to address the fact that section 130 misses all established criteria for canonization. Why give contextual consideration in the first place?
Because being cannonized by the LDS Church doesn't make something true or false. You should consider ideas on their own. Some things are hidden, and I am not directly speaking to Section 130, but answering your question above, but some things are hidden because they exist where many don't consider to look because they assume its not worth their time to look there.

...

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4511

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

Valo wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 10:47 am
Because being cannonized by the LDS Church doesn't make something true or false. You should consider ideas on their own. Some things are hidden, and I am not directly speaking to Section 130, but answering your question above, but some things are hidden because they exist where many don't consider to look because they assume its not worth their time to look there.

...
You bait and switch the words "by the LDS Church". Being canonized by the process the Lord gave us in the D&C in conjunction with the Law of Witnesses does make something true.

I do, however, agree with your thought process of looking for hidden truths wherever we may find them.

Valo
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Valo »

Shawn Henry wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 10:55 am
Valo wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 10:47 am
Because being cannonized by the LDS Church doesn't make something true or false. You should consider ideas on their own. Some things are hidden, and I am not directly speaking to Section 130, but answering your question above, but some things are hidden because they exist where many don't consider to look because they assume its not worth their time to look there.

...
You bait and switch the words "by the LDS Church". Being canonized by the process the Lord gave us in the D&C in conjunction with the Law of Witnesses does make something true.

I do, however, agree with your thought process of looking for hidden truths wherever we may find them.
Not even that makes it true. The truth value of an idea is independent of the LDS Church and what they do or do not. No baiting or switching required.

...

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4511

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

Valo wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 10:59 am
Shawn Henry wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 10:55 am
Valo wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 10:47 am
Because being cannonized by the LDS Church doesn't make something true or false. You should consider ideas on their own. Some things are hidden, and I am not directly speaking to Section 130, but answering your question above, but some things are hidden because they exist where many don't consider to look because they assume its not worth their time to look there.

...
You bait and switch the words "by the LDS Church". Being canonized by the process the Lord gave us in the D&C in conjunction with the Law of Witnesses does make something true.

I do, however, agree with your thought process of looking for hidden truths wherever we may find them.
Not even that makes it true. The truth value of an idea is independent of the LDS Church and what they do or do not. No baiting or switching required.

...
I agree that truth is truth and that truth and what is right are more foundational than even God himself, but nonetheless, why would the Lord give us these standards, if not to use them?

Valo
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Valo »

Shawn Henry wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 11:06 am
Valo wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 10:59 am
Shawn Henry wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 10:55 am
Valo wrote: February 2nd, 2023, 10:47 am
Because being cannonized by the LDS Church doesn't make something true or false. You should consider ideas on their own. Some things are hidden, and I am not directly speaking to Section 130, but answering your question above, but some things are hidden because they exist where many don't consider to look because they assume its not worth their time to look there.

...
You bait and switch the words "by the LDS Church". Being canonized by the process the Lord gave us in the D&C in conjunction with the Law of Witnesses does make something true.

I do, however, agree with your thought process of looking for hidden truths wherever we may find them.
Not even that makes it true. The truth value of an idea is independent of the LDS Church and what they do or do not. No baiting or switching required.

...
I agree that truth is truth and that truth and what is right are more foundational than even God himself, but nonetheless, why would the Lord give us these standards, if not to use them?
I didn't say they shouldn't be used. I am saying truth is independent.

...

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10353
Contact:

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by marc »

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.
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.

Post Reply