LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by Arenera »

Finrock wrote: October 31st, 2017, 10:09 am The way I see it, it seems that you object to the LoF based on irrelevant criteria, or prejudices.

First, some people perceive and believe that the Book of Mormon contains errors, is anachronistic, has contradictions, and that it reflects a Protestant understanding of God, or even an Trinitarian view of God. Some people have objected to the Book of Mormon saying such things, and I paraphrase, "The BoM reflects Joseph's early beliefs on God and is heavily influenced by Joseph Smith's Protestant background. It isn't until later in the D&C that Joseph starts to believe in a God that is objectionable to Protestants and Catholics." Some people believe that Joseph Smith plagiarized the BoM or that it was mostly written by Sydney Rigdon. You would agree that these people are in error and they misunderstand the BoM and what it says. You are making an equivalent type of argument against the LoF and just as these objections and arguments against the BoM are irrelevant because they come from a place of misunderstanding and disbelief, so in the same way your objections to the LoF come from a place of misunderstanding and disbelief and are irrelevant.

Second, if the words are inspired and come from the Holy Ghost, then the mortal who actually penned the words or wrote them down is irrelevant. This is true for the BoM as well and any other true scripture. You make no objections to the BoM because of who the mortal "author" might be because you believe the BoM is from God. You object to the LoF and you make a big issue of the mortal author because you disbelieve the LoF. In the end, your argument of authorship is irrelevant and further from a rational standpoint you are supporting your disbelief and objection to the LoF because of authorship based on a faulty paper written by Noel Reynolds. To do such a thing is fallacious and logically/rationally weak. You will be surprised to find out that many people believe in the LoF not because they believe Joseph Smith wrote them, but because they believe the Spirit wrote them. A witness of truth and what constitutes truth is not contingent or reliant upon the mortal author, but rather upon the Holy Ghost.

Third, many people have left the Church because of the Book of Mormon, because of the supposed errors that exist in it, contradictions, anachronisms, etc. as I mentioned earlier. How is this relevant to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon? It isn't. It is no more relevant when you apply your argument to the LoF. Who cares if people have left the Church on account of the LoF? Does that make them untrue? Should you object to them prejudicially based on this fact? Of course not. That would be irrational.

The LoF don't contain any errors on who God and the Godhead is. It is in line with everything else that has been revealed in the BoM and with the D&C. I'm a faithful member of the Church (although unorthodox), I sustain the leaders of the Church, and have a testimony through the Spirit that Thomas S. Monson is a true prophet of Jesus Christ and yet I still believe that the Church made a mistake in removing them. I think they were removed because people did not seek to understand them by the power of the Holy Ghost. I'm OK with errors existing in the Church and mistakes being done by those who are in authority in the Church. It doesn't phase me and my testimony because I know that fallible mortals are prone to error and that is what I expect.

The Spirit has witnessed to me (the Good Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit) that the LoF are from God and they are inspired. Billy Joe the cupcake son of a clown (fictional character; any resemblance to a real person is pure coincidence) could have penned the words down, I don't care, because the true author, just like with the BoM, is the Spirit.

-Finrock
The LoF was a manual, it still is. Should we include the Teachings of the Presidents as scripture? No.

Removing the LoF was inspired and correct. The remnants put the LoF in their scriptures, that is their problem. To explain the LoF, you have to use all the background you have learned over year.

The Book of Mormon has the fulness, the LoF doesn't.

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by Finrock »

Arenera wrote: October 31st, 2017, 10:36 am
Finrock wrote: October 31st, 2017, 10:09 am The way I see it, it seems that you object to the LoF based on irrelevant criteria, or prejudices.

First, some people perceive and believe that the Book of Mormon contains errors, is anachronistic, has contradictions, and that it reflects a Protestant understanding of God, or even an Trinitarian view of God. Some people have objected to the Book of Mormon saying such things, and I paraphrase, "The BoM reflects Joseph's early beliefs on God and is heavily influenced by Joseph Smith's Protestant background. It isn't until later in the D&C that Joseph starts to believe in a God that is objectionable to Protestants and Catholics." Some people believe that Joseph Smith plagiarized the BoM or that it was mostly written by Sydney Rigdon. You would agree that these people are in error and they misunderstand the BoM and what it says. You are making an equivalent type of argument against the LoF and just as these objections and arguments against the BoM are irrelevant because they come from a place of misunderstanding and disbelief, so in the same way your objections to the LoF come from a place of misunderstanding and disbelief and are irrelevant.

Second, if the words are inspired and come from the Holy Ghost, then the mortal who actually penned the words or wrote them down is irrelevant. This is true for the BoM as well and any other true scripture. You make no objections to the BoM because of who the mortal "author" might be because you believe the BoM is from God. You object to the LoF and you make a big issue of the mortal author because you disbelieve the LoF. In the end, your argument of authorship is irrelevant and further from a rational standpoint you are supporting your disbelief and objection to the LoF because of authorship based on a faulty paper written by Noel Reynolds. To do such a thing is fallacious and logically/rationally weak. You will be surprised to find out that many people believe in the LoF not because they believe Joseph Smith wrote them, but because they believe the Spirit wrote them. A witness of truth and what constitutes truth is not contingent or reliant upon the mortal author, but rather upon the Holy Ghost.

Third, many people have left the Church because of the Book of Mormon, because of the supposed errors that exist in it, contradictions, anachronisms, etc. as I mentioned earlier. How is this relevant to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon? It isn't. It is no more relevant when you apply your argument to the LoF. Who cares if people have left the Church on account of the LoF? Does that make them untrue? Should you object to them prejudicially based on this fact? Of course not. That would be irrational.

The LoF don't contain any errors on who God and the Godhead is. It is in line with everything else that has been revealed in the BoM and with the D&C. I'm a faithful member of the Church (although unorthodox), I sustain the leaders of the Church, and have a testimony through the Spirit that Thomas S. Monson is a true prophet of Jesus Christ and yet I still believe that the Church made a mistake in removing them. I think they were removed because people did not seek to understand them by the power of the Holy Ghost. I'm OK with errors existing in the Church and mistakes being done by those who are in authority in the Church. It doesn't phase me and my testimony because I know that fallible mortals are prone to error and that is what I expect.

The Spirit has witnessed to me (the Good Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit) that the LoF are from God and they are inspired. Billy Joe the cupcake son of a clown (fictional character; any resemblance to a real person is pure coincidence) could have penned the words down, I don't care, because the true author, just like with the BoM, is the Spirit.

-Finrock
The LoF was a manual, it still is. Should we include the Teachings of the Presidents as scripture? No.

Removing the LoF was inspired and correct. The remnants put the LoF in their scriptures, that is their problem. To explain the LoF, you have to use all the background you have learned over year.

The Book of Mormon has the fulness, the LoF doesn't.
Calling it a manual has no relevance and is pointless. We should treat anything that is inspired by the Holy Ghost as scripture. What the Remnants do or don't do is irrelevant to what I've said or my position and to this whole conversation. To explain the LoF you just need the Spirit, just like with any other scripture.

The Book of Mormon does have the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is having faith in Jesus Christ, repenting, being baptized, and receiving the Holy Ghost. In the Father's plan of happiness there is much more to receive.

-Finrock

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by Arenera »

Lecture 5.

1 In our former lectures we treated of the being, character, perfections and attributes of God. What we mean by perfections, is, the perfections which belong to all the attributes of his nature. We shall, in this lecture speak of the Godhead: we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

2 There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space—They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;—he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the flesh—and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer, or, in other words, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be. But notwithstanding all this, he kept the law of God, and remained without sin: Showing thereby that it is in the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin. And also, that by him a righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and that all who walk not in the law of God, may justly be condemned by the law, and have no excuse for their sins. And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father—possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things: by whom all things were created and made, that were created and made: and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one: The Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fulness: Filling all in all—the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father—possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom: sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father—a Mediator for man—being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments: and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one.

3 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, through the atonement and mediation of Jesus Christ, by whose blood they have a forgiveness of sins, and also, a sure reward laid up for them in heaven, even that of partaking of the fulness of the Father and the Son, through the Spirit. As the Son partakes of the fulness of the Father through the Spirit, so the saints are, by the same Spirit, to be partakers of the same fulness, to enjoy the same glory; for as the Father and the Son are one, so in like manner the saints are to be one in them, through the love of the Father, the mediation of Jesus Christ, and the gift of the Holy Spirit; they are to be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ.

Question 3: How many personages are there in the Godhead?
Two: the Father and the Son. (5:1)
God is a Spirit?
Christ is a personage of tabernacle, like man?
How many personages are in the Godhead?

So give this to someone who knows nothing about the LoF, and hasn't spent years trying to figure it out. They will be confused.

There are 3 personages in the Godhead. God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost. 22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

See how quickly I was able to show the inconsistency in Lecture 5. Did Joseph Smith write L5? Of course not, Sidney Rigdon did, hence the inconsistency.

Let's see how long it takes you to explain it. :)

drtanner
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1850

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by drtanner »

Arenera wrote: October 31st, 2017, 11:54 am
Lecture 5.

1 In our former lectures we treated of the being, character, perfections and attributes of God. What we mean by perfections, is, the perfections which belong to all the attributes of his nature. We shall, in this lecture speak of the Godhead: we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

2 There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space—They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;—he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the flesh—and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer, or, in other words, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be. But notwithstanding all this, he kept the law of God, and remained without sin: Showing thereby that it is in the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin. And also, that by him a righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and that all who walk not in the law of God, may justly be condemned by the law, and have no excuse for their sins. And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father—possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things: by whom all things were created and made, that were created and made: and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one: The Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fulness: Filling all in all—the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father—possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom: sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father—a Mediator for man—being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments: and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one.

3 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, through the atonement and mediation of Jesus Christ, by whose blood they have a forgiveness of sins, and also, a sure reward laid up for them in heaven, even that of partaking of the fulness of the Father and the Son, through the Spirit. As the Son partakes of the fulness of the Father through the Spirit, so the saints are, by the same Spirit, to be partakers of the same fulness, to enjoy the same glory; for as the Father and the Son are one, so in like manner the saints are to be one in them, through the love of the Father, the mediation of Jesus Christ, and the gift of the Holy Spirit; they are to be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ.

Question 3: How many personages are there in the Godhead?
Two: the Father and the Son. (5:1)
God is a Spirit?
Christ is a personage of tabernacle, like man?
How many personages are in the Godhead?

So give this to someone who knows nothing about the LoF, and hasn't spent years trying to figure it out. They will be confused.

There are 3 personages in the Godhead. God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost. 22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

See how quickly I was able to show the inconsistency in Lecture 5. Did Joseph Smith write L5? Of course not, Sidney Rigdon did, hence the inconsistency.

Let's see how long it takes you to explain it. :)
Here is a question to ponder. Did Sidney Rigdon know God had a body? Why would he phrase it that way in the lectures? Why did Jospeh never say anything about it and approve it? Jospeh was pretty adamant about false doctrines especially the nature of the Godhead of which he had learned first hand about.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by Arenera »

drtanner wrote: October 31st, 2017, 12:03 pm
Here is a question to ponder. Did Sidney Rigdon know God had a body? Why would he phrase it that way in the lectures? Why did Jospeh never say anything about it and approve it? Jospeh was pretty adamant about false doctrines especially the nature of the Godhead of which he had learned first hand about.
Does Arenera and drtanner know God had a body? Yes, see D&C 130. There is no evidence that JS approved it for publication in the D&C.

How would a person, not a Mormon, understand L5? Certainly it was a point that anti-mormons brought out.

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by Finrock »

Arenera wrote: October 31st, 2017, 11:54 am
Lecture 5.

1 In our former lectures we treated of the being, character, perfections and attributes of God. What we mean by perfections, is, the perfections which belong to all the attributes of his nature. We shall, in this lecture speak of the Godhead: we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

2 There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space—They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;—he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the flesh—and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer, or, in other words, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be. But notwithstanding all this, he kept the law of God, and remained without sin: Showing thereby that it is in the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin. And also, that by him a righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and that all who walk not in the law of God, may justly be condemned by the law, and have no excuse for their sins. And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father—possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things: by whom all things were created and made, that were created and made: and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one: The Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fulness: Filling all in all—the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father—possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom: sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father—a Mediator for man—being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments: and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one.

3 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, through the atonement and mediation of Jesus Christ, by whose blood they have a forgiveness of sins, and also, a sure reward laid up for them in heaven, even that of partaking of the fulness of the Father and the Son, through the Spirit. As the Son partakes of the fulness of the Father through the Spirit, so the saints are, by the same Spirit, to be partakers of the same fulness, to enjoy the same glory; for as the Father and the Son are one, so in like manner the saints are to be one in them, through the love of the Father, the mediation of Jesus Christ, and the gift of the Holy Spirit; they are to be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ.

Question 3: How many personages are there in the Godhead?
Two: the Father and the Son. (5:1)
God is a Spirit?
Christ is a personage of tabernacle, like man?
How many personages are in the Godhead?

So give this to someone who knows nothing about the LoF, and hasn't spent years trying to figure it out. They will be confused.

There are 3 personages in the Godhead. God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost. 22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

See how quickly I was able to show the inconsistency in Lecture 5. Did Joseph Smith write L5? Of course not, Sidney Rigdon did, hence the inconsistency.

Let's see how long it takes you to explain it. :)
Arenera,

This has been asked of you several times, by multiple people, and as of yet I haven't seen you respond to this question. There is no point in continuing to "discuss" this with you if you refuse to answer this question:

Why didn't Joseph Smith have the LoF removed from the scriptures while he was alive? If are a mistake, why didn't Joseph Smith, The Prophet, do anything about them after the fact and why did he continue to allow ALL Mormons during his lifetime to believe and treat the LoF as scripture and as official doctrine?

I'm not interested in hearing or interacting with anything else at this point except for your best answer to these questions. If you aren't going to answer these questions, please don't bother responding to my post because it will be pointless.

-Finrock

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by Arenera »

Finrock wrote: October 31st, 2017, 12:49 pm
Arenera,

This has been asked of you several times, by multiple people, and as of yet I haven't seen you respond to this question. There is no point in continuing to "discuss" this with you if you refuse to answer this question:

Why didn't Joseph Smith have the LoF removed from the scriptures while he was alive? If are a mistake, why didn't Joseph Smith, The Prophet, do anything about them after the fact and why did he continue to allow ALL Mormons during his lifetime to believe and treat the LoF as scripture and as official doctrine?

I'm not interested in hearing or interacting with anything else at this point except for your best answer to these questions. If you aren't going to answer these questions, please don't bother responding to my post because it will be pointless.

-Finrock
We don't know, there isn't any evidence. Joseph Smith and the Apostles were out of town when the vote was taken. Answer that one!

We do know the apostles, which would include the President of the Church, Joseph F. Smith, removed the LoF from the 1921 edition.

I know all of you support our leaders, so why do you say the LoF should not have been removed?

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by brlenox »

Arenera wrote: October 31st, 2017, 11:54 am
Question 3: How many personages are there in the Godhead?
Two: the Father and the Son. (5:1)
God is a Spirit?
Christ is a personage of tabernacle, like man?
How many personages are in the Godhead?

So give this to someone who knows nothing about the LoF, and hasn't spent years trying to figure it out. They will be confused.

There are 3 personages in the Godhead. God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost. 22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

See how quickly I was able to show the inconsistency in Lecture 5. Did Joseph Smith write L5? Of course not, Sidney Rigdon did, hence the inconsistency.

Let's see how long it takes you to explain it. :)
[/quote]

Arenera, I was wondering if perhaps you might explain to me the Holy Ghost's role in the creation as illustrated in the temple narrative and or any other sources you may deem of worth.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by Arenera »

brlenox wrote: October 31st, 2017, 1:01 pm
Arenera wrote: October 31st, 2017, 11:54 am
Question 3: How many personages are there in the Godhead?
Two: the Father and the Son. (5:1)
God is a Spirit?
Christ is a personage of tabernacle, like man?
How many personages are in the Godhead?

So give this to someone who knows nothing about the LoF, and hasn't spent years trying to figure it out. They will be confused.

There are 3 personages in the Godhead. God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost. 22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

See how quickly I was able to show the inconsistency in Lecture 5. Did Joseph Smith write L5? Of course not, Sidney Rigdon did, hence the inconsistency.

Let's see how long it takes you to explain it. :)
Arenera, I was wondering if perhaps you might explain to me the Holy Ghost's role in the creation as illustrated in the temple narrative and or any other sources you may deem of worth.
[/quote]

You can start a Thread on that if you like. I don't have an opinion at this point of time.

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by brlenox »

brlenox wrote: October 31st, 2017, 1:01 pm
Arenera wrote: October 31st, 2017, 11:54 am
Arenera wrote: October 31st, 2017, 11:54 am
Question 3: How many personages are there in the Godhead?
Two: the Father and the Son. (5:1)
God is a Spirit?
Christ is a personage of tabernacle, like man?
How many personages are in the Godhead?

So give this to someone who knows nothing about the LoF, and hasn't spent years trying to figure it out. They will be confused.

There are 3 personages in the Godhead. God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost. 22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

See how quickly I was able to show the inconsistency in Lecture 5. Did Joseph Smith write L5? Of course not, Sidney Rigdon did, hence the inconsistency.

Let's see how long it takes you to explain it. :)
brlenox wrote: October 31st, 2017, 1:01 pm Arenera, I was wondering if perhaps you might explain to me the Holy Ghost's role in the creation as illustrated in the temple narrative and or any other sources you may deem of worth.
You can start a Thread on that if you like. I don't have an opinion at this point of time.
This is germane to this thread actually in that upon consideration you may grasp why Joseph Smith and the committee allowed the wording concerning Christ and the Father as representing the God Head. It may be that you do not have an opinion because you have rejected the LoF as pointing to certain possibilities.

Along the same reasoning that the answers to this question may help you see certain elements of why the LoF describes the Godhead as it does, here is another question for you. During the millennial reign of Jesus Christ, do you suspect the Holy Ghost will operate as he does now or will it be as in the days of Christ in New Testament times where he did not function in the same capacity as he does in Christ's absence?
Last edited by brlenox on October 31st, 2017, 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by brlenox »

Arenera wrote: October 31st, 2017, 12:08 pm
drtanner wrote: October 31st, 2017, 12:03 pm
Here is a question to ponder. Did Sidney Rigdon know God had a body? Why would he phrase it that way in the lectures? Why did Jospeh never say anything about it and approve it? Jospeh was pretty adamant about false doctrines especially the nature of the Godhead of which he had learned first hand about.
Does Arenera and drtanner know God had a body? Yes, see D&C 130. There is no evidence that JS approved it for publication in the D&C.

How would a person, not a Mormon, understand L5? Certainly it was a point that anti-mormons brought out.
Another question? Joseph Smith is recorded in the Words of Joseph Smith as making this statement:
Seperate persons. but the all agree in one or the Self Same thing But the holy ghost is yet a Spiritual body and waiting to take to himself a body, as the Savior did or as god did or the gods before them took bodies
The question is that since we understand that the Holy Ghost retains a state of being a spirit personage to facilitate his functions in the God Head and that these functions require that he remain a spirit personage, if he should take on a physical body as Joseph says in the above quote that he will, how will that alter his role and function in the God Head?

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by Serragon »

I have some confusion in what Arenera's position is.

It appears that sometimes the position is that the LOF are good and of the same calibur as our Teachings of the prophets manuals, but not at the level of scripture.

Sometimes you say they were good for 1800's but not now.

Sometimes you say they are not simple enough and require too many words to explain their meaning.

Sometimes the position is that they are simply not needed at all because they have some perceived inconsistencies, might be confusing to non-members, or do not contain the fullness of the gospel.

Sometimes the fact that they were removed by apostles is proof.

Sometimes the possibility that Joseph Smith was not the author invalidates them.



Are they of value or not? Arenera has argued both in this very thread.

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by Finrock »

There is no evidence that JS approved it for publication in the D&C.
For others interested in this topic, the statement given above is patently false. There is much evidence that JS was involved in the writing of the LoF and that JS approved the LoF for publication in the D&C. The biased and fallacious paper written by Noel Reynolds does not prove the above statement as true even though it postulates it.

-Finrock
Last edited by Finrock on October 31st, 2017, 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

drtanner
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1850

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by drtanner »

Arenera wrote: October 31st, 2017, 12:08 pm
drtanner wrote: October 31st, 2017, 12:03 pm
Here is a question to ponder. Did Sidney Rigdon know God had a body? Why would he phrase it that way in the lectures? Why did Jospeh never say anything about it and approve it? Jospeh was pretty adamant about false doctrines especially the nature of the Godhead of which he had learned first hand about.
Does Arenera and drtanner know God had a body? Yes, see D&C 130. There is no evidence that JS approved it for publication in the D&C.

How would a person, not a Mormon, understand L5? Certainly it was a point that anti-mormons brought out.
So you believe Sidney knew God had a body as outlined in D&C 130 at the time he wrote the lectures?

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by Finrock »

Arenera wrote: October 31st, 2017, 12:59 pm
Finrock wrote: October 31st, 2017, 12:49 pm
Arenera,

This has been asked of you several times, by multiple people, and as of yet I haven't seen you respond to this question. There is no point in continuing to "discuss" this with you if you refuse to answer this question:

Why didn't Joseph Smith have the LoF removed from the scriptures while he was alive? If are a mistake, why didn't Joseph Smith, The Prophet, do anything about them after the fact and why did he continue to allow ALL Mormons during his lifetime to believe and treat the LoF as scripture and as official doctrine?

I'm not interested in hearing or interacting with anything else at this point except for your best answer to these questions. If you aren't going to answer these questions, please don't bother responding to my post because it will be pointless.

-Finrock
We don't know, there isn't any evidence. Joseph Smith and the Apostles were out of town when the vote was taken. Answer that one!

We do know the apostles, which would include the President of the Church, Joseph F. Smith, removed the LoF from the 1921 edition.

I know all of you support our leaders, so why do you say the LoF should not have been removed?
Your answer doesn't make any sense to me. I asked, "why didn't Joseph Smith have the LoF removed from the scriptures while he was alive?" Then I asked, "Why didn't Joseph Smith, The Prophet, do anything about [the LoF] after the fact and why did he continue to allow ALL Mormons during his lifetime to believe and treat the LoF as scripture and as official doctrine?

Your response is, "I don't know [why JS didn't have the LoF removed]" "There isn't any evidence" What do you mean "There isn't any evidence?" Evidence for what?

We aren't done dealing with this question so I'm not worrying about your counter questions at the moment. Not to mention your counter questions have already been answered and the assumed truth claims in your question has been refuted multiple times, by multiple people, in multiple threads.

You have no good answer for those questions and these historical facts call in to question your position and it should cause you to pause. My questions avoid the whole authorship argument that you are making because authorship at this point is irrelevant. Even if I were to concede that Sidney Rigdon was the sole author (which I don't because historical evidence produced by multiple scholars, in multiple scholarly works show that Joseph Smith and others were involved in producing the LoF) and even if I were to concede that Sidney Rigdon and the rest of the Church (sans Apostles) was involved in some conspiracy and rogue operation to get the LoF added to the scriptures without Joseph Smith's knowledge, blessing, or approval (just think about what you are saying and how ridiculous this conspiracy of yours is) the fact still remains that after they were added, not a single word, not a single effort, not a single thing was done by Joseph Smith to correct this rogue operation, this conspiracy to add unapproved scripture in to the official canon, and for the rest of his life Joseph Smith allowed thousands of early Saints to believe that the LoF were scripture and were part of the approved canon.

-Finrock

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by Arenera »

brlenox wrote: October 31st, 2017, 1:31 pm
Arenera wrote: October 31st, 2017, 12:08 pm
drtanner wrote: October 31st, 2017, 12:03 pm
Here is a question to ponder. Did Sidney Rigdon know God had a body? Why would he phrase it that way in the lectures? Why did Jospeh never say anything about it and approve it? Jospeh was pretty adamant about false doctrines especially the nature of the Godhead of which he had learned first hand about.
Does Arenera and drtanner know God had a body? Yes, see D&C 130. There is no evidence that JS approved it for publication in the D&C.

How would a person, not a Mormon, understand L5? Certainly it was a point that anti-mormons brought out.
Another question? Joseph Smith is recorded in the Words of Joseph Smith as making this statement:
Seperate persons. but the all agree in one or the Self Same thing But the holy ghost is yet a Spiritual body and waiting to take to himself a body, as the Savior did or as god did or the gods before them took bodies
The question is that since we understand that the Holy Ghost retains a state of being a spirit personage to facilitate his functions in the God Head and that these functions require that he remain a spirit personage, if he should take on a physical body as Joseph says in the above quote that he will, how will that alter his role and function in the God Head?
I don't know, tell us.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by Arenera »

drtanner wrote: October 31st, 2017, 1:51 pm
Arenera wrote: October 31st, 2017, 12:08 pm
drtanner wrote: October 31st, 2017, 12:03 pm
Here is a question to ponder. Did Sidney Rigdon know God had a body? Why would he phrase it that way in the lectures? Why did Jospeh never say anything about it and approve it? Jospeh was pretty adamant about false doctrines especially the nature of the Godhead of which he had learned first hand about.
Does Arenera and drtanner know God had a body? Yes, see D&C 130. There is no evidence that JS approved it for publication in the D&C.

How would a person, not a Mormon, understand L5? Certainly it was a point that anti-mormons brought out.
So you believe Sidney knew God had a body as outlined in D&C 130 at the time he wrote the lectures?
The LoF were delivered in the winter of 1834-35 at the school of the Elders. Sec 76 was received in Feb 1832.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by Arenera »

Finrock wrote: October 31st, 2017, 1:54 pm
Arenera wrote: October 31st, 2017, 12:59 pm
Finrock wrote: October 31st, 2017, 12:49 pm
Arenera,

This has been asked of you several times, by multiple people, and as of yet I haven't seen you respond to this question. There is no point in continuing to "discuss" this with you if you refuse to answer this question:

Why didn't Joseph Smith have the LoF removed from the scriptures while he was alive? If are a mistake, why didn't Joseph Smith, The Prophet, do anything about them after the fact and why did he continue to allow ALL Mormons during his lifetime to believe and treat the LoF as scripture and as official doctrine?

I'm not interested in hearing or interacting with anything else at this point except for your best answer to these questions. If you aren't going to answer these questions, please don't bother responding to my post because it will be pointless.

-Finrock
We don't know, there isn't any evidence. Joseph Smith and the Apostles were out of town when the vote was taken. Answer that one!

We do know the apostles, which would include the President of the Church, Joseph F. Smith, removed the LoF from the 1921 edition.

I know all of you support our leaders, so why do you say the LoF should not have been removed?
Your answer doesn't make any sense to me. I asked, "why didn't Joseph Smith have the LoF removed from the scriptures while he was alive?" Then I asked, "Why didn't Joseph Smith, The Prophet, do anything about [the LoF] after the fact and why did he continue to allow ALL Mormons during his lifetime to believe and treat the LoF as scripture and as official doctrine?

Your response is, "I don't know [why JS didn't have the LoF removed]" "There isn't any evidence" What do you mean "There isn't any evidence?" Evidence for what?

We aren't done dealing with this question so I'm not worrying about your counter questions at the moment. Not to mention your counter questions have already been answered and the assumed truth claims in your question has been refuted multiple times, by multiple people, in multiple threads.

You have no good answer for those questions and these historical facts call in to question your position and it should cause you to pause. My questions avoid the whole authorship argument that you are making because authorship at this point is irrelevant. Even if I were to concede that Sidney Rigdon was the sole author (which I don't because historical evidence produced by multiple scholars, in multiple scholarly works show that Joseph Smith and others were involved in producing the LoF) and even if I were to concede that Sidney Rigdon and the rest of the Church (sans Apostles) was involved in some conspiracy and rogue operation to get the LoF added to the scriptures without Joseph Smith's knowledge, blessing, or approval (just think about what you are saying and how ridiculous this conspiracy of yours is) the fact still remains that after they were added, not a single word, not a single effort, not a single thing was done by Joseph Smith to correct this rogue operation, this conspiracy to add unapproved scripture in to the official canon, and for the rest of his life Joseph Smith allowed thousands of early Saints to believe that the LoF were scripture and were part of the approved canon.

-Finrock
Are you having a bad day? Sidney Rigdon wrote the LoF. You can choose to believe other wise. The LoF was removed from from the 1921 edition onward. That is a fact. I support the decision, which means I support the leaders at that time who removed it. You don't, you have stated such.

I have shown where there is inconsistency in the LoF. You say the Spirit told you otherwise. Others say they have studed the LoF for months and years.

The Spirit hasn't told me the LoF is consistent. To read it, L5 is certainly inconsistent to what we know as LDS Doctrine, to what we know that Joseph Smith did write in Section 130.

drtanner
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1850

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by drtanner »

Arenera wrote: October 31st, 2017, 2:10 pm
drtanner wrote: October 31st, 2017, 1:51 pm
Arenera wrote: October 31st, 2017, 12:08 pm
drtanner wrote: October 31st, 2017, 12:03 pm
Here is a question to ponder. Did Sidney Rigdon know God had a body? Why would he phrase it that way in the lectures? Why did Jospeh never say anything about it and approve it? Jospeh was pretty adamant about false doctrines especially the nature of the Godhead of which he had learned first hand about.
Does Arenera and drtanner know God had a body? Yes, see D&C 130. There is no evidence that JS approved it for publication in the D&C.

How would a person, not a Mormon, understand L5? Certainly it was a point that anti-mormons brought out.
So you believe Sidney knew God had a body as outlined in D&C 130 at the time he wrote the lectures?
The LoF were delivered in the winter of 1834-35 at the school of the Elders. Sec 76 was received in Feb 1832.
So yes you believe Sidney knew God had a body at the time he wrote the lectures?

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by Arenera »

Serragon wrote: October 31st, 2017, 1:33 pm I have some confusion in what Arenera's position is.

It appears that sometimes the position is that the LOF are good and of the same calibur as our Teachings of the prophets manuals, but not at the level of scripture. Correct

Sometimes you say they were good for 1800's but not now. Correct

Sometimes you say they are not simple enough and require too many words to explain their meaning. People with a strong background can explain the inconsistencies, after months or years of study. Spend that time studying the Book of Mormon!

Sometimes the position is that they are simply not needed at all because they have some perceived inconsistencies, might be confusing to non-members, or do not contain the fullness of the gospel. Correct

Sometimes the fact that they were removed by apostles is proof. They were removed by Elder Talmage and other apostles. Fact

Sometimes the possibility that Joseph Smith was not the author invalidates them. It means they were not received by Joseph Smith as revelation



Are they of value or not? Arenera has argued both in this very thread. For the general membership, I don't think they add value. How many of the general membership even know of them?

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by Arenera »

drtanner wrote: October 31st, 2017, 2:24 pm
Arenera wrote: October 31st, 2017, 2:10 pm
drtanner wrote: October 31st, 2017, 1:51 pm
Arenera wrote: October 31st, 2017, 12:08 pm

Does Arenera and drtanner know God had a body? Yes, see D&C 130. There is no evidence that JS approved it for publication in the D&C.

How would a person, not a Mormon, understand L5? Certainly it was a point that anti-mormons brought out.
So you believe Sidney knew God had a body as outlined in D&C 130 at the time he wrote the lectures?
The LoF were delivered in the winter of 1834-35 at the school of the Elders. Sec 76 was received in Feb 1832.
So yes you believe Sidney knew God had a body at the time he wrote the lectures?
I don't know, let's assume he did.

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by brlenox »

One of the problems is I do not think we are recognizing that the lectures where assigned to a committee to be organized:
It is instructive to review the evidence that links Joseph Smith and others to the writing of the Lectures. First, perhaps, it should be noted that a committee of four men—Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick O. Williams (all presiding officers in the Church)—was appointed 24 September 1834 “to arrange the items of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, for the government of the Church of Latter-day Saints. These items are to be taken from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations which have been given to the Church up to this date, or that shall be given until such arrangements are made” (HC 2:165). That committee reported to the priesthood councils of the Church nearly one year later, 17 August 1835, recommending the publication of a book they had prepared (HC 2:243–51). That book consisted of two parts. The first contained the Lectures on Faith; the second consisted of selected revelations and inspired declarations received since the beginning of this dispensation. The two parts together made up what were called the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church. The priesthood councils and other Church members assembled accepted the committee’s recommendation. The result was the publication of the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, which came off the press about the middle of September 1835. ( https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/lectures-f ... ures-faith )

drtanner
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1850

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by drtanner »

Arenera wrote: October 31st, 2017, 2:25 pm
drtanner wrote: October 31st, 2017, 2:24 pm
Arenera wrote: October 31st, 2017, 2:10 pm
drtanner wrote: October 31st, 2017, 1:51 pm

So you believe Sidney knew God had a body as outlined in D&C 130 at the time he wrote the lectures?
The LoF were delivered in the winter of 1834-35 at the school of the Elders. Sec 76 was received in Feb 1832.
So yes you believe Sidney knew God had a body at the time he wrote the lectures?
I don't know, let's assume he did.
Why would he or Joseph or anyone who helped with the lectures be it writing, compiling, or editing include something to allude that God was a spirit when they knew this was not true?

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by Arenera »

drtanner wrote: October 31st, 2017, 3:34 pm
Arenera wrote: October 31st, 2017, 2:25 pm
drtanner wrote: October 31st, 2017, 2:24 pm
Arenera wrote: October 31st, 2017, 2:10 pm

The LoF were delivered in the winter of 1834-35 at the school of the Elders. Sec 76 was received in Feb 1832.
So yes you believe Sidney knew God had a body at the time he wrote the lectures?
I don't know, let's assume he did.
Why would he or Joseph or anyone who helped with the lectures be it writing, compiling, or editing include something to allude that God was a spirit when they knew this was not true?
The challenge comes from new members being confused, or anti mormons using it for propaganda. I think the latter being the main reason for removal.

I think some, thinking JS wrote it, found adventure in figuring out the puzzle spending months and years.

I know some people have twisted off on L6 trying to find their great sacrifice.

I don’t see a gem to hang a hat on. I do see gems in the Book of Mormon.

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by Serragon »

I think I understand your position now. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


You believe that the LOF were good for learning at the time given, but have served their purpose. That the things written there cause more problems than they solve to our modern sensibilities. That the doctrine in the LOF is more clear and simple in the Book of Mormon and so the BOM should be our source of study.

Do you consider it to be a general principle to study the Standard Works, especially the BOM, which contain the fullness of the Gospel instead of trying to find the same truths in these more dated and/or confusing documents?

Post Reply