I Wish The Canon Would Expand Just A Teeny Bit

[CASteinman]

See my second previous post!

Could you give me a Post #? Does it answer the questions?

[mathonihah]

An indication of the difference in the respect that the Lectures on Faith had vs the second section of the Doctrine and Covenants which was called "Covenants and Commandments" is to note how they were described in the Doctrine and Covenants opening pages as follows:

The Lectures on Faith were called "Lectures". The "Covenants and Commandments" were called "Revelations".

This distinction is noted in the announcement given to the Church of its publication:

"The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of lectures as delivered before a theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them in the following work. The second part contains items or principles for the regulation of the Church as taken from the revelations which have been given since its organization, as well as from former ones."

And this distinction was noted upon the words by which the Volume was Presented to High Council at Kirtland and accepted:

"Elder John Smith, taking the lead of the High Council in Kirtland, bore record that the revelations in said book were true, and that the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine. Whereupon, the High Council of Kirtland accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith by a unanimous vote."

This is the basis upon which the Lectures were accepted into the Doctrine and Covenants.

And for me the distinction is not that great or significant warrant the differentiation.

[CASteinman]

That may well be true, in which case I have no hesitation in disagreeing with the prophets of the time!

Yes, I can see you have no qualms against such things.

But there has been, as far as I can tell, been a prophet who declared the lectures to be revelation. And I have asked for a cite for such things and you refuse.

[CASteinman]

And for me the distinction is not that great or significant warrant the differentiation.

On the other hand, you have no citations to show that your view was ever accepted as valid by the Church.

[mathonihah]

So you want it to teach the infinite regression of the Gods and because it does not, it should not be included?

No, I don't want it to teach the infinite regression of the Gods. You want it to teach the infinite regression of the Gods (and insist on reading that into it). That is why I don't want it to be included.

[mathonihah]

So no Reference then. On things not related to revelation per se but upon statements of fact about history.

See my previous post.

[mathonihah]

Yes, but sticking to it requires that you ignore the record.

Not true. See my previous post.

[CASteinman]

It just isn't. The facts of the case do not necessarily lead to that conclusion.

Show these facts please.

[mathonihah]

I don't mind. But you did say it contains false doctrine, didn't you?

I said you contain false doctrine, not KFD.

[CASteinman]

No, I don't want it to teach the infinite regression of the Gods. You want it to teach the infinite regression of the Gods (and insist on reading that into it). That is why I don't want it to be included.

You are claiming that I want something I have not said. Since you believe it does not teach infinite regression of the Gods, then what is it about the KFD that you figure is false doctrine?

[mathonihah]

Could you give me a Post #?

Not easy to do, as I am using a hand held device.

Does it answer the questions?

Yes.

[CASteinman]

See my previous post.

Your previous post said that you would not respond to CFR, as I recall.

[CASteinman]

Not true. See my previous post.

Your previous post said to see your previous post which I think said you would not respond to CFR. It would be helpful if you included posting numbers.

[CASteinman]

I said you contain false doctrine, not KFD.

You have never said that I contain false doctrine. This is the first time.

Which false doctrine do I contain?

[CASteinman]

Not easy to do, as I am using a hand held device.

Yes.

As far as I can tell you are repeatedly refusing to respond to multiple CFR's.

[mathonihah]

Yes, I can see you have no qualms against such things.

I go by what is true, not by what is “official,” especially by your definition it what is official.

But there has been, as far as I can tell, been a prophet who declared the lectures to be revelation. And I have asked for a cite for such things and you refuse.

It may be that no Prophet has declared it a revelation. I do!

Edited March 25, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

On the other hand, you have no citations to show that your view was ever accepted as valid by the Church.

I don't have one, and it may not have been.

[mathonihah]

Show these facts please.

See my previous post.

[CASteinman]

I go by what is true, not by what is “official,” especially by your definition it what is official.

You go by what you claim to be true -- not by what is official, nor what the current prophets and apostles claim is true.

It may be that no Prophet has declared it a revelation. I do!

OK... so you are your own sort of authority. But this does not really support a CFR.

[mathonihah]

You are claiming that I want something I have not said. Since you believe it does not teach infinite regression of the Gods, then what is it about the KFD that you figure is false doctrine?

I did not object to the doctrine. I objected to the language and mode of expression, and the false doctrines that have already been (falsely) read into it, such as the infinite regression of the Gods.

[mathonihah]

Your previous post said to see your previous post which I think said you would not respond to CFR. It would be helpful if you included posting numbers.

I cannot see the numbers on my hand held device, and to keep up with your fast pace of posting it would take too long to switch modes to look it up.

[mathonihah]

You have never said that I contain false doctrine. This is the first time.

Which false doctrine do I contain?

That KFD teaches infinite regression of the Gods.

[mathonihah]

As far as I can tell you are repeatedly refusing to respond to multiple CFR's.

You gave me a good reference for the reasons for differentiating between the Lectures and the rest of the D&C, and I told you why I don't see that as a good enough reason for the differentiation.

[CASteinman]

I did not object to the doctrine. I objected to the language and mode of expression, and the false doctrines that have already been (falsely) read into it, such as the infinite regression of the Gods.

Actually that supposedly false doctrine was not "read into" the KFD. It comes from teachings by the Prophet Joseph Smith in a different sermon called "The Meeting in the Grove" where he teaches it directly. Brigham Young did not really teach it all that much -- he focused on one particular iteration. Both Joseph and WW Phelps indicate the doctrine was learned in the translation of the Book of Abraham.

[CASteinman]

You gave me a good reference for the reasons for differentiating between the Lectures and the rest of the D&C, and I told you why I don't see that as a good enough reason for the differentiation.

You have told me you don't have a reference and that there might not be one or probably there is not one (or words to that effect) and I accept that.