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: 4507

Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

Inspired by JLHPROF and others who place section 130 above Lectures on Faith, here is a showdown between the two.

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.

Lectures on Faith:
1. Written and attested to by four Prophet, Seers, and Revelators: Joseph, Oliver, Sidney, and Frederick, satiating the Law of Witnesses.
2. Met all the criteria the Lord put forth for canonization.
3. Was purposefully written to be the "Doctrine" portion of the Doctrine and Covenants.
4. Was scripture throughout Joseph's entire ministry.

Section 130:
1. Alleged to have been Joseph's teachings by two scribes who disagreed on major points and who were not called by God to be scribes.
2. Was never attested to as doctrine by Joseph or the First Presidency and was never sustained by any priesthood body nor the members.
3. Failed all the criteria the Lord put forth for canonization and completely failed the Law of Witnesses.
4. Stands in complete contradiction to the scriptures that Joseph sustained throughout his ministry.

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

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Luke »

As I said in the other thread, your criteria for what determines truth is completely arbitrary. Totally made up.

Valo
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Valo »

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.
And your stated words are indeed facts?

...

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

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by oneClimbs »

I look at it in a different way. I've studied the Lectures on Faith for a long time, I even own lecturesonfaith.com and set up a modern edition that is easy to browse and use on mobile devices and such.

Let's take a portion of the last verse in the most controversial lecture, Lecture Fifth: "From the foregoing account of the Godhead, which is given in his revelations, the Saints have a sure foundation laid for the exercise of faith unto life and salvation..."

I think too many people are taking everything in the lectures absolutely literally, as if we can contain the knowledge of the glory and majesty of God in a couple of English sentences. As if the Lectures are trying to attempt force an explanation of God within the confines of mortal understanding. No, this is simply not possible.

If you examine Lectures 3 and 4 we see that the focus is the character and attributes of God, intangible things but things that we can leverage for the exercise of faith, things we can start with. I believe the same is true for Lecture 5 as well.

A foundation is laid FOR the exercise of faith. So in other words, I believe this is what the lectures as a whole are saying: "If you approach God in THIS manner with your faith, and think of God this way, and the Holy Spirit this way, your faith will be effective, you'll be able to connect with God and he'll take things from there."

The lectures are all about faith, and about how to use it in relation to God to be effective. It's very much like a modern version of Alma's sermon, especially Alma ch. 33.

This is where I think we miss the boat about the lectures. We read them too literally, think they contradict other teachings and simply discard them.

I think the greatest evidence of this is how the Holy Spirit is taught as the Mind of God. What does it do for my faith to imagine the Holy Spirit as a man without a body who will some day get one some how? There is nothing about that which can help me in my journey to know God, it's useless trivia.

But if I think of the Holy Spirit as the Mind of God, this is more intriguing. Now, I'm looking for thoughts that come from God, to allow his ideas into my mind, to allow my thinking to become his.

Now I can use that title "Mind of God" and swap it out with wherever I see the Holy Spirit mentioned and be more fully instructed in effectual faith.

"I confirm you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and say unto you: receive the Mind of God..."

For a deeper dive down this line of thought, here's a post I wrote about it:

https://oneclimbs.com/2013/10/30/and-sa ... nd-of-god/

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

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Luke »

Valo wrote: February 1st, 2023, 10:35 am
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.
And your stated words are indeed facts?

...
They are. Unless you can prove that his criteria for the deciding of truth is actually legitimate, then my argument remains a fact.

Valo
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Valo »

Luke wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:17 am
Valo wrote: February 1st, 2023, 10:35 am
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.
And your stated words are indeed facts?

...
They are. Unless you can prove that his criteria for the deciding of truth is actually legitimate, then my argument remains a fact.
What argument? And no your words are either true or false. I need to do nothing.

It is you who, if you want your argument to be considered seriously, who needs to bring it forth.

But as of this post I see nothing but a weak declaration without substance.

...

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

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Luke »

Valo wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:25 am
Luke wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:17 am
Valo wrote: February 1st, 2023, 10:35 am
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.
And your stated words are indeed facts?

...
They are. Unless you can prove that his criteria for the deciding of truth is actually legitimate, then my argument remains a fact.
What argument? And no your words are either true or false. I need to do nothing.

It is you who, if you want your argument to be considered seriously, who needs to bring it forth.

But as of this post I see nothing but a weak declaration without substance.

...
My argument is without substance? No—I am the one who is pointing out that Shawn’s argument has no substance. The burden is on Shawn to show the substance for his argument, otherwise I will continue to point out the lack of substance.

Valo
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Valo »

Luke wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:31 am
Valo wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:25 am
Luke wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:17 am
Valo wrote: February 1st, 2023, 10:35 am

And your stated words are indeed facts?

...
They are. Unless you can prove that his criteria for the deciding of truth is actually legitimate, then my argument remains a fact.
What argument? And no your words are either true or false. I need to do nothing.

It is you who, if you want your argument to be considered seriously, who needs to bring it forth.

But as of this post I see nothing but a weak declaration without substance.

...
My argument is without substance? No—I am the one who is pointing out that Shawn’s argument has no substance. The burden is on Shawn to show the substance for his argument, otherwise I will continue to point out the lack of substance.
Well you haven't done that yet! 😄

...

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

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Luke »

Valo wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:33 am
Luke wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:31 am
Valo wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:25 am
Luke wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:17 am

They are. Unless you can prove that his criteria for the deciding of truth is actually legitimate, then my argument remains a fact.
What argument? And no your words are either true or false. I need to do nothing.

It is you who, if you want your argument to be considered seriously, who needs to bring it forth.

But as of this post I see nothing but a weak declaration without substance.

...
My argument is without substance? No—I am the one who is pointing out that Shawn’s argument has no substance. The burden is on Shawn to show the substance for his argument, otherwise I will continue to point out the lack of substance.
Well you haven't done that yet! 😄

...
Just did mate.

Valo
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Valo »

Luke wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:33 am
Valo wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:33 am
Luke wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:31 am
Valo wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:25 am

What argument? And no your words are either true or false. I need to do nothing.

It is you who, if you want your argument to be considered seriously, who needs to bring it forth.

But as of this post I see nothing but a weak declaration without substance.

...
My argument is without substance? No—I am the one who is pointing out that Shawn’s argument has no substance. The burden is on Shawn to show the substance for his argument, otherwise I will continue to point out the lack of substance.
Well you haven't done that yet! 😄

...
Just did mate.
Where?

Show me where you just did?

...

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

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Luke »

Valo wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:35 am
Luke wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:33 am
Valo wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:33 am
Luke wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:31 am

My argument is without substance? No—I am the one who is pointing out that Shawn’s argument has no substance. The burden is on Shawn to show the substance for his argument, otherwise I will continue to point out the lack of substance.
Well you haven't done that yet! 😄

...
Just did mate.
Where?

Show me where you just did?

...
“The burden is on Shawn to show the substance for his argument, otherwise I will continue to point out the lack of substance.”

I’ve stated my position.

Since you’re someone claiming that my argument is without substance (implying that you’re defending Shawn’s approach), the burden is now also on you to show some substance for this argument.

Valo
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Valo »

Luke wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:36 am
Valo wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:35 am
Luke wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:33 am
Valo wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:33 am

Well you haven't done that yet! 😄

...
Just did mate.
Where?

Show me where you just did?

...
“The burden is on Shawn to show the substance for his argument, otherwise I will continue to point out the lack of substance.”

I’ve stated my position.

Since you’re someone claiming that my argument is without substance (implying that you’re defending Shawn’s approach), the burden is now also on you to show some substance for this argument.
That's another assertion. I asked for your substantive post that shows Shawn's critieria for determining truth is arbitrary.

You've done nothing but say, "I'm right, he's wrong!"

You haven't made me want to listen to you one iota.

😄

...

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

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.
It's all there in the D&C Luke. Just about all of my points are already common knowledge on this forum.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

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.

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

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Luke »

Valo wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:39 am
Luke wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:36 am
Valo wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:35 am
Luke wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:33 am

Just did mate.
Where?

Show me where you just did?

...
“The burden is on Shawn to show the substance for his argument, otherwise I will continue to point out the lack of substance.”

I’ve stated my position.

Since you’re someone claiming that my argument is without substance (implying that you’re defending Shawn’s approach), the burden is now also on you to show some substance for this argument.
That's another assertion. I asked for your substantive post that shows Shawn's critieria for determining truth is arbitrary.

You've done nothing but say, "I'm right, he's wrong!"

You haven't made me want to listen to you one iota.

😄

...
I’m not really all that concerned whether you listen to me or not. It’s entirely up to you. What I can’t wrap my head around, though, is the fact that you don’t understand upon whom the burden of proof falls.

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

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Luke »

Shawn Henry wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:47 am
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.
It's all there in the D&C Luke. Just about all of my points are already common knowledge on this forum.
Let’s see the quotes then.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

oneClimbs wrote: February 1st, 2023, 10:57 am The lectures are all about faith, and about how to use it in relation to God to be effective. It's very much like a modern version of Alma's sermon, especially Alma ch. 33.

This is where I think we miss the boat about the lectures. We read them too literally, think they contradict other teachings and simply discard them.
They are not about faith in general, they are about our faith. Their purpose, which you have omitted for whatever reason, is to reveal correct doctrine. They were known as the doctrine portion of the D&C. That was their primary purpose. They correctly describe God so that we may know how to worship him.

They do not contradict the BoM and the Bible but are completely in harmony with those two books teaching God is a spirit. The only thing they and their two companion scriptures contradict are the non-canonical workings of scribes claiming Joseph as their source.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

Luke wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:54 am Let’s see the quotes then.
I've shown you in months past and you disregarded them then. Why is now any different.

Besides, other than a fresh convert, who needs to be told what the Law of Witnesses is? Who needs to be told what the canonization process is? Who needs to be told that a scribe claiming something is not the same as Joseph claiming it.

A moron could pick up Joseph's 1844 edition of the D&C and see that there is no such thing as section 130.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

Here is some basic dummy proofing to help.

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?

Valo
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Valo »

Luke wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:54 am
Valo wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:39 am
Luke wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:36 am
Valo wrote: February 1st, 2023, 11:35 am

Where?

Show me where you just did?

...
“The burden is on Shawn to show the substance for his argument, otherwise I will continue to point out the lack of substance.”

I’ve stated my position.

Since you’re someone claiming that my argument is without substance (implying that you’re defending Shawn’s approach), the burden is now also on you to show some substance for this argument.
That's another assertion. I asked for your substantive post that shows Shawn's critieria for determining truth is arbitrary.

You've done nothing but say, "I'm right, he's wrong!"

You haven't made me want to listen to you one iota.

😄

...
I’m not really all that concerned whether you listen to me or not. It’s entirely up to you. What I can’t wrap my head around, though, is the fact that you don’t understand upon whom the burden of proof falls.
Well, as far as I'm concerned you asserted that Shawn’s way of determining truth is wrong but didn't prove it so to me your assertion is meaningless and if you are thinking I'm gonna argue your false position because you're confused about who has the burden, well then it sounds like you will remain confused and unsupported and ignored by most intelligent people.

...

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 »

oneClimbs wrote: February 1st, 2023, 10:57 am I look at it in a different way. I've studied the Lectures on Faith for a long time, I even own lecturesonfaith.com and set up a modern edition that is easy to browse and use on mobile devices and such.

Let's take a portion of the last verse in the most controversial lecture, Lecture Fifth: "From the foregoing account of the Godhead, which is given in his revelations, the Saints have a sure foundation laid for the exercise of faith unto life and salvation..."

I think too many people are taking everything in the lectures absolutely literally, as if we can contain the knowledge of the glory and majesty of God in a couple of English sentences. As if the Lectures are trying to attempt force an explanation of God within the confines of mortal understanding. No, this is simply not possible.

If you examine Lectures 3 and 4 we see that the focus is the character and attributes of God, intangible things but things that we can leverage for the exercise of faith, things we can start with. I believe the same is true for Lecture 5 as well.

A foundation is laid FOR the exercise of faith. So in other words, I believe this is what the lectures as a whole are saying: "If you approach God in THIS manner with your faith, and think of God this way, and the Holy Spirit this way, your faith will be effective, you'll be able to connect with God and he'll take things from there."

The lectures are all about faith, and about how to use it in relation to God to be effective. It's very much like a modern version of Alma's sermon, especially Alma ch. 33.

This is where I think we miss the boat about the lectures. We read them too literally, think they contradict other teachings and simply discard them.

I think the greatest evidence of this is how the Holy Spirit is taught as the Mind of God. What does it do for my faith to imagine the Holy Spirit as a man without a body who will some day get one some how? There is nothing about that which can help me in my journey to know God, it's useless trivia.

But if I think of the Holy Spirit as the Mind of God, this is more intriguing. Now, I'm looking for thoughts that come from God, to allow his ideas into my mind, to allow my thinking to become his.

Now I can use that title "Mind of God" and swap it out with wherever I see the Holy Spirit mentioned and be more fully instructed in effectual faith.

"I confirm you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and say unto you: receive the Mind of God..."

For a deeper dive down this line of thought, here's a post I wrote about it:

https://oneclimbs.com/2013/10/30/and-sa ... nd-of-god/
Thank you for the lectures on faith website! It's beautiful and I've used it several times when trying to find things inside of it. I also appreciate the timeline you made of the fathers back to Adam. All very useful.

I also appreciate and agree with your statements above. The RLDS-minded around here tend to find the idea of increased light and truth overriding previous communications to be highly repugnant and apostate. I suppose they will complain when God explains that he didn't really create Adam out of dirt.

This is the common practice of setting up stakes against God. It is always done using something God said at one time to block him from saying something newer later. The statement that the Holy Spirit has not a body of flesh and bones could be taken up as a stake against further knowledge about the Godhead if not careful!

God bless.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Shawn Henry »

Baurak Ale wrote: February 1st, 2023, 1:26 pm This is the common practice of setting up stakes against God. It is always done using something God said at one time to block him from saying something newer later.
There is saying something newer and then there is saying something contradictory. One he can do and one he cannot. He's does not say anything contradictory because he has declared that that which he has spoken he has spoken and he does not vary from that which he has said, either to the left of to the right.

Precepts
captain of 50
Posts: 75

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by Precepts »

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

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, 1:35 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: February 1st, 2023, 1:26 pm This is the common practice of setting up stakes against God. It is always done using something God said at one time to block him from saying something newer later.
There is saying something newer and then there is saying something contradictory. One he can do and one he cannot. He's does not say anything contradictory because he has declared that that which he has spoken he has spoken and he does not vary from that which he has said, either to the left of to the right.
I think he can say what he wants. What about "thou shalt not kill" and "save alive nothing that breathes"?

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

Re: Lectures on Faith versus Section 130

Post by marc »

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.

Post Reply