LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10354
Contact:

LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

Post by marc »

Nowhere in the LoF does it state or claim that God is a spirit or a personage of spirit only. I still see confusion on the forums today regarding this matter and it seems to have vexed and still vexes people today. Some still seek to either understand or disprove them. I am not posting this to stir the pot. Please understand this. I do, however, with ALL my heart simply want people to understand what the authors (yes, Rigdon and others authored it, but Joseph had the final revision), who stood, well, knelt, in Christ's presence, and the Father's. It's ALL in my essay. On a separate occasion, both Joseph and Sydney stood in Jesus Christ's presence in the world of glory, which we now have as D&C 76.

I am not sharing this so that people will suddenly agree with me, but to shed light on the matter and offer a greater perspective. And if you have the Holy Ghost, then there should be no problem understanding it if it is true because the Spirit edifies. It is light. It expands the mind. I will share only two small excerpts from my essay. The first is taken from a book series written by Joseph Fielding Smith who was the church historian beside his callings as apostle, president and prophet. The book, which was written as a lesson manual for the Melchizedek Priesthood in the 1940s is out of print but can still be found in Kindle version on Amazon.com and it is titled Church History and Modern Revelations. Lesson sixty-nine of this series, page 137, he writes the following:
“There were two schools conducted in Kirtland. One was a school of the Elders where they carried out some of the provisions of this revelation (Sec. 88) in seeking knowledge of countries and kingdoms and languages, all such information as may be gained in the regular daily school. It was in this school where many of the Elders, then residing in Kirtland, hired Dr. Seixas, a learned Hebrew scholar, and under his direction studied the Hebrew language. This school was conducted for several months and the Prophet, and others, became rather proficient in this language, due to the guidance of the Lord as much as that of the Hebrew scholar. This school proved to be of great benefit to these brethren in later years.

The other was the School of the Prophets, and a very good description of this school and its purpose is given in this section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verses 117 to the end of the section. In a letter written by the Prophet Joseph to William W. Phelps in Zion, January 14, 1833, the following appears: You will see that the Lord commanded us in Kirtland, to build a house of God, and established a school for the prophets, this is the word of the Lord to us, and we must, yea, the Lord helping us, we will obey: as on conditions of our obedience he has promised us great things; yea, even a visit from the heavens to honor us with his own presence. In an epistle written by commandment by Elders Orson Hyde and Hyrum Smith they have this to say to the Saints: We now close our epistle by saying unto you, the Lord has commanded us to purify ourselves, to wash our hands and our feet, that he may testify to his Father and our Father, to his God and to our God, that we are clean from the blood of this generation; and before we could wash our hands, and our feet, we were constrained to write this letter. Therefore, with the feeling of inexpressible anxiety for your welfare, we say again, Repent, repent, or Zion must suffer, for the scourge and judgment must come upon her. (D.H.C. 1:320.) The Prophet further writes: This winter (1832-3) was spent in translating the Scriptures; in the School of the Prophets; and sitting in conferences. I had many glorious seasons of refreshing. (D.H.C. 1:322.) This School of the Prophets and the schools where the ordinary branches were taught continued in Kirtland until the exodus from that place. It was for this school that the lectures on Faith were prepared and which were delivered to the Elders. The idea has been expressed that Sidney Rigdon wrote these lectures, but they were compiled by a number of the brethren and the Prophet himself had the final revision of them...
Further in my essay, I expound on the dilemma held by many of the false and misunderstood notion that God the Father is a spirit. This seems to be the fulcrum of the whole matter and why I believe the LoF have been dismissed and discarded:
It has been compared and contrasted with a passage found in D&C, which states:

“D&C 130:22 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.”

What this verse does not say is that the Father's body is also that of glory and power. As such, it does not render the verse false or inaccurate. It only gives us so much information. Here is the verse in question from The Lectures on Faith:

“LoF 5:2 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...”

Because it was written this way, many have supposed that the authors have declared that there are only two personages in the Godhead. But that is not what this passage states. What it does state is that there are two (of the three) personages in the Godhead “by whom all things were created and made.” Because this part of verse two is referring two personages in one context, it does not render the verse false. It only gives us so much information. Indeed it was the Father and the Son who created man “in our image, after our likeness.” (Genesis 1:26).

Continuing:

“LoF 5:2...They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness...”

This part of verse two does not state that the Father is a spirit as I have read many people argue. What it does state is that the Father is a “personage” of:

1. Spirit
2. Glory
3. Power

It does not say that the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's, but that does not render it false or inaccurate. It only gives us so much information. But let us consider another passage in the scriptures:

“D&C 93:33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy.”

This verse states that we are spirit. But how can that be if we have physical bodies here on earth? Does it mean that the verse is wrong? No. it only gives us so much information. If we are spirit, then our physical bodies are elements, being made from the elements (earth). It has been said that we are not physical beings trying to experience spiritual things, but rather we are spiritual beings trying to experience physical things. And so it is. But we have not yet overcome all enemies including death as the scriptures say. But the “Father” has a fulness of joy because He has overcome all things including death. As such, He is a “personage” of spirit and element inseparably connected who is also clothed in glory and power, possessing all perfections and fulness. Nowhere in these lectures does it state or imply that God is a spirit nor does D&C 93:33 imply that man is a spirit...
This should suffice to give the reader food for thought. Context is everything and for almost two centuries, points of doctrine in the LoF have been taken out of context. I have labored to clarify the context so that what was authored can be read and understood as it was intended. My essay explains why both Sidney and Joseph could teach what they did and that is because they have both been in the presence of Jesus Christ and also His Father. What they saw and understood far exceeds what most others then did. It is all laid out and fully supported. I'm not asking anyone to agree. But, please at least try to understand it even if you don't agree. Then you can say Sidney or Joseph or this nut job Marc understands it this way, but....

Here is my essay: https://latterdaylamanite.com/2017/07/2 ... y-witness/

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

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

Post by Arenera »

Now you have a dilemma and you are trying to explain away. If you have to explain away, then why have it in the first place?
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, is a personage of tabernacle”
It says right there that Father is a personage of spirit.

Does that stand on its own? Of course not. You need 10 pages to try to explain it. That is why we don’t need the LoF.

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10354
Contact:

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

Post by marc »

The Father is a personage of spirit AND glory AND power. That is why it also describes Him possessing ALL perfection AND fullness. You and I are personages of spirit AND tabernacle ONLY. But we do not have glory or power. One cannot have glory AND power without a tabernacle of flesh (and bone), which the Father has, possessing ALL perfection AND fullness. Once Jesus was resurrected, He became a personage of spirit AND glory AND power just like His Father, whereas during His mortal ministry, he was a personage of spirit and tabernacle. There are, however, many people yet to be born into this mortal life who are ONLY personages of spirit.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

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

Post by Arenera »

marc wrote: October 28th, 2017, 9:55 am The Father is a personage of spirit AND glory AND power. That is why it also describes Him possessing ALL perfection AND fullness. You and I are personages of spirit AND tabernacle ONLY. But we do not have glory or power. One cannot have glory AND power without a tabernacle of flesh (and bone), which the Father has, possessing ALL perfection AND fullness. Once Jesus was resurrected, He became a personage of spirit AND glory AND power just like His Father, whereas during His mortal ministry, he was a personage of spirit and tabernacle. There are, however, many people yet to be born into this mortal life who are ONLY personages of spirit.
See, you’re explaining and using lots of Ands. We don’t need the confusing LoF.

Here is LDS doctrine, plain and simple, don’t need lots of explanations: 22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also;

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10354
Contact:

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

Post by marc »

Arenera wrote: October 28th, 2017, 10:24 am We don’t need the confusing LoF...
"We?" Who else are you speaking for? Anyway, I've said my piece. I did not create this topic to contend or dispute. What I wrote can stand on its own without further comment from me.

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

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

Post by Thinker »

As part of Saturday tasks to do, I had my kids write in their journals what God neans to them. God is a 3-letter word symbolizing so much - and is defined as unique as the individual. “The kingdom (realm/experience) of God is within you.”-Luke 17

“God is love,” God is “I AM THAT I AM” - those are again very personal to each person. Still, there is an overwhelming temptation to make God in our own image - partly because it’s easier to relate to what we are familiar with & spirituality is significantly about relating. However, there is a reason why the #1 commandmant Moses received & gave was “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” If we think we have figured out the most Highest of High - Intelligent Designer of the universe, the power by which we live... how ignorant we make ourselves. And we thereby damn (hold hack) ourselves from learning if we think we know it all.

God is love, and can never be pinned down and defined as one single thing. God like love is alive and infinite, expressed based on what each unique circumstance calls for...& is about eternal growth & progression. I believe in order to avoid having other gods before God, I will always be open to learning more about God... and prioritizing such discovery and love of God above ALL!

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

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

Post by Arenera »

15 And the spirit and the body are the soul of man.

User avatar
LucianAMD
ex-Puppet Master
Posts: 157

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

Post by LucianAMD »

Arenera wrote: October 28th, 2017, 10:24 am See, you’re explaining and using lots of Ands. We don’t need the confusing LoF.

Here is LDS doctrine, plain and simple, don’t need lots of explanations: 22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also;

Without understanding what Marc is saying, "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also;" paints an incomplete picture. The LoF were the Doctrine part of the Doctrine and Covenants. You need both to get the complete picture.

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

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

Post by Thinker »

When I pray, I imagine (& am working on increasing faith in) Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother - both. But part of me realizes that I am a child of God - young in spiritual understanding compared to God, so my understanding is very limited. It is likely that God is spirit and energy which is how God can be in and through all. A bit mind-boggling & maybe less familiar, but still makes more sense than trying to cram my idea of God to be as I am in this temporary mortal state.

Who am I? This body? No. I am a spiritual being having an earthly experience, a child of God. So, the essence of God may also be spiritual.

diligently seeking
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1272

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

Post by diligently seeking »

marc wrote: October 28th, 2017, 9:55 am The Father is a personage of spirit AND glory AND power. That is why it also describes Him possessing ALL perfection AND fullness. You and I are personages of spirit AND tabernacle ONLY. But we do not have glory or power. One cannot have glory AND power without a tabernacle of flesh (and bone), which the Father has, possessing ALL perfection AND fullness. Once Jesus was resurrected, He became a personage of spirit AND glory AND power just like His Father, whereas during His mortal ministry, he was a personage of spirit and tabernacle. There are, however, many people yet to be born into this mortal life who are ONLY personages of spirit.


Beautimus!

👍

Thomas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4622

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

Post by Thomas »

If we don't need the Lectures on Faith, why did Joseph say we needed them? Why did the church have them for almost 80 years?

With all due respect to Marc and he does deserve respect for his work on the Lectures, I think the answer of the dilemma is found here:
Doctrine and Covenants 131:7

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;
This is why God can walk through solid walls. He has a body of flesh and blood but the matter that His body is comprised of is spiritual matter.

So the answer is both. He is a personage of spirit and also has body.

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10354
Contact:

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

Post by marc »

Well, He has a body of flesh and bone, not blood. I'm sure that's what you meant, though. But yes, he is a personage of spirit as are we all, and also of flesh as we do, but we still have blood, being mortal. His is further added upon--glory, power, perfection and fullness. These things mean something important. And it is why Joseph endeavored to teach the saints in his day to search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of godliness. There is something he was trying to do for/with them.

Thomas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4622

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

Post by Thomas »

I can agree with that but I also think His body is more refined. Composed of matter more refined than the corruptible matter of this world. I believe that is what the Lectures are trying to teach

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

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

Post by Arenera »

This thread proves without question why the LoF was removed from Standard Works. Even those with years of background can’t agree. You would think God was an X Man.

The remnants can have the LoF, the mark of Rigdon. It hasn’t helped them either.

User avatar
mcusick
captain of 100
Posts: 391
Location: Texas

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

Post by mcusick »

I wrote up the following nearly 3 years ago:

I've skimmed through a bit of Lucy Mack Smith's History of Joseph Smith by His Mother. It's on my reading list. I should probably make it a higher priority. One thing that stuck out to me was a series of dream/visions of her husband Joseph Smith, Sr. before "the restoration." They follow a format. He is taught and led by a "guide" in these dreams. We can see this is a pattern in many revelatory writings, both canonical and pseudepigraphal.

I'll admit I've had a couple dreams that follow this pattern. Maybe half a year ago was the most recent of these dreams.

I met a man who I recognized. He delivered a message to me. He quoted the description of God in the Lectures on Faith - Lecture 5. "The Father [is] a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness." He then explained this to me.

He said (in essence, of course):

The glory of God is intelligence. Intelligence is part of his being.

God also has a spirit. Spirit is part of his being.

Power represents the resurrection and the physical aspect of his being.


And then my dream ended. But I woke and couldn't get it out of my mind.

It was odd. The association of "power" with "physical nature" had never crossed my mind. That morning I looked through the scriptures, trying to confirm this new idea that was given to me.

I found a few scriptures.

(Matthew 28:16-18) Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Here Jesus connects his resurrection from the dead with acquiring "all power . . . in heaven and in earth."

(Romans 1:4) And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.

Paul makes the same connection. "Power" comes "by the resurrection from the dead."

Additionally:

(John 10:18) No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

(2 Corinthians 13:4) For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.

(Mosiah 15:20) But behold, the bands of death shall be broken, and the Son reigneth, and hath power over the dead; therefore, he bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead.

There have been a couple more I've found, but these are the most clear. Power, of course, is used in other senses (power of the Holy Ghost, power to speak, etc.) so it would be improper to write one definition into all uses.

As I've pondered on this dream, I am saddened to see that The Lectures on Faith have been removed from our scriptures. I think because the description of God made the church uncomfortable. You can find website after website quoting the above passage, saying Joseph Smith was a fraud - he changed his definition of God from a personage of spirit to a personage of flesh. Then comes website after website of apologists, claiming continued revelation (to bolster their dogma of a living prophet).

I won't lie, the first time I read the Lectures on Faith (in 2009), this section did bother me. But I chose to wait for further light and knowledge from God, rather than trusting critics or apologists or discarding what Joseph Smith said. This should be the pattern in our lives.

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

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

Post by oneClimbs »

If one hasn’t struggled with scripture then they haven’t thought about it enough.

Just because certain portions of the Lectures seem difficult to understand for some doesn’t mean they are not worthwhile, otherwise we might as well discard all of Isaiah.

People seem to have a lot of trouble with it, but those who know Isaiah love the light in his words. Just because the lectures are not part of “the standard works” doesn’t mean they aren’t scripture. Not all scripture is in the quad.

If they bless your life, great, read them. If they don’t, then move along. Personally I love them and find that they are quoted frequently in Conference and in books by general authorites. Bednar quoted from them three times on one page in one of his books among others.

They have some of the most beautiful teachings to come out of the restoration. Simple, powerful, and true.

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 28th, 2017, 9:43 am Now you have a dilemma and you are trying to explain away. If you have to explain away, then why have it in the first place?
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, is a personage of tabernacle”
It says right there that Father is a personage of spirit.

Does that stand on its own? Of course not. You need 10 pages to try to explain it. That is why we don’t need the LoF.
Perhaps we might benefit from exploring other commentary by authorities on the subject of LDS theology and see how the term personage of spirit might otherwise be understood. One of the very best explanations is one provided by Elder Bruce R. McConkie:
The physical body of Adam is made from the dust of this earth, the very earth to which the Gods came down to form him. His "spirit" enters his body, as Abraham expresses it. (See Abr. 5:7.) Man becomes a living, immortal soul; body and spirit are joined together. He has been created "spiritually," as all things were because there is as yet no mortality. Then comes the Fall; Adam falls; mortality and procreation and death commence. Fallen man is mortal; he has mortal flesh; he is "the first flesh upon the earth." And the effects of his fall pass upon all created things. They fall in that they too become mortal. Death enters the world; mortality reigns; procreation commences; and the Lord's great and eternal purposes roll onward.

Thus, "all things" were created as spirit entities in heaven; then "all things" were created in a paradisiacal state upon the earth; that is, "spiritually were they created," for there was as yet no death. They had spiritual bodies made of the elements of the earth as distinguished from the mortal bodies they would receive after the Fall when death would enter the scheme of things. Natural bodies are subject to the natural death; spiritual bodies, being paradisaical in nature, are not subject to death. Hence the need for a fall and the mortality and death that grows out of it.

Thus, as the interpolative exposition in the divine word explains, "I, the Lord God, planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there I put the man whom I had formed." (Moses 3:8.) Adam, our father, dwelt in the Garden of Eden. He was the first man of all men in the day of his creation, and he became the first flesh of all flesh through the Fall. Because of the Fall "all things" changed from their spiritual state to a natural state. And thus we read: "And out of the ground made I, the Lord God, to grow every tree, naturally, that is pleasant to the sight of man; and man could behold it. And it became also a living soul. For it was spiritual in the day that I created it." (Moses 3:9; italics added). ("Christ and the Creation," Ensign, June 1982, p. 14)
The point is the comparison to how Elder McConkie defines a spirit body, the very Body that Adam and Eve possessed. It is a body made from the elements of an earth such as was God the Fathers. It is the state where Adam Begins his physical sojourn and where he ends it after resurrection, though of a higher degree of glory - it is still classed a spirit body at its creation. However it is distinctly different from the fallen state which is filled with blood wherein is the life of the body, contrary to that of a spiritual body which is sustained by being spirit filled. It is differentiated by being referred to as a body of spirit, a spiritual body, and in the case of the LOF as a personage of spirit. All would be equally accurate in defining a body spirit filled body as opposed to a fallen blood filled state. Thus we can see, if we choose, how the verbiage in Lectures on Faith is perfectly consistent with a spiritually educated perspective that brings clarity to the subject.

Now concerning the Lectures on Faith, Elder McConkie quoting Joseph Fielding Smith in Mormon Doctrine stated:
From 1835 to 1921 all editions of the Doctrine and Covenants contained some lesson material called the Lectures on Faith. These lectures, seven in number, were prepared by the Prophet for study in the school of the elders in Kirtland in 1834-1835, and also for publication in the Doctrine and Covenants. They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars. (Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, pp. 303-304; vol. 3, p. 194.)
Further in a Talk titled "The Bible A Sealed Book" he listed 5 documents that he considered next to the standard works: The Lectures on Faith are number 2 on the list.
Also by way of having all things in perspective, we should be aware that there are approved and inspired writings that are not in the standard works. These writings also are true and should be used along with the scriptures themselves in learning and teaching the gospel. Next to the standard works five of the greatest documents in our literature are —

1.)...
2.) Lectures on Faith. These lectures were prepared by and under the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith and were taught by him and by others in the School of the Prophets. The Prophet said they embraced “the important doctrine[s — sic] of salvation” (Preface to D&C, 1835 edition; reprint, Independence, MO: Herald House, 1971).
3.)...
4.) ...
5.)...
Having made efforts 10 or so years ago to memorize the entire Lectures on Faith, I became intimately familiar with them. I agree with Elder McConkie, an invaluable asset to truly understanding God and the other members of the Godhead. I am sure you will agree upon reflection.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

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

Post by Arenera »

brlenox wrote: October 29th, 2017, 11:24 pm
Arenera wrote: October 28th, 2017, 9:43 am Now you have a dilemma and you are trying to explain away. If you have to explain away, then why have it in the first place?
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, is a personage of tabernacle”
It says right there that Father is a personage of spirit.

Does that stand on its own? Of course not. You need 10 pages to try to explain it. That is why we don’t need the LoF.
Perhaps we might benefit from exploring other commentary by authorities on the subject of LDS theology and see how the term personage of spirit might otherwise be understood. One of the very best explanations is one provided by Elder Bruce R. McConkie:
The physical body of Adam is made from the dust of this earth, the very earth to which the Gods came down to form him. His "spirit" enters his body, as Abraham expresses it. (See Abr. 5:7.) Man becomes a living, immortal soul; body and spirit are joined together. He has been created "spiritually," as all things were because there is as yet no mortality. Then comes the Fall; Adam falls; mortality and procreation and death commence. Fallen man is mortal; he has mortal flesh; he is "the first flesh upon the earth." And the effects of his fall pass upon all created things. They fall in that they too become mortal. Death enters the world; mortality reigns; procreation commences; and the Lord's great and eternal purposes roll onward.

Thus, "all things" were created as spirit entities in heaven; then "all things" were created in a paradisiacal state upon the earth; that is, "spiritually were they created," for there was as yet no death. They had spiritual bodies made of the elements of the earth as distinguished from the mortal bodies they would receive after the Fall when death would enter the scheme of things. Natural bodies are subject to the natural death; spiritual bodies, being paradisaical in nature, are not subject to death. Hence the need for a fall and the mortality and death that grows out of it.

Thus, as the interpolative exposition in the divine word explains, "I, the Lord God, planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there I put the man whom I had formed." (Moses 3:8.) Adam, our father, dwelt in the Garden of Eden. He was the first man of all men in the day of his creation, and he became the first flesh of all flesh through the Fall. Because of the Fall "all things" changed from their spiritual state to a natural state. And thus we read: "And out of the ground made I, the Lord God, to grow every tree, naturally, that is pleasant to the sight of man; and man could behold it. And it became also a living soul. For it was spiritual in the day that I created it." (Moses 3:9; italics added). ("Christ and the Creation," Ensign, June 1982, p. 14)
The point is the comparison to how Elder McConkie defines a spirit body, the very Body that Adam and Eve possessed. It is a body made from the elements of an earth such as was God the Fathers. It is the state where Adam Begins his physical sojourn and where he ends it after resurrection, though of a higher degree of glory - it is still classed a spirit body at its creation. However it is distinctly different from the fallen state which is filled with blood wherein is the life of the body, contrary to that of a spiritual body which is sustained by being spirit filled. It is differentiated by being referred to as a body of spirit, a spiritual body, and in the case of the LOF as a personage of spirit. All would be equally accurate in defining a body spirit filled body as opposed to a fallen blood filled state. Thus we can see, if we choose, how the verbiage in Lectures on Faith is perfectly consistent with a spiritually educated perspective that brings clarity to the subject.

Now concerning the Lectures on Faith, Elder McConkie quoting Joseph Fielding Smith in Mormon Doctrine stated:
From 1835 to 1921 all editions of the Doctrine and Covenants contained some lesson material called the Lectures on Faith. These lectures, seven in number, were prepared by the Prophet for study in the school of the elders in Kirtland in 1834-1835, and also for publication in the Doctrine and Covenants. They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars. (Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, pp. 303-304; vol. 3, p. 194.)
Further in a Talk titled "The Bible A Sealed Book" he listed 5 documents that he considered next to the standard works: The Lectures on Faith are number 2 on the list.
Also by way of having all things in perspective, we should be aware that there are approved and inspired writings that are not in the standard works. These writings also are true and should be used along with the scriptures themselves in learning and teaching the gospel. Next to the standard works five of the greatest documents in our literature are —

1.)...
2.)
Lectures on Faith. These lectures were prepared by and under the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith and were taught by him and by others in the
School of the Prophets. The Prophet said they embraced “the important doctrine[s — sic] of salvation” (Preface to D&C, 1835 edition; reprint, Independence, MO: Herald House, 1971).
3.)...
4.) ...
5.)...
Having made efforts 10 or so years ago to memorize the entire Lectures on Faith, I became intimately familiar with them. I agree with Elder McConkie, an invaluable asset to truly understanding God and the other members of the Godhead. I am sure you will agree upon reflection.
As has been shown, Sidney Rigdon wrote the LoF. As you have also shown in your post, you have to explain what personage of spirit means. If you review Christian belief sets you see that personage of spirit relates to how they define it.

The mistake that many make, including you, is believing that Joseph Smith wrote the LoF, which he didn’t. The LoF don’t stand on its own, it requires explaining to get it to LDS doctrine.

This is apparent because they included Noel Reynolds research in the 2nd Volume of the Joseph Smith papers. It isn’t valuable for understanding God. Scholars like to pontificate on it showing how much they know LDS doctrine.

And let’s not get into overplaying L6 on sacrifice, which the remnant love to do.

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 29th, 2017, 11:36 pm
brlenox wrote: October 29th, 2017, 11:24 pm
Arenera wrote: October 28th, 2017, 9:43 am Now you have a dilemma and you are trying to explain away. If you have to explain away, then why have it in the first place?
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, is a personage of tabernacle”
It says right there that Father is a personage of spirit.

Does that stand on its own? Of course not. You need 10 pages to try to explain it. That is why we don’t need the LoF.
Perhaps we might benefit from exploring other commentary by authorities on the subject of LDS theology and see how the term personage of spirit might otherwise be understood. One of the very best explanations is one provided by Elder Bruce R. McConkie:
The physical body of Adam is made from the dust of this earth, the very earth to which the Gods came down to form him. His "spirit" enters his body, as Abraham expresses it. (See Abr. 5:7.) Man becomes a living, immortal soul; body and spirit are joined together. He has been created "spiritually," as all things were because there is as yet no mortality. Then comes the Fall; Adam falls; mortality and procreation and death commence. Fallen man is mortal; he has mortal flesh; he is "the first flesh upon the earth." And the effects of his fall pass upon all created things. They fall in that they too become mortal. Death enters the world; mortality reigns; procreation commences; and the Lord's great and eternal purposes roll onward.

Thus, "all things" were created as spirit entities in heaven; then "all things" were created in a paradisiacal state upon the earth; that is, "spiritually were they created," for there was as yet no death. They had spiritual bodies made of the elements of the earth as distinguished from the mortal bodies they would receive after the Fall when death would enter the scheme of things. Natural bodies are subject to the natural death; spiritual bodies, being paradisaical in nature, are not subject to death. Hence the need for a fall and the mortality and death that grows out of it.

Thus, as the interpolative exposition in the divine word explains, "I, the Lord God, planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there I put the man whom I had formed." (Moses 3:8.) Adam, our father, dwelt in the Garden of Eden. He was the first man of all men in the day of his creation, and he became the first flesh of all flesh through the Fall. Because of the Fall "all things" changed from their spiritual state to a natural state. And thus we read: "And out of the ground made I, the Lord God, to grow every tree, naturally, that is pleasant to the sight of man; and man could behold it. And it became also a living soul. For it was spiritual in the day that I created it." (Moses 3:9; italics added). ("Christ and the Creation," Ensign, June 1982, p. 14)
The point is the comparison to how Elder McConkie defines a spirit body, the very Body that Adam and Eve possessed. It is a body made from the elements of an earth such as was God the Fathers. It is the state where Adam Begins his physical sojourn and where he ends it after resurrection, though of a higher degree of glory - it is still classed a spirit body at its creation. However it is distinctly different from the fallen state which is filled with blood wherein is the life of the body, contrary to that of a spiritual body which is sustained by being spirit filled. It is differentiated by being referred to as a body of spirit, a spiritual body, and in the case of the LOF as a personage of spirit. All would be equally accurate in defining a body spirit filled body as opposed to a fallen blood filled state. Thus we can see, if we choose, how the verbiage in Lectures on Faith is perfectly consistent with a spiritually educated perspective that brings clarity to the subject.

Now concerning the Lectures on Faith, Elder McConkie quoting Joseph Fielding Smith in Mormon Doctrine stated:
From 1835 to 1921 all editions of the Doctrine and Covenants contained some lesson material called the Lectures on Faith. These lectures, seven in number, were prepared by the Prophet for study in the school of the elders in Kirtland in 1834-1835, and also for publication in the Doctrine and Covenants. They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars. (Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, pp. 303-304; vol. 3, p. 194.)
Further in a Talk titled "The Bible A Sealed Book" he listed 5 documents that he considered next to the standard works: The Lectures on Faith are number 2 on the list.
Also by way of having all things in perspective, we should be aware that there are approved and inspired writings that are not in the standard works. These writings also are true and should be used along with the scriptures themselves in learning and teaching the gospel. Next to the standard works five of the greatest documents in our literature are —

1.)...
2.)
Lectures on Faith. These lectures were prepared by and under the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith and were taught by him and by others in the
School of the Prophets. The Prophet said they embraced “the important doctrine[s — sic] of salvation” (Preface to D&C, 1835 edition; reprint, Independence, MO: Herald House, 1971).
3.)...
4.) ...
5.)...
Having made efforts 10 or so years ago to memorize the entire Lectures on Faith, I became intimately familiar with them. I agree with Elder McConkie, an invaluable asset to truly understanding God and the other members of the Godhead. I am sure you will agree upon reflection.
As has been shown, Sidney Rigdon wrote the LoF. As you have also shown in your post, you have to explain what personage of spirit means. If you review Christian belief sets you see that personage of spirit relates to how they define it.

The mistake that many make, including you, is believing that Joseph Smith wrote the LoF, which he didn’t. The LoF don’t stand on its own, it requires explaining to get it to LDS doctrine.

This is apparent because they included Noel Reynolds research in the 2nd Volume of the Joseph Smith papers. It isn’t valuable for understanding God. Scholars like to pontificate on it showing how much they know LDS doctrine.

And let’s not get into overplaying L6 on sacrifice, which the remnant love to do.
One of the reasons I tie my material to Prophets and apostles is that I freely acknowledge that in the realm of theology I have no authority or right to define doctrine. I did not have to define a spirit body, instead I joined my voice with that of Elder McConkie. I borrow upon the words of apostles and prophets, because, first I have learned from them correct understandings and when someone cites them it should add merit to the commentary. This also creates another interesting perspective. While some believe they are simply disagreeing with me really they have disagreed with the apostles and prophets given charge to teach correct principles. Wouldn't you feel more comfortable finding common ground with apostles and prophets as opposed to standing in opposition to them?

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

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

Post by Arenera »

brlenox wrote: October 29th, 2017, 11:42 pm
Arenera wrote: October 29th, 2017, 11:36 pm
brlenox wrote: October 29th, 2017, 11:24 pm
Arenera wrote: October 28th, 2017, 9:43 am Now you have a dilemma and you are trying to explain away. If you have to explain away, then why have it in the first place?



It says right there that Father is a personage of spirit.

Does that stand on its own? Of course not. You need 10 pages to try to explain it. That is why we don’t need the LoF.
Perhaps we might benefit from exploring other commentary by authorities on the subject of LDS theology and see how the term personage of spirit might otherwise be understood. One of the very best explanations is one provided by Elder Bruce R. McConkie:
The physical body of Adam is made from the dust of this earth, the very earth to which the Gods came down to form him. His "spirit" enters his body, as Abraham expresses it. (See Abr. 5:7.) Man becomes a living, immortal soul; body and spirit are joined together. He has been created "spiritually," as all things were because there is as yet no mortality. Then comes the Fall; Adam falls; mortality and procreation and death commence. Fallen man is mortal; he has mortal flesh; he is "the first flesh upon the earth." And the effects of his fall pass upon all created things. They fall in that they too become mortal. Death enters the world; mortality reigns; procreation commences; and the Lord's great and eternal purposes roll onward.

Thus, "all things" were created as spirit entities in heaven; then "all things" were created in a paradisiacal state upon the earth; that is, "spiritually were they created," for there was as yet no death. They had spiritual bodies made of the elements of the earth as distinguished from the mortal bodies they would receive after the Fall when death would enter the scheme of things. Natural bodies are subject to the natural death; spiritual bodies, being paradisaical in nature, are not subject to death. Hence the need for a fall and the mortality and death that grows out of it.

Thus, as the interpolative exposition in the divine word explains, "I, the Lord God, planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there I put the man whom I had formed." (Moses 3:8.) Adam, our father, dwelt in the Garden of Eden. He was the first man of all men in the day of his creation, and he became the first flesh of all flesh through the Fall. Because of the Fall "all things" changed from their spiritual state to a natural state. And thus we read: "And out of the ground made I, the Lord God, to grow every tree, naturally, that is pleasant to the sight of man; and man could behold it. And it became also a living soul. For it was spiritual in the day that I created it." (Moses 3:9; italics added). ("Christ and the Creation," Ensign, June 1982, p. 14)
The point is the comparison to how Elder McConkie defines a spirit body, the very Body that Adam and Eve possessed. It is a body made from the elements of an earth such as was God the Fathers. It is the state where Adam Begins his physical sojourn and where he ends it after resurrection, though of a higher degree of glory - it is still classed a spirit body at its creation. However it is distinctly different from the fallen state which is filled with blood wherein is the life of the body, contrary to that of a spiritual body which is sustained by being spirit filled. It is differentiated by being referred to as a body of spirit, a spiritual body, and in the case of the LOF as a personage of spirit. All would be equally accurate in defining a body spirit filled body as opposed to a fallen blood filled state. Thus we can see, if we choose, how the verbiage in Lectures on Faith is perfectly consistent with a spiritually educated perspective that brings clarity to the subject.

Now concerning the Lectures on Faith, Elder McConkie quoting Joseph Fielding Smith in Mormon Doctrine stated:
From 1835 to 1921 all editions of the Doctrine and Covenants contained some lesson material called the Lectures on Faith. These lectures, seven in number, were prepared by the Prophet for study in the school of the elders in Kirtland in 1834-1835, and also for publication in the Doctrine and Covenants. They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars. (Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, pp. 303-304; vol. 3, p. 194.)
Further in a Talk titled "The Bible A Sealed Book" he listed 5 documents that he considered next to the standard works: The Lectures on Faith are number 2 on the list.
Also by way of having all things in perspective, we should be aware that there are approved and inspired writings that are not in the standard works. These writings also are true and should be used along with the scriptures themselves in learning and teaching the gospel. Next to the standard works five of the greatest documents in our literature are —

1.)...
2.)
Lectures on Faith. These lectures were prepared by and under the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith and were taught by him and by others in the
School of the Prophets. The Prophet said they embraced “the important doctrine[s — sic] of salvation” (Preface to D&C, 1835 edition; reprint, Independence, MO: Herald House, 1971).
3.)...
4.) ...
5.)...
Having made efforts 10 or so years ago to memorize the entire Lectures on Faith, I became intimately familiar with them. I agree with Elder McConkie, an invaluable asset to truly understanding God and the other members of the Godhead. I am sure you will agree upon reflection.
As has been shown, Sidney Rigdon wrote the LoF. As you have also shown in your post, you have to explain what personage of spirit means. If you review Christian belief sets you see that personage of spirit relates to how they define it.

The mistake that many make, including you, is believing that Joseph Smith wrote the LoF, which he didn’t. The LoF don’t stand on its own, it requires explaining to get it to LDS doctrine.

This is apparent because they included Noel Reynolds research in the 2nd Volume of the Joseph Smith papers. It isn’t valuable for understanding God. Scholars like to pontificate on it showing how much they know LDS doctrine.

And let’s not get into overplaying L6 on sacrifice, which the remnant love to do.
One of the reasons I tie my material to Prophets and apostles is that I freely acknowledge that in the realm of theology I have no authority or right to define doctrine. I did not have to define a spirit body, instead I joined my voice with that of Elder McConkie. I borrow upon the words of apostles and prophets, because, first I have learned from them correct understandings and when someone cites them it should add merit to the commentary. This also creates another interesting perspective. While some believe they are simply disagreeing with me really they have disagreed with the apostles and prophets given charge to teach correct principles. Wouldn't you feel more comfortable finding common ground with apostles and prophets as opposed to standing in opposition to them?
See, you are doing it again. You are trying to justify your logic by using BRM. Ok, what about the apostles who took the LoF out of the D&C, i agree with them.

Once you understand that Joseph didn’t write the LoF you dont have to try to justify them.

This was written by Joseph Smith and stands on its own as LDS doctrine:
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.

What is in the LoF doesn’t stand on its own as LDS doctrine.

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10354
Contact:

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

Post by marc »

Arenera wrote: October 30th, 2017, 12:33 am Once you understand that Joseph didn’t write the LoF you dont have to try to justify them.
Once you understand that Joseph Smith made the "final revision of them," you can stop trying to justify that he wasn't involved with or did not teach from them in the school of the prophets, which was specifically commanded by the Lord to be set up to prepare the brethren to behold Jesus Christ and also the Father while in the flesh, which they did.
Arenera wrote: October 30th, 2017, 12:33 amWhat is in the LoF doesn’t stand on its own as LDS doctrine.
It absolutely does. The fact that sixteen of the brethren in the "school of the prophets" were visited while in the flesh by both members of the Godhead at the same time is the fruit of their collective labors in having specifically written the Lectures on Faith for the school of the prophets.

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 30th, 2017, 12:33 am
brlenox wrote: October 29th, 2017, 11:42 pm
Arenera wrote: October 29th, 2017, 11:36 pm
brlenox wrote: October 29th, 2017, 11:24 pm

Perhaps we might benefit from exploring other commentary by authorities on the subject of LDS theology and see how the term personage of spirit might otherwise be understood. One of the very best explanations is one provided by Elder Bruce R. McConkie:

The point is the comparison to how Elder McConkie defines a spirit body, the very Body that Adam and Eve possessed. It is a body made from the elements of an earth such as was God the Fathers. It is the state where Adam Begins his physical sojourn and where he ends it after resurrection, though of a higher degree of glory - it is still classed a spirit body at its creation. However it is distinctly different from the fallen state which is filled with blood wherein is the life of the body, contrary to that of a spiritual body which is sustained by being spirit filled. It is differentiated by being referred to as a body of spirit, a spiritual body, and in the case of the LOF as a personage of spirit. All would be equally accurate in defining a body spirit filled body as opposed to a fallen blood filled state. Thus we can see, if we choose, how the verbiage in Lectures on Faith is perfectly consistent with a spiritually educated perspective that brings clarity to the subject.

Now concerning the Lectures on Faith, Elder McConkie quoting Joseph Fielding Smith in Mormon Doctrine stated:

Further in a Talk titled "The Bible A Sealed Book" he listed 5 documents that he considered next to the standard works: The Lectures on Faith are number 2 on the list.

Having made efforts 10 or so years ago to memorize the entire Lectures on Faith, I became intimately familiar with them. I agree with Elder McConkie, an invaluable asset to truly understanding God and the other members of the Godhead. I am sure you will agree upon reflection.
As has been shown, Sidney Rigdon wrote the LoF. As you have also shown in your post, you have to explain what personage of spirit means. If you review Christian belief sets you see that personage of spirit relates to how they define it.

The mistake that many make, including you, is believing that Joseph Smith wrote the LoF, which he didn’t. The LoF don’t stand on its own, it requires explaining to get it to LDS doctrine.

This is apparent because they included Noel Reynolds research in the 2nd Volume of the Joseph Smith papers. It isn’t valuable for understanding God. Scholars like to pontificate on it showing how much they know LDS doctrine.

And let’s not get into overplaying L6 on sacrifice, which the remnant love to do.
One of the reasons I tie my material to Prophets and apostles is that I freely acknowledge that in the realm of theology I have no authority or right to define doctrine. I did not have to define a spirit body, instead I joined my voice with that of Elder McConkie. I borrow upon the words of apostles and prophets, because, first I have learned from them correct understandings and when someone cites them it should add merit to the commentary. This also creates another interesting perspective. While some believe they are simply disagreeing with me really they have disagreed with the apostles and prophets given charge to teach correct principles. Wouldn't you feel more comfortable finding common ground with apostles and prophets as opposed to standing in opposition to them?
See, you are doing it again. You are trying to justify your logic by using BRM. Ok, what about the apostles who took the LoF out of the D&C, i agree with them.

Once you understand that Joseph didn’t write the LoF you dont have to try to justify them.

This was written by Joseph Smith and stands on its own as LDS doctrine:
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.

What is in the LoF doesn’t stand on its own as LDS doctrine.
This not a horse race between apostles. I also sustain Elder Talmage and his suggestions for the removal of the Lectures on Faith and I sustain Elder McConkie for his perspective that the lectures are of immense value. I do not think that you read for understanding as it appears that you only have a desire to sustain your opinion and you will do so in opposition to anyone you have to step over to maintain the sacred ground of your opinion.

In stead of me telling you why they were removed, I'll simply ask do you even know? 30 seconds on the internet will inform you that you do not need to chastise Elder McConkie and others for not agreeing with you and Elder Talmage because there is no point of contention between Elder McConkie and Elder Talmage.

You've spent a fair bit of time here defending yourself as not of Snuffer because for some reason people keep seeing something in your communication style and the picking and choosing of apostolic voices to which you may choose to hear. Perhaps it might behoove you to try and figure out why this comparison is so often levied your way. The mistake from my perspective is that we who are very familiar with his style may not be making a proper comparison. Long before Snuffer there was the spirit of deception that always accompanies that type of gospel approach. He personified it for us and so we, in his honor, reference it by his name. However, while a person can rightly claim they are not a follower of Snuffer they may yet harbor a spirit of dissention and deception as is common to such as exhibit no fealty to apostolic voices. From my perspective, this is the nature of your voice.

If the two arguably greatest theologians of our day Elder McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith, next to Joseph Smith, find merit in the Lectures on Faith it is the most blatant lack of foresight and insult to their station as apostles of the Lord, to think that the Lectures might not be of value to each of us and that we should seek the spirit that causes these men to feel as they do. I wonder why from you there is such a spirit of vehemence against the lectures. After spending months reviewing them daily, I, perhaps slower than most, realized they really have one primary purpose - to teach the principles that would permit men to once again stand in the presence of the Father and the Son. For one little tiny phrase which you fail to understand, you would throw away a priceless gem of thousands of words of remarkable understanding. This you will do without one voice in agreement of comparable worth as the apostles who found worth in them. Only on your personal opinion with no legitimate witness ie. apostles and prophets with you is dangerous ground upon which to seek the Lord. You are bound to become lost if you forsake them.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

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

Post by Arenera »

brlenox wrote: October 30th, 2017, 8:51 am
Arenera wrote: October 30th, 2017, 12:33 am
brlenox wrote: October 29th, 2017, 11:42 pm
Arenera wrote: October 29th, 2017, 11:36 pm

As has been shown, Sidney Rigdon wrote the LoF. As you have also shown in your post, you have to explain what personage of spirit means. If you review Christian belief sets you see that personage of spirit relates to how they define it.

The mistake that many make, including you, is believing that Joseph Smith wrote the LoF, which he didn’t. The LoF don’t stand on its own, it requires explaining to get it to LDS doctrine.

This is apparent because they included Noel Reynolds research in the 2nd Volume of the Joseph Smith papers. It isn’t valuable for understanding God. Scholars like to pontificate on it showing how much they know LDS doctrine.

And let’s not get into overplaying L6 on sacrifice, which the remnant love to do.
One of the reasons I tie my material to Prophets and apostles is that I freely acknowledge that in the realm of theology I have no authority or right to define doctrine. I did not have to define a spirit body, instead I joined my voice with that of Elder McConkie. I borrow upon the words of apostles and prophets, because, first I have learned from them correct understandings and when someone cites them it should add merit to the commentary. This also creates another interesting perspective. While some believe they are simply disagreeing with me really they have disagreed with the apostles and prophets given charge to teach correct principles. Wouldn't you feel more comfortable finding common ground with apostles and prophets as opposed to standing in opposition to them?
See, you are doing it again. You are trying to justify your logic by using BRM. Ok, what about the apostles who took the LoF out of the D&C, i agree with them.

Once you understand that Joseph didn’t write the LoF you dont have to try to justify them.

This was written by Joseph Smith and stands on its own as LDS doctrine:
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.

What is in the LoF doesn’t stand on its own as LDS doctrine.
This not a horse race between apostles. I also sustain Elder Talmage and his suggestions for the removal of the Lectures on Faith and I sustain Elder McConkie for his perspective that the lectures are of immense value. I do not think that you read for understanding as it appears that you only have a desire to sustain your opinion and you will do so in opposition to anyone you have to step over to maintain the sacred ground of your opinion.

In stead of me telling you why they were removed, I'll simply ask do you even know? 30 seconds on the internet will inform you that you do not need to chastise Elder McConkie and others for not agreeing with you and Elder Talmage because there is no point of contention between Elder McConkie and Elder Talmage.

You've spent a fair bit of time here defending yourself as not of Snuffer because for some reason people keep seeing something in your communication style and the picking and choosing of apostolic voices to which you may choose to hear. Perhaps it might behoove you to try and figure out why this comparison is so often levied your way. The mistake from my perspective is that we who are very familiar with his style may not be making a proper comparison. Long before Snuffer there was the spirit of deception that always accompanies that type of gospel approach. He personified it for us and so we, in his honor, reference it by his name. However, while a person can rightly claim they are not a follower of Snuffer they may yet harbor a spirit of dissention and deception as is common to such as exhibit no fealty to apostolic voices. From my perspective, this is the nature of your voice.

If the two arguably greatest theologians of our day Elder McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith, next to Joseph Smith, find merit in the Lectures on Faith it is the most blatant lack of foresight and insult to their station as apostles of the Lord, to think that the Lectures might not be of value to each of us and that we should seek the spirit that causes these men to feel as they do. I wonder why from you there is such a spirit of vehemence against the lectures. After spending months reviewing them daily, I, perhaps slower than most, realized they really have one primary purpose - to teach the principles that would permit men to once again stand in the presence of the Father and the Son. For one little tiny phrase which you fail to understand, you would throw away a priceless gem of thousands of words of remarkable understanding. This you will do without one voice in agreement of comparable worth as the apostles who found worth in them. Only on your personal opinion with no legitimate witness ie. apostles and prophets with you is dangerous ground upon which to seek the Lord. You are bound to become lost if you forsake them.
Does one need the LoF to reach the Celestial Kingdom? Of course not. What does one need to do? Read the Book of Mormon. You need some help with your trying to put people in boxes that you imagine.

The LoF says God is a Spirit. You don’t think that can be misleading to some? Well, unless you spend months trying to understand it, and write a treatise on it.

My point is the LoF are not necessary. It seems like those who want to memorize or write a treatise enjoy explaining the LoF with their vast knowledge and callings. Yet you continue to say I’m a closet Snufferite, I’m mislead and I don’t support our leaders.

By the way, BRM doesn’t have a track record of being perfect, or did you know that?

How do I know you have some issues? You have called me a Son of Perdition. You have said I’m a closet Snufferite. You have said i don’t respect the leaders.

And I say, you need to keep at it since you don’t exhibit charity. If you understood the fulness in the Book of Mormon, you would soften up. Maybe, I suppose Bishops are hard minded?

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

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

Post by Arenera »

marc wrote: October 30th, 2017, 4:47 am
Arenera wrote: October 30th, 2017, 12:33 am Once you understand that Joseph didn’t write the LoF you dont have to try to justify them.
Once you understand that Joseph Smith made the "final revision of them," you can stop trying to justify that he wasn't involved with or did not teach from them in the school of the prophets, which was specifically commanded by the Lord to be set up to prepare the brethren to behold Jesus Christ and also the Father while in the flesh, which they did.
Arenera wrote: October 30th, 2017, 12:33 amWhat is in the LoF doesn’t stand on its own as LDS doctrine.
It absolutely does. The fact that sixteen of the brethren in the "school of the prophets" were visited while in the flesh by both members of the Godhead at the same time is the fruit of their collective labors in having specifically written the Lectures on Faith for the school of the prophets.
The LoF doesnt stand on it’s own.
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 fullness, 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 fullness of the Father, or the same fullness with the Father;

What is the Father? He is a personage of glory and of power. (Lecture 5:2.)

What is the Son? First, he is a personage of tabernacle. (Lecture 5:2.)

Compare to:
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
The Father being a personage of spirit.
The Son, a personage of tabernacle.

D&C 130, the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit.

You can easily see where someone with little or no background in LDS doctrine would take this as God is a Spirit.

From the Nicene Creed: We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

Who are those that saw Christ and God? Sidney Rigdon did, yet he fell away from the church.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

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

Post by Arenera »

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.
b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.
c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission 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.
Opinions on the authorship and status of the lectures in Latter-day Saint literature have varied widely among both scholars and church authorities. Elders Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith both saw Joseph Smith as a principal author of the lectures and believed he had approved them in full, having revised and prepared them for publication.11 However, that view does not appear to have been generally shared by the church leadership that discontinued official publication of the seven lectures in 1921
At least some of the presiding brethren possibly held the view published later by Elder John A. Widtsoe, who believed they were "written by Sidney Rigdon and others."13 Three independent authorship studies conducted in recent decades and using different reputable techniques all conclude that Sidney Rigdon was the primary author of the lectures. Based on these studies, not a single lecture can conclusively be attributed to Joseph Smith.

Post Reply