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