Misunderstanding Article Of Faith #9?

[Thinking]

Article of Faith #9

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

 

The following statement is on the official website of the LDS Church.

the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges.  According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." Link

 

In my opinion, a change is much different than an addition.

 

For example, LDS believe that Jesus Christ is the creator of the earth. If additional knowledge about the creation was revealed, could that knowledge change the original doctrine?

 

Whenever there is a change of some kind, continuing revelation (the last part of AoF 9) seems to be the calling card to justify throwing something old out in favor of something new. However, the first part of AoF 9 reads, We believe all that God has revealed. Allowing old doctrine to be replaced by new revelations would necessitate a change in the word and to or.

 

We believe all that God has revealed or all that He does now reveal or all the many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God that He will yet reveal.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Thinking

[mfbukowski]

Disagree.

 

Any addition modifies an interpretation and so is a whole different way of seeing the topic.

 

There is no way to draw the line between a new interpretation and a new doctrine.  It's a distinction without a difference.

[Thinking]

Disagree.

 

Any addition modifies an interpretation and so is a whole different way of seeing the topic.

 

There is no way to draw the line between a new interpretation and a new doctrine.  It's a distinction without a difference.

 

Disagree.

 

If the new interpretation discards the old doctrine, that is much different than if it clarifies it. It's a distinction with a difference. It's kind of like changing principal to among.

[The Nehor]

Disagree.

 

If the new interpretation discards the old doctrine, that is much different than if it clarifies it. It's a distinction with a difference. It's kind of like changing principal to among.

 

In other words a distinction without a difference but changed because the meaning of the word had shifted?

[Bikeemikey]

Article of Faith #9

The following statement is on the official website of the LDS Church.

In my opinion, a change is much different than an addition.

For example, LDS believe that Jesus Christ is the creator of the earth. If additional knowledge about the creation was revealed, could that knowledge change the original doctrine?

Whenever there is a change of some kind, continuing revelation (the last part of AoF 9) seems to be the calling card to justify throwing something old out in favor of something new. However, the first part of AoF 9 reads, We believe all that God has revealed. Allowing old doctrine to be replaced by new revelations would necessitate a change in the word and to or.

I suggest you keep "Thinking".

[CV75]

In my opinion, a change is much different than an addition.

 

For example, LDS believe that Jesus Christ is the creator of the earth. If additional knowledge about the creation was revealed, could that knowledge change the original doctrine?

 

Whenever there is a change of some kind, continuing revelation (the last part of AoF 9) seems to be the calling card to justify throwing something old out in favor of something new. However, the first part of AoF 9 reads, We believe all that God has revealed. Allowing old doctrine to be replaced by new revelations would necessitate a change in the word and to or.

The Articles of Faith #9 is about the Kingdom of God, or the Church: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/kingdom-of-god-or-kingdom-of-heaven?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/kingdom-of-heaven?lang=eng

 

The Kingdom of God is a preparatory ecclesiastical kingdom (and someday a preparatory political kingdom), to get us into the celestial kingdom (the Kingdom of Heaven). The “great and important things pertaining to” the earthly kingdom would be along the lines of keys, jurisdiction and governance and related teachings and practices necessary for getting us to the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

So I think this explanation in the Newsroom is more along the spirit expressed in D&C 128:21, “divers angels, from Michael or Adam down to the present time, all declaring their dispensation, their rights, their keys, their honors, their majesty and glory, and the power of their priesthood; giving line upon line, precept upon precept; here a little, and there a little; giving us consolation by holding forth that which is to come, confirming our hope!”

 

This makes it OK to believe (for example) that God revealed the scope and activities of the office and quorum of seventy in the 19^th century, changed them in the 20^th century and again in the 21^st, and will reasonably change them yet again to address new challenges and circumstances.

 

I think new and changing doctrine unrelated to the government of the Kingdom of God but necessary for the saint to govern himself (or the saints to govern themselves) is another matter more along the lines of D&C 121:45, which is an individual promise but certainly has collective application as well (D&C 59:4).

[BCSpace]

Whenever there is a change of some kind, continuing revelation (the last part of AoF 9) seems to be the calling card to justify throwing something old out in favor of something new. However, the first part of AoF 9 reads, We believe all that God has revealed. Allowing old doctrine to be replaced by new revelations would necessitate a change in the word and to or.

 

The problem is that many think there are changes when in actuality there are none.  For example, the recent topical addition on the Priesthood ban maintains the ban's status as Divinely inspired.  With plural marriage, the doctrine remains.  We are simply in a Jacob 2:30 phase.  Nothing has changed on the homosexual/ssm issue.  It's never been a sin to be tempted.  Homosexuals have always had to abstain from sexual relations outside heterosexual marriage. Etc. etc. 

 

Do changes exist?  Yes, but generally not where people are looking/hoping for them.

[Bikeemikey]

The problem is that many think there are changes when in actuality there are none.  For example, the recent topical addition on the Priesthood ban maintains the ban's status as Divinely inspired.  With plural marriage, the doctrine remains.  We are simply in a Jacob 2:30 phase.  Nothing has changed on the homosexual/ssm issue.  It's never been a sin to be tempted.  Homosexuals have always had to abstain from sexual relations outside heterosexual marriage. Etc. etc. 

 

Do changes exist?  Yes, but generally not where people are looking/hoping for them.

 

Just for the sake of argument can you provide an example of a change.

 

Everytime I read your thoughts on the subject it seems your concept of change allows one to argue against anything being a change.

[BCSpace]

Just for the sake of argument can you provide an example of a change.

 

Doctrinal changes seem hard to come by.  The Lectures on Faith might contain examples of one or two.

 

Everytime I read your thoughts on the subject it seems your concept of change allows one to argue against anything being a change.

 

It's a great position to be in apologetically. But I don't differentiate between correct apologetics and the position of the Church. Going with the OP's opinion, there seem to be far more additions than actual changes.

Edited March 15, 2014 by BCSpace

[mfbukowski]

Are people here speaking English?

 

I don't understand a word that has been said.

 

My favorite:

 

It's kind of like changing principal to among.

I have no idea what those words could possibly mean.

[mfbukowski]

Doctrinal changes seem hard to come by.  The Lectures on Faith might contain examples of one or two.

 

 

It's a great position to be in apologetically. But I don't differentiate between correct apologetics and the position of the Church. Going with the OP's opinion, there seem to be far more additions than actual changes.

And how does one differentiate between additions and changes?

How could one possibility define "addition" so that it was not a "change"?

[Bikeemikey]

And how does one differentiate between additions and changes?

How could one possibility define "addition" so that it was not a "change"?

I don't think his position is practically possible. He relies on warping meanings words to the point they become unintelligible. Edited March 16, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Tacenda]

Are people here speaking English?

I don't understand a word that has been said.

My favorite:

I have no idea what those words could possibly mean.

In the context of the BoM and the wording change at the beginning. You probably just had a brain cramp.

[Thinking]

And how does one differentiate between additions and changes?

How could one possibility define "addition" so that it was not a "change"?

 

Read the OP again. Never mind, I quote the relevant part.

 

LDS believe that Jesus Christ is the creator of the earth. If additional knowledge about the creation was revealed, could that knowledge change the original doctrine?

 

Additional knowledge could be the process that was used to create the earth. Did Jesus make it all by Himself or did He have helpers?

 

Neither of these additions would change the original doctrine.

[Thinking]

Doctrinal changes seem hard to come by.  The Lectures on Faith might contain examples of one or two.

 

The LoF taught that there were only two personages in the Godhead, the Father and the Son, and the the Holy Spirit was the mind of the Father. The Holy Spirit was clearly not a personage.

 

The LoF also taught that the Father was a personage of spirit and the Son was a personage of tabernacle.

[Bikeemikey]

The LoF taught that there were only two personages in the Godhead, the Father and the Son, and the the Holy Spirit was the mind of the Father. The Holy Spirit was clearly not a personage.

The LoF also taught that the Father was a personage of spirit and the Son was a personage of tabernacle.

Sounds like a change to me!

[Ahab]

The LoF taught that there were only two personages in the Godhead, the Father and the Son, and the the Holy Spirit was the mind of the Father. The Holy Spirit was clearly not a personage.

The LoF also taught that the Father was a personage of spirit and the Son was a personage of tabernacle.

AoF #9 is about revelations of God, not lectures from Joseph Smith, although Joseph's lectures were often, but not always, what God had revealed to him.

[theplains]

For example, the recent topical addition on the Priesthood ban maintains the ban's status as Divinely inspired.

 

What specifically in the LDS statement infers that the priesthood ban was Divinely inspired?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[thesometimesaint]

What specifically in the LDS statement infers that the priesthood ban was Divinely inspired?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

That God for his own reasons has initiated Priesthood bans in the past.

[Wanderer7]

The LoF taught that there were only two personages in the Godhead, the Father and the Son, and the the Holy Spirit was the mind of the Father. The Holy Spirit was clearly not a personage.

 

The LoF also taught that the Father was a personage of spirit and the Son was a personage of tabernacle.

Am I the first one to point out that LoF were probably not delivered by Joseph Smith? He may have had a part in writing them, but studies suggest Sidney Rigdon as the author, especially considering that Joseph didn't lecture in the 1835 School of the Elders. Further, the lectures were removed specifically because, according to the intro to the 1921 D&C, they "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons.'' I think I know which parts you're referring to, but do you think you could provide them to eliminate confusion?

 

[Bikeemikey]

Am I the first one to point out that LoF were probably not delivered by Joseph Smith? He may have had a part in writing them, but studies suggest Sidney Rigdon as the author, especially considering that Joseph didn't lecture in the 1835 School of the Elders. Further, the lectures were removed specifically because, according to the intro to the 1921 D&C, they "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons.'' I think I know which parts you're referring to, but do you think you could provide them to eliminate confusion?

Not that i disagree with your points here, but we LDS do have a very fungible idea of doctrine. Ask 5 Mormons to define a singlular doctrinal concept and get ten different answers.

I'm fine with that but it is really annoying to those trying to pin us down.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Thinking]

Am I the first one to point out that LoF were probably not delivered by Joseph Smith? He may have had a part in writing them, but studies suggest Sidney Rigdon as the author, especially considering that Joseph didn't lecture in the 1835 School of the Elders. Further, the lectures were removed specifically because, according to the intro to the 1921 D&C, they "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons.'' I think I know which parts you're referring to, but do you think you could provide them to eliminate confusion?

 

This is from Lecture Fifth.

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 of 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; being begotten of Him, and ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who would believe on His name, and is called the Son because of the flesh, and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer; or, in other word, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be.

 

At the end of the lecture there are some clarification questions and answers. Three of those questions are listed below.

How many personages are there in the Godhead? Two: the Father and Son. Lecture 5:1

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.

 

At the end of the 1835 D&C are the minutes of the General Assembly held on September 24, 1835.

After a hymn was sung, President Cowdery arose and introduced the 'Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints,' in behalf of the committee. He was followed by President Rigdon, who explained the manner by which they intended to obtain the voice of the assembly for or against said book: the other two committee, named above, were absent. According to said arrangement W. W. Phelps bore record that the book presented to the assembly, was true. President John Whitmer also arose and testified that it was true. 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. Elder Levi Jackman, taking the lead of the High Council of the church in Missouri, bore testimony that the revelations in said book were true, and the said High Council of Missouri accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Thinking

[Wanderer7]

This is from Lecture Fifth.

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 of 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; being begotten of Him, and ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who would believe on His name, and is called the Son because of the flesh, and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer; or, in other word, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be.

 

I think President Hinckley responded to this pretty well.

 

I remember the occasion of more than 50 years ago when, as a missionary, I was speaking in an open-air meeting in Hyde Park, London. As I was presenting my message, a heckler interrupted to say, “Why don’t you stay with the doctrine of the Bible which says in John [4:24], ‘God is a Spirit’?”

I opened my Bible to the verse he had quoted and read to him the entire verse: “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

I said, “Of course God is a spirit, and so are you, in the combination of spirit and body that makes of you a living being, and so am I.”

Each of us is a dual being of spiritual entity and physical entity. All know of the reality of death when the body dies, and each of us also knows that the spirit lives on as an individual entity and that at some time, under the divine plan made possible by the sacrifice of the Son of God, there will be a reunion of spirit and body. Jesus’ declaration that God is a spirit no more denies that he has a body than does the statement that I am a spirit while also having a body.

 

 

From "The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" By President Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Mar 1998, pages 2-7

 

 

 

At the end of the lecture there are some clarification questions and answers. Three of those questions are listed below.

 

 

How many personages are there in the Godhead? Two: the Father and Son. Lecture 5:1

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't forget the questions later on

 

Do the Father and the Son possess the same mind ? They

do. 

What is this mind? The Holy Spirit. 

Do the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute the God-

head? They do.

 

 

And I think you brought up the point that the Spirit is called the mind of God here. This is actually in perfect harmony with LDS theology, as one can only come to know the mind of God through the Holy Ghost. It's not to say that the Holy Ghost is not a personage, but rather more of a comment to His roles as testator, revelator, and unifier.

 

 

 

At the end of the 1835 D&C are the minutes of the General Assembly held on September 24, 1835.

 

After a hymn was sung, President Cowdery arose and introduced the 'Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints,' in behalf of the committee. He was followed by President Rigdon, who explained the manner by which they intended to obtain the voice of the assembly for or against said book: the other two committee, named above, were absent. According to said arrangement W. W. Phelps bore record that the book presented to the assembly, was true. President John Whitmer also arose and testified that it was true. 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. Elder Levi Jackman, taking the lead of the High Council of the church in Missouri, bore testimony that the revelations in said book were true, and the said High Council of Missouri accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.

 

 

As I read this, the lectures were still not received as canonical or binding, but rather for instruction. Although, I don't see discrepancies between them and solid LDS theology. It should just be realized that they are not a statement on official doctrine and never have been considered so.

[Thinking]

I don't know  how big of a deal it is to classify the Holy Spirit as a personage, but it's clear that back then he wasn't, but now he is.

 

As far as the corporeal status of the Father, why make a distinction if there is none?

 

One more thought: After they were declared profitable for doctrine, the next statement declares them as doctrine.

whereupon the High Council of Kirtland accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.

[mfbukowski]

Read the OP again. Never mind, I quote the relevant part.

 

 

Additional knowledge could be the process that was used to create the earth. Did Jesus make it all by Himself or did He have helpers?

 

Neither of these additions would change the original doctrine.

I would suggest you go to the temple and find out.

 

And of course it changes the original doctrine.

 

It's the difference between polytheism and monotheism

 

You still have not explained the difference between "principal" and "among" and what that was supposed to be about.