LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

[Finrock]

You are free to believe what you wish. The LoF were produced in legitimacy and added to the canon of scripture by a legitimate process of the Church. The individuals in the committee, which included JS, were called and set apart and blessed with all rights and privileges to do what they did and they had God's help in accomplishing their goals. Joseph Smith was involved, he knew what was going on. The Twelve apostles were involved, they gave the call, and knew what was going on. The committee responsible were blessed by Joseph Smith. The General Assembly of the Church was approved and supported by all leaders of the Church at that time. The LoF were added to our canon of scripture by a legitimate, righteous, and planned manner and their approval was sustained unanimously by all quorums of the Church at that time. You clearly don't believe that God was with his Church back then, or that apostles had authority, or that Joseph Smith was inspired by God. But, I believe that the committee had all of the authority they needed to produce the work that they did. They were called by God, approved by the leaders, and their work was inspired. Only if you believe that the Church was in apostasy and did not have legitimate authority at that time to commission the committee responsible for the LoF can you contend that this was some sort of rogue operations. As I've said before, your reliance on a single, flawed essay by Noel Reynolds is misplaced. Noel Reynolds is wrong and trusting in his work, which was not approved by the Church, not commissioned by a high council of the Church, not blessed by the Prophet, and not called by God as opposed to what the Church of Jesus Christ did in the 1830's is called being in a state of cognitive dissonance.

-Finrock

You are so biased you aren’t making sense. If you want to evaluate something to make a reliable decision, you need to put your bias aside. The statement from the Apostles pertain to the Sections, not the LoF.

Some other things to consider:

The rhetoric and the formatting of the Lectures were borrowed from contemporary Protestant discourse and that they also include some doctrinal assumptions that are most easily recognized in a Protestant context.

Nor is there consensus on the standard claim that the Lectures as such have never been officially canonized.
- Joseph Smith was not present.
- The 12 Apostles were not present.

Several writers have found much in the Lectures and in the Church's eventual separation of them from the scriptural canon with which to embarrass Latter-day Saints.

Dan Vogel uses Lecture 5 as his principal evidence for an evolving Mormon concept of God that in 1835 reflected "Sidney Rigdon's Primitivistic background and not the [later] orthodox LDS view of three distinct personages in the godhead."

The committee to review the D&C, included senior apostles George F. Richards, Anthony W. Ivins, Melvin J. Ballard, James E. Talmage, John A. Widtsoe, and Joseph Fielding Smith. They made the recommendation to remove the LoF and the presiding quorums of the Church approved that action soon thereafter.

Our ability to penetrate and understand the proceedings of the December 1834 Kirtland School is severely hampered by the scarcity of clarifying contemporary statements about the lectures or their authors.

McLellin describes a school that was already devoted to "the sciences of penmanship, arithmetic, English grammar and geography,"

The History of the Church appears to have a few helpful entries. But since they were interpolated by later secretaries, not drawn from original records like the Prophet's journals, they cannot be used to establish the Prophet's authorship of the Lectures.

But the statement itself may not reflect Joseph Smith's own words at all. His original diaries and journals, which for some periods provided most of the source material from which the History of the Church was later compiled, have a fifteen-month gap which spans the period in which the lectures were delivered and prepared for publication.

Lecture 5 is incomplete doctrine and does not stand on its own.

My belief is based on information, not bias. I can do that because I haven’t spent months and years trying to make the LoF something that it isn’t.

I believe you are projecting but I'm not posting these things to debate with you. These posts are for those who hear.

Rejecting something because "anti's" use it, is fallacious.

Rejecting something because an apostate group use it to justify their apostasy, is fallacious.

Rejecting something because you don't understand it, is fallacious.

Depending on a single, demonstrably flawed essay is fallacious.

Special pleading, is fallacious.

Making arguments of irrelevance, is fallacious.

Yes, we can make decisions using all of these fallacious methods and perhaps we come to the right conclusion, but not likely and in the end we stand on shaky ground.

I took a weekend to read the LoF by the power of the Holy Ghost and that is all it took. Years of believing the scholars, believing the explanations apologist gave to explain away the LoF, etc. were resolved in a few hours.

-Finrock

[Arenera]

You are free to believe what you wish. The LoF were produced in legitimacy and added to the canon of scripture by a legitimate process of the Church. The individuals in the committee, which included JS, were called and set apart and blessed with all rights and privileges to do what they did and they had God's help in accomplishing their goals. Joseph Smith was involved, he knew what was going on. The Twelve apostles were involved, they gave the call, and knew what was going on. The committee responsible were blessed by Joseph Smith. The General Assembly of the Church was approved and supported by all leaders of the Church at that time. The LoF were added to our canon of scripture by a legitimate, righteous, and planned manner and their approval was sustained unanimously by all quorums of the Church at that time. You clearly don't believe that God was with his Church back then, or that apostles had authority, or that Joseph Smith was inspired by God. But, I believe that the committee had all of the authority they needed to produce the work that they did. They were called by God, approved by the leaders, and their work was inspired. Only if you believe that the Church was in apostasy and did not have legitimate authority at that time to commission the committee responsible for the LoF can you contend that this was some sort of rogue operations. As I've said before, your reliance on a single, flawed essay by Noel Reynolds is misplaced. Noel Reynolds is wrong and trusting in his work, which was not approved by the Church, not commissioned by a high council of the Church, not blessed by the Prophet, and not called by God as opposed to what the Church of Jesus Christ did in the 1830's is called being in a state of cognitive dissonance.

-Finrock

You are so biased you aren’t making sense. If you want to evaluate something to make a reliable decision, you need to put your bias aside. The statement from the Apostles pertain to the Sections, not the LoF.

Some other things to consider:

The rhetoric and the formatting of the Lectures were borrowed from contemporary Protestant discourse and that they also include some doctrinal assumptions that are most easily recognized in a Protestant context.

Nor is there consensus on the standard claim that the Lectures as such have never been officially canonized.
- Joseph Smith was not present.
- The 12 Apostles were not present.

Several writers have found much in the Lectures and in the Church's eventual separation of them from the scriptural canon with which to embarrass Latter-day Saints.

Dan Vogel uses Lecture 5 as his principal evidence for an evolving Mormon concept of God that in 1835 reflected "Sidney Rigdon's Primitivistic background and not the [later] orthodox LDS view of three distinct personages in the godhead."

The committee to review the D&C, included senior apostles George F. Richards, Anthony W. Ivins, Melvin J. Ballard, James E. Talmage, John A. Widtsoe, and Joseph Fielding Smith. They made the recommendation to remove the LoF and the presiding quorums of the Church approved that action soon thereafter.

Our ability to penetrate and understand the proceedings of the December 1834 Kirtland School is severely hampered by the scarcity of clarifying contemporary statements about the lectures or their authors.

McLellin describes a school that was already devoted to "the sciences of penmanship, arithmetic, English grammar and geography,"

The History of the Church appears to have a few helpful entries. But since they were interpolated by later secretaries, not drawn from original records like the Prophet's journals, they cannot be used to establish the Prophet's authorship of the Lectures.

But the statement itself may not reflect Joseph Smith's own words at all. His original diaries and journals, which for some periods provided most of the source material from which the History of the Church was later compiled, have a fifteen-month gap which spans the period in which the lectures were delivered and prepared for publication.

Lecture 5 is incomplete doctrine and does not stand on its own.

My belief is based on information, not bias. I can do that because I haven’t spent months and years trying to make the LoF something that it isn’t.

I believe you are projecting but I'm not posting these things to debate with you. These posts are for those who hear.

Rejecting something because "anti's" use it, is fallacious.

Rejecting something because an apostate group use it to justify their apostasy, is fallacious.

Rejecting something because you don't understand it, is fallacious.

Depending on a single, demonstrably flawed essay is fallacious.

Special pleading, is fallacious.

Making arguments of irrelevance, is fallacious.

Yes, we can make decisions using all of these fallacious methods and perhaps we come to the right conclusion, but not likely and in the end we stand on shaky ground.

I took a weekend to read the LoF by the power of the Holy Ghost and that is all it took. Years of believing the scholars, believing the explanations apologist gave to explain away the LoF, etc. were resolved in a few hours.

-Finrock

Sidney Rigdon wrote the LoF. Lecture 5 is incomplete doctrine. Yes you can fill in the blanks or the missing puzzle pieces with standard LDS doctrine.

It’s great that it took with you. It doesn’t take with me, I already know the standard LDS doctrine.

The fact is the LoF were taken out of the D&C by Apostles of God. The fact is the LoF are not required or needed for anyone to return to God.

Some people have left the Church, using the removal of the LoF as one of their reasons. I sustain the action taken by the Apostles of God.

By the way, those working on the JS Papers considered the research by Noel Reynolds to be credible enough to include the research in the 2nd Volume.

[Finrock]

You are free to believe what you wish. The LoF were produced in legitimacy and added to the canon of scripture by a legitimate process of the Church. The individuals in the committee, which included JS, were called and set apart and blessed with all rights and privileges to do what they did and they had God's help in accomplishing their goals. Joseph Smith was involved, he knew what was going on. The Twelve apostles were involved, they gave the call, and knew what was going on. The committee responsible were blessed by Joseph Smith. The General Assembly of the Church was approved and supported by all leaders of the Church at that time. The LoF were added to our canon of scripture by a legitimate, righteous, and planned manner and their approval was sustained unanimously by all quorums of the Church at that time. You clearly don't believe that God was with his Church back then, or that apostles had authority, or that Joseph Smith was inspired by God. But, I believe that the committee had all of the authority they needed to produce the work that they did. They were called by God, approved by the leaders, and their work was inspired. Only if you believe that the Church was in apostasy and did not have legitimate authority at that time to commission the committee responsible for the LoF can you contend that this was some sort of rogue operations. As I've said before, your reliance on a single, flawed essay by Noel Reynolds is misplaced. Noel Reynolds is wrong and trusting in his work, which was not approved by the Church, not commissioned by a high council of the Church, not blessed by the Prophet, and not called by God as opposed to what the Church of Jesus Christ did in the 1830's is called being in a state of cognitive dissonance.

-Finrock

You are so biased you aren’t making sense. If you want to evaluate something to make a reliable decision, you need to put your bias aside. The statement from the Apostles pertain to the Sections, not the LoF.

Some other things to consider:

The rhetoric and the formatting of the Lectures were borrowed from contemporary Protestant discourse and that they also include some doctrinal assumptions that are most easily recognized in a Protestant context.

Nor is there consensus on the standard claim that the Lectures as such have never been officially canonized.
- Joseph Smith was not present.
- The 12 Apostles were not present.

Several writers have found much in the Lectures and in the Church's eventual separation of them from the scriptural canon with which to embarrass Latter-day Saints.

Dan Vogel uses Lecture 5 as his principal evidence for an evolving Mormon concept of God that in 1835 reflected "Sidney Rigdon's Primitivistic background and not the [later] orthodox LDS view of three distinct personages in the godhead."

The committee to review the D&C, included senior apostles George F. Richards, Anthony W. Ivins, Melvin J. Ballard, James E. Talmage, John A. Widtsoe, and Joseph Fielding Smith. They made the recommendation to remove the LoF and the presiding quorums of the Church approved that action soon thereafter.

Our ability to penetrate and understand the proceedings of the December 1834 Kirtland School is severely hampered by the scarcity of clarifying contemporary statements about the lectures or their authors.

McLellin describes a school that was already devoted to "the sciences of penmanship, arithmetic, English grammar and geography,"

The History of the Church appears to have a few helpful entries. But since they were interpolated by later secretaries, not drawn from original records like the Prophet's journals, they cannot be used to establish the Prophet's authorship of the Lectures.

But the statement itself may not reflect Joseph Smith's own words at all. His original diaries and journals, which for some periods provided most of the source material from which the History of the Church was later compiled, have a fifteen-month gap which spans the period in which the lectures were delivered and prepared for publication.

Lecture 5 is incomplete doctrine and does not stand on its own.

My belief is based on information, not bias. I can do that because I haven’t spent months and years trying to make the LoF something that it isn’t.

I believe you are projecting but I'm not posting these things to debate with you. These posts are for those who hear.

Rejecting something because "anti's" use it, is fallacious.

Rejecting something because an apostate group use it to justify their apostasy, is fallacious.

Rejecting something because you don't understand it, is fallacious.

Depending on a single, demonstrably flawed essay is fallacious.

Special pleading, is fallacious.

Making arguments of irrelevance, is fallacious.

Yes, we can make decisions using all of these fallacious methods and perhaps we come to the right conclusion, but not likely and in the end we stand on shaky ground.

I took a weekend to read the LoF by the power of the Holy Ghost and that is all it took. Years of believing the scholars, believing the explanations apologist gave to explain away the LoF, etc. were resolved in a few hours.

-Finrock

Sidney Rigdon wrote the LoF. Lecture 5 is incomplete doctrine. Yes you can fill in the blanks or the missing puzzle pieces with standard LDS doctrine.

It’s great that it took with you. It doesn’t take with me, I already know the standard LDS doctrine.

The fact is the LoF were taken out of the D&C by Apostles of God. The fact is the LoF are not required or needed for anyone to return to God.

Some people have left the Church, using the removal of the LoF as one of their reasons. I sustain the action taken by the Apostles of God.

By the way, those working on the JS Papers considered the research by Noel Reynolds to be credible enough to include the research in the 2nd Volume.

You can't support your view of the Godhead without the D&C or solely using the Book of Mormon. Making your argument that the LoF is incomplete is disingenuous and hypocritical. If we were to apply your logic to the Book of Mormon and according to the claims of critics, the Book of Mormon doesn't teach the LDS understanding of God and the Godhead and that the Book of Mormon teaches a Protestant version of God. Apparently without D&C the Book of Mormon is incomplete. You are special pleading here, again.

The verse of scripture that you cite from the Doctrine and Covenants which supposedly gives us the full view of God and the Godhead is not a revelation and neither does it provide a complete picture of the Godhead. This is another case of special pleading and fallacious reasoning.

Anti-Mormons and some scholars who are not members of the Church have demonstrated some research which shows that Sidney Rigdon wrote the Book of Mormon or that he contributed to it. You are again, special pleading with you argument here against the LoF.

When the LoF was unanimously accepted as scripture, Sidney Rigdon carried the title of "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator" and received revelation jointly with Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith and the Quorum of the Twelve approved the committee to create the binding scripture, and they approved of the General Assembly, even if we ignore the fact that Sidney Rigdon was "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator" of the Church at that time. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The argument that Joseph Smith wasn't present and that the Twelve weren't present is one of those examples where Noel Reynolds introduces doubt and speculation without sufficient reason and shows his own bias. Its grasping at straws and it is only convincing to those who already are prejudiced against the LoF. But in fact these things are irrelevant because 1. The Church created the committee responsible 2. Joseph Smith was a part of the committee 3. JS literally gave his blessing 4. The individuals who were a part of the committee were called and set apart by the Church and God, giving them all rights and privileges to fulfill their calling 5. All leaders of the Church were aware of the General Assembly, what it was for, and what would be presented 6. Joseph Smith signed off on the scriptures in the Introduction to the 1835 edition of the D&C. 7. And, JS never did anything to have the LoF removed.

In the end it is a fact in my life that I was lead to the LoF by the Holy Ghost. I had heard of them and knew they existed, but had not read them or read only parts. At a time in my life more than any other time in my life when I was humble, had been brought low, and was ready to be taught by God Himself, without prejudice and without bias God pointed me to the LoF and taught me how wonderful this spirit filled document is. As I read them during this time, the Holy Ghost opened my eyes of understanding and everything I read in the LoF made perfect sense to me. It beautifully meshes with all other scripture and supports the D&C, the Book of Mormon, and Bible. It gives us a more complete understanding of who the Father is and the Godhead and combines all of the different ideas of God that is peppered through-out the scriptures in to one place. What an amazing book of scripture the LoF are. My life has been greatly blessed by them and that is what motivates me to engage in these conversations. Its sad to me that there are members of the Church who try to steer people away from the LoF and who use illogical and irrelevant arguments and incorrect "facts" to try to dissuade people from searching them out and being blessed by them. In the end, I know they are scripture and they contain truth revealed to man by the power of the Holy Ghost.

-Finrock

[Arenera]

In the end it is a fact in my life that I was lead to the LoF by the Holy Ghost. I had heard of them and knew they existed, but had not read them or read only parts. At a time in my life more than any other time in my life when I was humble, had been brought low, and was ready to be taught by God Himself, without prejudice and without bias God pointed me to the LoF and taught me how wonderful this spirit filled document is. As I read them during this time, the Holy Ghost opened my eyes of understanding and everything I read in the LoF made perfect sense to me. It beautifully meshes with all other scripture and supports the D&C, the Book of Mormon, and Bible. It gives us a more complete understanding of who the Father is and the Godhead and combines all of the different ideas of God that is peppered through-out the scriptures in to one place. What an amazing book of scripture the LoF are. My life has been greatly blessed by them and that is what motivates me to engage in these conversations. Its sad to me that there are members of the Church who try to steer people away from the LoF and who use illogical and irrelevant arguments and incorrect "facts" to try to dissuade people from searching them out and being blessed by them. In the end, I know they are scripture and they contain truth revealed to man by the power of the Holy Ghost.
-Finrock

The LoF are not scripture. A study guide. The LoF were removed by Apostles of God. You seem soft on that.

You believe in your analysis, but that doesn’t line up with research. The LoF are available for anyone who wants to read them, as are the Journal of Discourses, Hugh Nibley’s writings, etc.

Just because someone has a different opinion of yours, does not mean they use illogical and irrelevant arguments. The arguments I submit are from those who have researched and studied the inclusion and the removal of the LoF from the D&C.

I have also asked what gems of information are in the LoF. I get responses like: “Go read it.” Or “the spirit guided me.”

marc says to read Ether 4. Ether 4 has good information, you don’t have to figure out what marc is saying. Unlike the LoF.

[Finrock]

In the end it is a fact in my life that I was lead to the LoF by the Holy Ghost. I had heard of them and knew they existed, but had not read them or read only parts. At a time in my life more than any other time in my life when I was humble, had been brought low, and was ready to be taught by God Himself, without prejudice and without bias God pointed me to the LoF and taught me how wonderful this spirit filled document is. As I read them during this time, the Holy Ghost opened my eyes of understanding and everything I read in the LoF made perfect sense to me. It beautifully meshes with all other scripture and supports the D&C, the Book of Mormon, and Bible. It gives us a more complete understanding of who the Father is and the Godhead and combines all of the different ideas of God that is peppered through-out the scriptures in to one place. What an amazing book of scripture the LoF are. My life has been greatly blessed by them and that is what motivates me to engage in these conversations. Its sad to me that there are members of the Church who try to steer people away from the LoF and who use illogical and irrelevant arguments and incorrect "facts" to try to dissuade people from searching them out and being blessed by them. In the end, I know they are scripture and they contain truth revealed to man by the power of the Holy Ghost.
-Finrock

The LoF are not scripture. A study guide. The LoF were removed by Apostles of God. You seem soft on that.

You believe in your analysis, but that doesn’t line up with research. The LoF are available for anyone who wants to read them, as are the Journal of Discourses, Hugh Nibley’s writings, etc.

Just because someone has a different opinion of yours, does not mean they use illogical and irrelevant arguments. The arguments I submit are from those who have researched and studied the inclusion and the removal of the LoF from the D&C.

I have also asked what gems of information are in the LoF. I get responses like: “Go read it.” Or “the spirit guided me.”

marc says to read Ether 4. Ether 4 has good information, you don’t have to figure out what marc is saying. Unlike the LoF.

The LoF are scripture. They were legitimately canonized. The reasons given for their removal is historically inaccurate. Your ad hominem is irrelevant.

I know that just because someone has a different opinion of mine does not then mean they are using illogical and irrelevant arguments. Your implication here is disingenuous and continues a pattern of you ignoring the arguments given to support my conclusions and only addressing the points that you feel you have an answer for while ignoring the points that prove your assertions wrong or call in to question the assertions you've (or Noel Reynolds) have postulated.

My position isn't a result of listening to scholars or years of study and research. It came from God teaching me Himself by the power of the Holy Ghost.

When an anti-Mormon asks you what gems are found in the Book of Mormon, how confident are you that they will actually be open enough to consider the gems your provide? Plus, you've never asked me. Your arguments have been antagonistic in nature, not searching or sincere.

Noel Reynolds research is motivated by an effort to stick it to those he considers apostates. Its not an genuine motivation. That seems to be your motivation too. Because the apostates use the LoF history as a means to call in to question the legitimacy of the Church, "apologist" of the Church need to hit back hard because this is one of those arguments that has some teeth. The whole idea here to remove the legs of the apostates from up under them but in doing so the apologist are sacrificing the past Church, Joseph Smith, and inspired words given to us by the Holy Ghost. The LoF are scripture because they were given to us by the Spirit. It doesn't matter how many scholars argue otherwise, just like it doesn't matter how many antis and scholars argue that the Book of Mormon is fictional and made-up product of Joseph Smith and/or other co-authors.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

Arenera claims that the LoF need to be figured out before they can be understood. I'm guessing this is being said in a negative light and as a way to show how the LoF are not like other scripture which you can easily figure out, but LoF are confusing. I honestly don't completely understand Arenera's argument here but its hard for me to see how the fact that you need to figure out the LoF is even a relevant or pointed argument against the LoF.

All scripture is something that needs to be figured out. Isaiah is considered one of the most confusion books of scripture to many, many people. Many people skip over Isaiah because they can't figure it out. It has taken years for some people to figure out what Isaiah means. I have read Isaiah's words many times over several decades and I still haven't figured out all of the things Isaiah is talking about. Is Arenera saying that scripture that is hard to decipher or which isn't very plain is not really scripture at all or that it is inferior to scripture that is plain or supposedly "easy" to figure out? If that is what Arenera means, that seems nonsensical to me. Not to mention that there is a relative scale as to what people think is easy or hard to figure out.

In the end, all scripture is written by the spirit of prophecy and in order to figure out scripture it must be understood by the spirit of prophecy. Relying on scholars or commentary of others to understand the scripture will never replace the Holy Spirit. We don't really know what the scriptures say until we have understood them by the power of the Holy Ghost.

-Finrock

[diligently seeking]

In the end it is a fact in my life that I was lead to the LoF by the Holy Ghost. I had heard of them and knew they existed, but had not read them or read only parts. At a time in my life more than any other time in my life when I was humble, had been brought low, and was ready to be taught by God Himself, without prejudice and without bias God pointed me to the LoF and taught me how wonderful this spirit filled document is. As I read them during this time, the Holy Ghost opened my eyes of understanding and everything I read in the LoF made perfect sense to me. It beautifully meshes with all other scripture and supports the D&C, the Book of Mormon, and Bible. It gives us a more complete understanding of who the Father is and the Godhead and combines all of the different ideas of God that is peppered through-out the scriptures in to one place. What an amazing book of scripture the LoF are. My life has been greatly blessed by them and that is what motivates me to engage in these conversations. Its sad to me that there are members of the Church who try to steer people away from the LoF and who use illogical and irrelevant arguments and incorrect "facts" to try to dissuade people from searching them out and being blessed by them. In the end, I know they are scripture and they contain truth revealed to man by the power of the Holy Ghost.
-Finrock

The LoF are not scripture. A study guide. The LoF were removed by Apostles of God. You seem soft on that.

You believe in your analysis, but that doesn’t line up with research. The LoF are available for anyone who wants to read them, as are the Journal of Discourses, Hugh Nibley’s writings, etc.

Just because someone has a different opinion of yours, does not mean they use illogical and irrelevant arguments. The arguments I submit are from those who have researched and studied the inclusion and the removal of the LoF from the D&C.

I have also asked what gems of information are in the LoF. I get responses like: “Go read it.” Or “the spirit guided me.”

marc says to read Ether 4. Ether 4 has good information, you don’t have to figure out what marc is saying. Unlike the LoF.

Arenera said:

I have also asked what gems of information are in the LoF. I get responses like: “Go read it.” Or “the spirit guided me.”

Arenera, I would direct you to this motivation:
D&C 58
26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.



A friend of mine within the last few hours emailed me a summary of Elder Bednar's talk at UVU today. I recognized a few lectures on faith quotes from this apostle. If what has been said in this thread does not inspire you maybe you can be inspired by knowing that within the last few hours an apostle has quoted from the lectures on faith----- a book no doubt---- he's read many times.

[Arenera]

In the end it is a fact in my life that I was lead to the LoF by the Holy Ghost. I had heard of them and knew they existed, but had not read them or read only parts. At a time in my life more than any other time in my life when I was humble, had been brought low, and was ready to be taught by God Himself, without prejudice and without bias God pointed me to the LoF and taught me how wonderful this spirit filled document is. As I read them during this time, the Holy Ghost opened my eyes of understanding and everything I read in the LoF made perfect sense to me. It beautifully meshes with all other scripture and supports the D&C, the Book of Mormon, and Bible. It gives us a more complete understanding of who the Father is and the Godhead and combines all of the different ideas of God that is peppered through-out the scriptures in to one place. What an amazing book of scripture the LoF are. My life has been greatly blessed by them and that is what motivates me to engage in these conversations. Its sad to me that there are members of the Church who try to steer people away from the LoF and who use illogical and irrelevant arguments and incorrect "facts" to try to dissuade people from searching them out and being blessed by them. In the end, I know they are scripture and they contain truth revealed to man by the power of the Holy Ghost.
-Finrock

The LoF are not scripture. A study guide. The LoF were removed by Apostles of God. You seem soft on that.

You believe in your analysis, but that doesn’t line up with research. The LoF are available for anyone who wants to read them, as are the Journal of Discourses, Hugh Nibley’s writings, etc.

Just because someone has a different opinion of yours, does not mean they use illogical and irrelevant arguments. The arguments I submit are from those who have researched and studied the inclusion and the removal of the LoF from the D&C.

I have also asked what gems of information are in the LoF. I get responses like: “Go read it.” Or “the spirit guided me.”

marc says to read Ether 4. Ether 4 has good information, you don’t have to figure out what marc is saying. Unlike the LoF.

The LoF are scripture. The LoF are not part of LDS scripture. They were legitimately canonized. They were taken out of the D&C, more legitimately. The reasons given for their removal is historically inaccurate. Incorrect. Your ad hominem is irrelevant.

I know that just because someone has a different opinion of mine does not then mean they are using illogical and irrelevant arguments. Your implication here is disingenuous and continues a pattern of you ignoring the arguments given to support my conclusions and only addressing the points that you feel you have an answer for while ignoring the points that prove your assertions wrong or call in to question the assertions you've (or Noel Reynolds) have postulated.

My position isn't a result of listening to scholars or years of study and research. It came from God teaching me Himself by the power of the Holy Ghost.

When an anti-Mormon asks you what gems are found in the Book of Mormon, how confident are you that they will actually be open enough to consider the gems your provide? I’m not talking about anti-Mormons. Plus, you've never asked me. Your arguments have been antagonistic in nature, not searching or sincere.

Noel Reynolds research is motivated by an effort to stick it to those he considers apostates. This is incorrect and shows how you haven’t paid attention. Reynold’s research was published in 2005, before Snuffer and before Remnants. Its not an genuine motivation. That seems to be your motivation too. Because the apostates use the LoF history as a means to call in to question the legitimacy of the Church, "apologist" of the Church need to hit back hard because this is one of those arguments that has some teeth. The whole idea here to remove the legs of the apostates from up under them but in doing so the apologist are sacrificing the past Church, Joseph Smith, and inspired words given to us by the Holy Ghost. The LoF are scripture because they were given to us by the Spirit. It doesn't matter how many scholars argue otherwise, just like it doesn't matter how many antis and scholars argue that the Book of Mormon is fictional and made-up product of Joseph Smith and/or other co-authors.

-Finrock

See the red.

[Finrock]

Lecture 5 is one of those gems contained in the LoF. It provides a thorough and actually a very plain description of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, or Godhead. It incorporates many different ideas about God found in the scriptures and shows how they are all related and describing various attributes and realities of the same being. Saying that God is a being of flesh and bone is wholly deficient in describing God in entirety. Yeah, God is flesh and bone, but He's so much more than that. If we just had that description of God, we would think that God is somehow spatially limited, like we are. In another place the scripture say God is Spirit. Yeah, God is Spirit, just as we all are Spirit. We are Spirit before we are anything else. But He's more than just Spirit as we are more than just Spirit. This idea that God is Spirit, alone, would lead us to believe that God isn't a personage.

Lecture Five teaches us that God is a personage of spirit, glory, and power. This statement incorporates all the various ideas found in the scriptures because it speaks to His fullness and it encompasses all aspects of who and what the Father is. He is more than just flesh and bone and He isn't just Spirit. He isn't spatially limited as we are and He isn't flesh like we are. He is a being infused and completely, fully, infused with the Spirit. His flesh and His spirit are one. He is a personage of spirit, glory, and power.

All scripture becomes very plain and easy to understand when read by the influence of the Holy Ghost. Sometimes the plainness provided by the Holy Ghost appears as foolishness to the scholars. Quite often trying to explain ideas that have been provided by the Spirit in words is wholly insufficient and can't really be done. Ideas that are short and sweet when provided by the Spirit, are difficult, convoluted, and arduous to explain with words. That is why it is best we all study the scriptures and seek answers and to be taught by God so that He can communicate these ideas without the filter of mortals in between or the limitations of language of man.

-Finrock

[Arenera]

Lecture 5 is one of those gems contained in the LoF. It provides a thorough and actually a very plain description of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, or Godhead. It incorporates many different ideas about God found in the scriptures and shows how they are all related and describing various attributes and realities of the same being. Saying that God is a being of flesh and bone is wholly deficient in describing God in entirety. Yeah, God is flesh and bone, but He's so much more than that. If we just had that description of God, we would think that God is somehow spatially limited, like we are. In another place the scripture say God is Spirit. Yeah, God is Spirit, just as we all are Spirit. We are Spirit before we are anything else. But He's more than just Spirit as we are more than just Spirit. This idea that God is Spirit, alone, would lead us to believe that God isn't a personage.

Lecture Five teaches us that God is a personage of spirit, glory, and power. This statement incorporates all the various ideas found in the scriptures because it speaks to His fullness and it encompasses all aspects of who and what the Father is. He is more than just flesh and bone and He isn't just Spirit. He isn't spatially limited as we are and He isn't flesh like we are. He is a being infused and completely, fully, infused with the Spirit. His flesh and His spirit are one. He is a personage of spirit, glory, and power.

All scripture becomes very plain and easy to understand when read by the influence of the Holy Ghost. Sometimes the plainness provided by the Holy Ghost appears as foolishness to the scholars. Quite often trying to explain ideas that have been provided by the Spirit in words is wholly insufficient and can't really be done. Ideas that are short and sweet when provided by the Spirit, are difficult, convoluted, and arduous to explain with words. That is why it is best we all study the scriptures and seek answers and to be taught by God so that He can communicate these ideas without the filter of mortals in between or the limitations of language of man.

-Finrock

Lecture 5 is incomplete and not a gem, you and others fill in the gap.

Joseph Fielding Smith said:

In a 1940 interview by John W. Fitzgerald for his BYU master’s thesis, Elder Smith gave four reasons for the Lectures’ removal:
• They were not received as revelations by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

• They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but are not doctrine.

• They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. . . .

• It was thought by . . . members of the committee . . . that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up The Doctrine and Covenants.

[Finrock]

In the end it is a fact in my life that I was lead to the LoF by the Holy Ghost. I had heard of them and knew they existed, but had not read them or read only parts. At a time in my life more than any other time in my life when I was humble, had been brought low, and was ready to be taught by God Himself, without prejudice and without bias God pointed me to the LoF and taught me how wonderful this spirit filled document is. As I read them during this time, the Holy Ghost opened my eyes of understanding and everything I read in the LoF made perfect sense to me. It beautifully meshes with all other scripture and supports the D&C, the Book of Mormon, and Bible. It gives us a more complete understanding of who the Father is and the Godhead and combines all of the different ideas of God that is peppered through-out the scriptures in to one place. What an amazing book of scripture the LoF are. My life has been greatly blessed by them and that is what motivates me to engage in these conversations. Its sad to me that there are members of the Church who try to steer people away from the LoF and who use illogical and irrelevant arguments and incorrect "facts" to try to dissuade people from searching them out and being blessed by them. In the end, I know they are scripture and they contain truth revealed to man by the power of the Holy Ghost.
-Finrock

The LoF are not scripture. A study guide. The LoF were removed by Apostles of God. You seem soft on that.

You believe in your analysis, but that doesn’t line up with research. The LoF are available for anyone who wants to read them, as are the Journal of Discourses, Hugh Nibley’s writings, etc.

Just because someone has a different opinion of yours, does not mean they use illogical and irrelevant arguments. The arguments I submit are from those who have researched and studied the inclusion and the removal of the LoF from the D&C.

I have also asked what gems of information are in the LoF. I get responses like: “Go read it.” Or “the spirit guided me.”

marc says to read Ether 4. Ether 4 has good information, you don’t have to figure out what marc is saying. Unlike the LoF.

The LoF are scripture. The LoF are not part of LDS scripture. They were legitimately canonized. They were taken out of the D&C, more legitimately. The reasons given for their removal is historically inaccurate. Incorrect. Your ad hominem is irrelevant.

I know that just because someone has a different opinion of mine does not then mean they are using illogical and irrelevant arguments. Your implication here is disingenuous and continues a pattern of you ignoring the arguments given to support my conclusions and only addressing the points that you feel you have an answer for while ignoring the points that prove your assertions wrong or call in to question the assertions you've (or Noel Reynolds) have postulated.

My position isn't a result of listening to scholars or years of study and research. It came from God teaching me Himself by the power of the Holy Ghost.

When an anti-Mormon asks you what gems are found in the Book of Mormon, how confident are you that they will actually be open enough to consider the gems your provide? I’m not talking about anti-Mormons. Plus, you've never asked me. Your arguments have been antagonistic in nature, not searching or sincere.

Noel Reynolds research is motivated by an effort to stick it to those he considers apostates. This is incorrect and shows how you haven’t paid attention. Reynold’s research was published in 2005, before Snuffer and before Remnants. Its not an genuine motivation. That seems to be your motivation too. Because the apostates use the LoF history as a means to call in to question the legitimacy of the Church, "apologist" of the Church need to hit back hard because this is one of those arguments that has some teeth. The whole idea here to remove the legs of the apostates from up under them but in doing so the apologist are sacrificing the past Church, Joseph Smith, and inspired words given to us by the Holy Ghost. The LoF are scripture because they were given to us by the Spirit. It doesn't matter how many scholars argue otherwise, just like it doesn't matter how many antis and scholars argue that the Book of Mormon is fictional and made-up product of Joseph Smith and/or other co-authors.

-Finrock

See the red.

Remants and Snuffer are not the only apostate groups that exist.

LoF are scripture, regardless of their current status as not a part of the official canon. Scripture is all things given by the Holy Ghost. You "more legitimately" statement is nonsensical. But, if we are using the official scriptures as a measure of what is a legitimate method, the inclusion of the LoF followed the scriptural method of making things official more closely than the removal did. Every point provided in scripture for making things official was followed in the inclusion, but this was not done with the removal. Further, the reasons given for the removal are historically inaccurate or represent a lack of inspiration.

You don't have to be talking about anti-Mormons. You are anti-LoF. Anti-Mormons are being used as an analogy to describe individuals who aren't searching and seeking for answers or to consider things in an open minded fashion, but instead have already prejudged the facts and are just seeking to be anti-. Gems have already been shared and the only thing you've done so far is ignore them or try to discredit them. Why waste time sharing gems that will just be cast aside because they've already been prejudged?

-Finrock

[Finrock]

Lecture 5 is one of those gems contained in the LoF. It provides a thorough and actually a very plain description of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, or Godhead. It incorporates many different ideas about God found in the scriptures and shows how they are all related and describing various attributes and realities of the same being. Saying that God is a being of flesh and bone is wholly deficient in describing God in entirety. Yeah, God is flesh and bone, but He's so much more than that. If we just had that description of God, we would think that God is somehow spatially limited, like we are. In another place the scripture say God is Spirit. Yeah, God is Spirit, just as we all are Spirit. We are Spirit before we are anything else. But He's more than just Spirit as we are more than just Spirit. This idea that God is Spirit, alone, would lead us to believe that God isn't a personage.

Lecture Five teaches us that God is a personage of spirit, glory, and power. This statement incorporates all the various ideas found in the scriptures because it speaks to His fullness and it encompasses all aspects of who and what the Father is. He is more than just flesh and bone and He isn't just Spirit. He isn't spatially limited as we are and He isn't flesh like we are. He is a being infused and completely, fully, infused with the Spirit. His flesh and His spirit are one. He is a personage of spirit, glory, and power.

All scripture becomes very plain and easy to understand when read by the influence of the Holy Ghost. Sometimes the plainness provided by the Holy Ghost appears as foolishness to the scholars. Quite often trying to explain ideas that have been provided by the Spirit in words is wholly insufficient and can't really be done. Ideas that are short and sweet when provided by the Spirit, are difficult, convoluted, and arduous to explain with words. That is why it is best we all study the scriptures and seek answers and to be taught by God so that He can communicate these ideas without the filter of mortals in between or the limitations of language of man.

-Finrock

Lecture 5 is incomplete and not a gem, you and others fill in the gap.

Joseph Fielding Smith said:

In a 1940 interview by John W. Fitzgerald for his BYU master’s thesis, Elder Smith gave four reasons for the Lectures’ removal:
• They were not received as revelations by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

• They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but are not doctrine.

• They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. . . .

• It was thought by . . . members of the committee . . . that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up The Doctrine and Covenants.

Case in point.

Lecture 5 is a gem. Its not different than any other scripture. The statement that God is a being of flesh and bone isn't complete and needs to be filled in. Your arguments are special pleading.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

Lecture 5 is one of those gems contained in the LoF. It provides a thorough and actually a very plain description of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, or Godhead. It incorporates many different ideas about God found in the scriptures and shows how they are all related and describing various attributes and realities of the same being. Saying that God is a being of flesh and bone is wholly deficient in describing God in entirety. Yeah, God is flesh and bone, but He's so much more than that. If we just had that description of God, we would think that God is somehow spatially limited, like we are. In another place the scripture say God is Spirit. Yeah, God is Spirit, just as we all are Spirit. We are Spirit before we are anything else. But He's more than just Spirit as we are more than just Spirit. This idea that God is Spirit, alone, would lead us to believe that God isn't a personage.

Lecture Five teaches us that God is a personage of spirit, glory, and power. This statement incorporates all the various ideas found in the scriptures because it speaks to His fullness and it encompasses all aspects of who and what the Father is. He is more than just flesh and bone and He isn't just Spirit. He isn't spatially limited as we are and He isn't flesh like we are. He is a being infused and completely, fully, infused with the Spirit. His flesh and His spirit are one. He is a personage of spirit, glory, and power.

All scripture becomes very plain and easy to understand when read by the influence of the Holy Ghost. Sometimes the plainness provided by the Holy Ghost appears as foolishness to the scholars. Quite often trying to explain ideas that have been provided by the Spirit in words is wholly insufficient and can't really be done. Ideas that are short and sweet when provided by the Spirit, are difficult, convoluted, and arduous to explain with words. That is why it is best we all study the scriptures and seek answers and to be taught by God so that He can communicate these ideas without the filter of mortals in between or the limitations of language of man.

-Finrock

Lecture 5 is incomplete and not a gem, you and others fill in the gap.

Joseph Fielding Smith said:

In a 1940 interview by John W. Fitzgerald for his BYU master’s thesis, Elder Smith gave four reasons for the Lectures’ removal:
• They were not received as revelations by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

• They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but are not doctrine.

• They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. . . .

• It was thought by . . . members of the committee . . . that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up The Doctrine and Covenants.

Your appeal to authority is fallacious, btw. Joseph Fielding Smith is wrong and special pleading. By his measure the teachings regarding the Godhead in the Book of Mormon is not complete. Luckily his statements are not canonized scripture.

Challenge: Teach the LDS understanding of the Godhead, in totality using only the Book of Mormon, without filling in the blanks or adding commentary.

-Finrock

[Arenera]

The LoF are not scripture. A study guide. The LoF were removed by Apostles of God. You seem soft on that.

You believe in your analysis, but that doesn’t line up with research. The LoF are available for anyone who wants to read them, as are the Journal of Discourses, Hugh Nibley’s writings, etc.

Just because someone has a different opinion of yours, does not mean they use illogical and irrelevant arguments. The arguments I submit are from those who have researched and studied the inclusion and the removal of the LoF from the D&C.

I have also asked what gems of information are in the LoF. I get responses like: “Go read it.” Or “the spirit guided me.”

marc says to read Ether 4. Ether 4 has good information, you don’t have to figure out what marc is saying. Unlike the LoF.

The LoF are scripture. The LoF are not part of LDS scripture. They were legitimately canonized. They were taken out of the D&C, more legitimately. The reasons given for their removal is historically inaccurate. Incorrect. Your ad hominem is irrelevant.

I know that just because someone has a different opinion of mine does not then mean they are using illogical and irrelevant arguments. Your implication here is disingenuous and continues a pattern of you ignoring the arguments given to support my conclusions and only addressing the points that you feel you have an answer for while ignoring the points that prove your assertions wrong or call in to question the assertions you've (or Noel Reynolds) have postulated.

My position isn't a result of listening to scholars or years of study and research. It came from God teaching me Himself by the power of the Holy Ghost.

When an anti-Mormon asks you what gems are found in the Book of Mormon, how confident are you that they will actually be open enough to consider the gems your provide? I’m not talking about anti-Mormons. Plus, you've never asked me. Your arguments have been antagonistic in nature, not searching or sincere.

Noel Reynolds research is motivated by an effort to stick it to those he considers apostates. This is incorrect and shows how you haven’t paid attention. Reynold’s research was published in 2005, before Snuffer and before Remnants. Its not an genuine motivation. That seems to be your motivation too. Because the apostates use the LoF history as a means to call in to question the legitimacy of the Church, "apologist" of the Church need to hit back hard because this is one of those arguments that has some teeth. The whole idea here to remove the legs of the apostates from up under them but in doing so the apologist are sacrificing the past Church, Joseph Smith, and inspired words given to us by the Holy Ghost. The LoF are scripture because they were given to us by the Spirit. It doesn't matter how many scholars argue otherwise, just like it doesn't matter how many antis and scholars argue that the Book of Mormon is fictional and made-up product of Joseph Smith and/or other co-authors.

-Finrock

See the red.

Remants and Snuffer are not the only apostate groups that exist.

LoF are scripture, regardless of their current status as not a part of the official canon. Scripture is all things given by the Holy Ghost. You "more legitimately" statement is nonsensical. But, if we are using the official scriptures as a measure of what is a legitimate method, the inclusion of the LoF followed the scriptural method of making things official more closely than the removal did. Every point provided in scripture for making things official was followed in the inclusion, but this was not done with the removal. Further, the reasons given for the removal are historically inaccurate or represent a lack of inspiration.

You don't have to be talking about anti-Mormons. You are anti-LoF. Anti-Mormons are being used as an analogy to describe individuals who aren't searching and seeking for answers or to consider things in an open minded fashion, but instead have already prejudged the facts and are just seeking to be anti-. Gems have already been shared and the only thing you've done so far is ignore them or try to discredit them. Why waste time sharing gems that will just be cast aside because they've already been prejudged?

-Finrock

You are struggling on this one. You are the one who is biased or prejudiced as you say. You are trying to project to me. I have been using points from research (not research that I did). You think you are the only one to have the Spirit. As information is gathered, don’t you think the Spirit is involved.

Joseph Fielding Smith is the one who said the LoF on the Godhead was incomplete. That wasn’t me. JFS was an apostle of God, on the committee that suggested the LoF should be removed. The Prophet agreed, as did the other leaders.

Who is fighting the leaders? You said this: Joseph Fielding Smith is wrong and special pleading. You are incorrect and emotionally cannot handle this discussion.

[Jesef]

Can't we just agree that the LoF are nice and interesting, but not necessary to be part of the scripture canon (and there's a lot of unnecessary books of scripture in the canon, btw - delete Deuteronomy and Leviticus and much of the OT for all I care)? Who cares? Scriptures turn into a crutch anyway - get the Holy Ghost - then you've got your own compass & Urim & Thummim. Just my opinion.

[Finrock]

The LoF are scripture. The LoF are not part of LDS scripture. They were legitimately canonized. They were taken out of the D&C, more legitimately. The reasons given for their removal is historically inaccurate. Incorrect. Your ad hominem is irrelevant.

I know that just because someone has a different opinion of mine does not then mean they are using illogical and irrelevant arguments. Your implication here is disingenuous and continues a pattern of you ignoring the arguments given to support my conclusions and only addressing the points that you feel you have an answer for while ignoring the points that prove your assertions wrong or call in to question the assertions you've (or Noel Reynolds) have postulated.

My position isn't a result of listening to scholars or years of study and research. It came from God teaching me Himself by the power of the Holy Ghost.

When an anti-Mormon asks you what gems are found in the Book of Mormon, how confident are you that they will actually be open enough to consider the gems your provide? I’m not talking about anti-Mormons. Plus, you've never asked me. Your arguments have been antagonistic in nature, not searching or sincere.

Noel Reynolds research is motivated by an effort to stick it to those he considers apostates. This is incorrect and shows how you haven’t paid attention. Reynold’s research was published in 2005, before Snuffer and before Remnants. Its not an genuine motivation. That seems to be your motivation too. Because the apostates use the LoF history as a means to call in to question the legitimacy of the Church, "apologist" of the Church need to hit back hard because this is one of those arguments that has some teeth. The whole idea here to remove the legs of the apostates from up under them but in doing so the apologist are sacrificing the past Church, Joseph Smith, and inspired words given to us by the Holy Ghost. The LoF are scripture because they were given to us by the Spirit. It doesn't matter how many scholars argue otherwise, just like it doesn't matter how many antis and scholars argue that the Book of Mormon is fictional and made-up product of Joseph Smith and/or other co-authors.

-Finrock

See the red.

Remants and Snuffer are not the only apostate groups that exist.

LoF are scripture, regardless of their current status as not a part of the official canon. Scripture is all things given by the Holy Ghost. You "more legitimately" statement is nonsensical. But, if we are using the official scriptures as a measure of what is a legitimate method, the inclusion of the LoF followed the scriptural method of making things official more closely than the removal did. Every point provided in scripture for making things official was followed in the inclusion, but this was not done with the removal. Further, the reasons given for the removal are historically inaccurate or represent a lack of inspiration.

You don't have to be talking about anti-Mormons. You are anti-LoF. Anti-Mormons are being used as an analogy to describe individuals who aren't searching and seeking for answers or to consider things in an open minded fashion, but instead have already prejudged the facts and are just seeking to be anti-. Gems have already been shared and the only thing you've done so far is ignore them or try to discredit them. Why waste time sharing gems that will just be cast aside because they've already been prejudged?

-Finrock

You are struggling on this one. You are the one who is biased or prejudiced as you say. You are trying to project to me. I have been using points from research (not research that I did). You think you are the only one to have the Spirit. As information is gathered, don’t you think the Spirit is involved.

Joseph Fielding Smith is the one who said the LoF on the Godhead was incomplete. That wasn’t me. JFS was an apostle of God, on the committee that suggested the LoF should be removed. The Prophet agreed, as did the other leaders.

Who is fighting the leaders? You said this: Joseph Fielding Smith is wrong and special pleading. You are incorrect and emotionally cannot handle this discussion.

When a person starts attacking another personally during a discussion it demonstrates they've run out of ammo. Your ad hominems are irrelevant. Stick to the points.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

The LoF are scripture. The LoF are not part of LDS scripture. They were legitimately canonized. They were taken out of the D&C, more legitimately. The reasons given for their removal is historically inaccurate. Incorrect. Your ad hominem is irrelevant.

I know that just because someone has a different opinion of mine does not then mean they are using illogical and irrelevant arguments. Your implication here is disingenuous and continues a pattern of you ignoring the arguments given to support my conclusions and only addressing the points that you feel you have an answer for while ignoring the points that prove your assertions wrong or call in to question the assertions you've (or Noel Reynolds) have postulated.

My position isn't a result of listening to scholars or years of study and research. It came from God teaching me Himself by the power of the Holy Ghost.

When an anti-Mormon asks you what gems are found in the Book of Mormon, how confident are you that they will actually be open enough to consider the gems your provide? I’m not talking about anti-Mormons. Plus, you've never asked me. Your arguments have been antagonistic in nature, not searching or sincere.

Noel Reynolds research is motivated by an effort to stick it to those he considers apostates. This is incorrect and shows how you haven’t paid attention. Reynold’s research was published in 2005, before Snuffer and before Remnants. Its not an genuine motivation. That seems to be your motivation too. Because the apostates use the LoF history as a means to call in to question the legitimacy of the Church, "apologist" of the Church need to hit back hard because this is one of those arguments that has some teeth. The whole idea here to remove the legs of the apostates from up under them but in doing so the apologist are sacrificing the past Church, Joseph Smith, and inspired words given to us by the Holy Ghost. The LoF are scripture because they were given to us by the Spirit. It doesn't matter how many scholars argue otherwise, just like it doesn't matter how many antis and scholars argue that the Book of Mormon is fictional and made-up product of Joseph Smith and/or other co-authors.

-Finrock

See the red.

Remants and Snuffer are not the only apostate groups that exist.

LoF are scripture, regardless of their current status as not a part of the official canon. Scripture is all things given by the Holy Ghost. You "more legitimately" statement is nonsensical. But, if we are using the official scriptures as a measure of what is a legitimate method, the inclusion of the LoF followed the scriptural method of making things official more closely than the removal did. Every point provided in scripture for making things official was followed in the inclusion, but this was not done with the removal. Further, the reasons given for the removal are historically inaccurate or represent a lack of inspiration.

You don't have to be talking about anti-Mormons. You are anti-LoF. Anti-Mormons are being used as an analogy to describe individuals who aren't searching and seeking for answers or to consider things in an open minded fashion, but instead have already prejudged the facts and are just seeking to be anti-. Gems have already been shared and the only thing you've done so far is ignore them or try to discredit them. Why waste time sharing gems that will just be cast aside because they've already been prejudged?

-Finrock

You are struggling on this one. You are the one who is biased or prejudiced as you say. You are trying to project to me. I have been using points from research (not research that I did). You think you are the only one to have the Spirit. As information is gathered, don’t you think the Spirit is involved.

Joseph Fielding Smith is the one who said the LoF on the Godhead was incomplete. That wasn’t me. JFS was an apostle of God, on the committee that suggested the LoF should be removed. The Prophet agreed, as did the other leaders.

Who is fighting the leaders? You said this: Joseph Fielding Smith is wrong and special pleading. You are incorrect and emotionally cannot handle this discussion.

Btw, I don't think that I am the only one to have the Spirit. I can only tell what I've experienced and what I think I know.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

Challenge: Teach the LDS understanding of God and the Godhead, in totality, using only the Book of Mormon, without filling in the blanks, or providing commentary.

-Finrock

[Arenera]

Challenge: Teach the LDS understanding of God and the Godhead, in totality, using only the Book of Mormon, without filling in the blanks, or providing commentary.

-Finrock

Are you saying you can’t do it?

[brlenox]

In the end it is a fact in my life that I was lead to the LoF by the Holy Ghost. I had heard of them and knew they existed, but had not read them or read only parts. At a time in my life more than any other time in my life when I was humble, had been brought low, and was ready to be taught by God Himself, without prejudice and without bias God pointed me to the LoF and taught me how wonderful this spirit filled document is. As I read them during this time, the Holy Ghost opened my eyes of understanding and everything I read in the LoF made perfect sense to me. It beautifully meshes with all other scripture and supports the D&C, the Book of Mormon, and Bible. It gives us a more complete understanding of who the Father is and the Godhead and combines all of the different ideas of God that is peppered through-out the scriptures in to one place. What an amazing book of scripture the LoF are. My life has been greatly blessed by them and that is what motivates me to engage in these conversations. Its sad to me that there are members of the Church who try to steer people away from the LoF and who use illogical and irrelevant arguments and incorrect "facts" to try to dissuade people from searching them out and being blessed by them. In the end, I know they are scripture and they contain truth revealed to man by the power of the Holy Ghost.
-Finrock

The LoF are not scripture. A study guide. The LoF were removed by Apostles of God. You seem soft on that.

You believe in your analysis, but that doesn’t line up with research. The LoF are available for anyone who wants to read them, as are the Journal of Discourses, Hugh Nibley’s writings, etc.

Just because someone has a different opinion of yours, does not mean they use illogical and irrelevant arguments. The arguments I submit are from those who have researched and studied the inclusion and the removal of the LoF from the D&C.

I have also asked what gems of information are in the LoF. I get responses like: “Go read it.” Or “the spirit guided me.”

marc says to read Ether 4. Ether 4 has good information, you don’t have to figure out what marc is saying. Unlike the LoF.

The LoF are scripture. They were legitimately canonized. The reasons given for their removal is historically inaccurate. Your ad hominem is irrelevant.

I know that just because someone has a different opinion of mine does not then mean they are using illogical and irrelevant arguments. Your implication here is disingenuous and continues a pattern of you ignoring the arguments given to support my conclusions and only addressing the points that you feel you have an answer for while ignoring the points that prove your assertions wrong or call in to question the assertions you've (or Noel Reynolds) have postulated.

My position isn't a result of listening to scholars or years of study and research. It came from God teaching me Himself by the power of the Holy Ghost.
-Finrock

This has been a delightful discussion and each of you have stood your ground using various supports and causes that seemed relevant to your position. Finrock has been most consistently in a place that I can agree with more than I do Arenera's and you've got to know that is a first for me. However I have been waiting for something. And it has now showed up.

Finrock lost the discussion in my mind the moment you pulled the ad hominem card.

Arenera's spirited rebuttals of your post's have not ever evinced even the slightest element of ad hominem. She has been fair and honest but obviously powerful enough to push you into a corner where you could not let the strength of your argument stand on its own. You had to go and pull the equivalent of the race card, which for you is the ad hominem card.

Now, even for the strength of your position and some of your best responses ever the whole discussion is tainted because someone tried to draw strength and support from a false position. Now I'm sure you are going to continue to start claiming all sorts of other logical fallacies as is the pattern. There was really no need to attempt to borrow strength from the arguments of men in an effort to bolster your position - and for me your effort to do so collapsed your position entirely.

[Finrock]

Can't we just agree that the LoF are nice and interesting, but not necessary to be part of the scripture canon (and there's a lot of unnecessary books of scripture in the canon, btw - delete Deuteronomy and Leviticus and much of the OT for all I care)? Who cares? Scriptures turn into a crutch anyway - get the Holy Ghost - then you've got your own compass & Urim & Thummim. Just my opinion.

I agree that they are nice and interesting. They don't have to be part of the official scripture canon, but its unfortunate that they are not. Even though I agree that we are to obtain and maintain the Spirit (providing our own compass, etc.) and that truth can be found in all sorts of places, many people will not consider an idea or a thought unless its considered "official" and they are more likely to reject the idea or truth in those cases.

I also believe that God allowed the LoF to be removed. Not because they are not true, but because He doesn't often interfere with the natural course of things and allows light to be either lost or gained, depending upon the faith and righteousness of His people. We wanted a king, we got a king. We reject Zion so we got the lower law, etc.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

Challenge: Teach the LDS understanding of God and the Godhead, in totality, using only the Book of Mormon, without filling in the blanks, or providing commentary.

-Finrock

Are you saying you can’t do it?

I'm neither saying I can or can't. I'm proffering a challenge.

-Finrock

[Jesef]

Brlenox, actually, when Arenera said to Finrock, "You think you are the only one to have the Spirit" - that is a form of ad hominem. It's a personal attack, an accusation, that attempts to define Finrock as unfair, superior, and condescending to others. And it is not what Finrock actually believes. That's at least one instance of what Finrock could be referring to as Arenera's using ad hominem.

[brlenox]

Brlenox, actually, when Arenera said to Finrock, "You think you are the only one to have the Spirit" - that is a form of ad hominem. It's a personal attack, an accusation, that attempts to define Finrock as unfair, superior, and condescending to others. And it is not what Finrock actually believes. That's at least one instance of what Finrock could be referring to as Arenera's using ad hominem.

Jesef you illustrate why I so commonly state that people actually have no understanding of logical arguments. When the claim that is made is substantiated by the nature of the discourse it is not ad hominem. Consider this official definition which I found on the internet so it has to be true:

As ad hominem arguments are only fallacious if they do not follow (non sequitur), if the argument and the person's character are related then there may not be a fallacy. In particular, a criticism is not an ad hominem argument if a person's merits are actually the topic of the argument. If the subject of the debate is the inherent trustworthiness of someone, or what prior probability you would assign to them telling the truth, then their previous track record is relevant to the subject. If debating a person's ability to do a task, then their effectiveness at that task or suitably similar ones, is relevant. (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem)

When FINROCK related his story about how the Lord led him to the LoF and that for the experiences he garnered from that effort, he was blessed, he introduced the validity of a spiritual claim as factual support for his position while at the same time negating that Arenera's opposing position could be the level of truth of his inspired understandings. Thus he established the merit of his argument was based on material to which Arenera is perfectly within proper behavior to respond too. She must be allowed to respond to his claims of spiritual guidance as he has used that as a mike drop moment of emphasis to dominate the discussion. She did not manufacture the charge out of thin air but instead let Finrock introduce a criteria which if she is not allowed to respond to provides for an unfair and unacceptable means of terminating the discussion for an inability to discuss relevant material. This is not at all what the logical fallacy of ad hominem is designed to correct, however it is consistently how Finrock attempts to use it.

[brlenox]

I 'll add a personal observation. If this discussion had never introduced the arguments of men for justifying what constitutes a valid discussion then we would not be subject to the conditions that those arguments impose. In such a situation it is a wonderfully valid and recommended approach to share testimony and spiritual witnesses. However, in and of themselves testimony and spiritual witnesses can never stand as acceptable introductions of fact or reason for logical debate. They can never appeal to sustainment by the criteria that establishes logic and so should never be brought into the arena of men's criteria for acceptability. Once that criteria though is introduced as the defining criteria for the discussion then the discussion must devolve from one that accepts spiritual sustainments to one that only qualifies within the constraints of logical debate.

Thus we create a water and oil combination where neither can tolerate the nature of the other and the spiritual and the philosophies of men must forever repel each other and never assimulate.

Now please pass the Italian dressing - this tossed salad is going down one way or another...