Lectures On Faith-

[Thinking]

As for the CFR, since when have we had to document our own opinions?

 

When you state your opinion like it's fact and not opinion.

That they would be bound for the sake of convenience with the earliest form of a volume of latter-day scripture is not surprising, and their subsequent removal from that binding is not all that momentous.

 

But then again, as you so eloquently stated:

Some assumptions are more reasonable than others. I think mine is pretty reasonable, as assumptions go.

 

So I'm guessing that you have such a high opinion of your own opinions that in my opinion you don't know where your opinion ends and fact begins.

[Russell C McGregor]

Brigham also said this...

“I have heard ministers of the gospel declare that they believed every word in the Bible was the word of God. I have said to them “you believe more than I do.” I believe the words of God are there; I believe the words of the devil are there; I believe that the words of men and the words of angels are there;”

Brigham Young - pp. 276-281 - Journal of Discourses

Discourses of Brigham Young : 11 : 124 : - Discourses of Brigham Young : 11 : 129 : 5

This is a very healthy view of scripture and frankly it would seem living oracles would be every bit as fallible.

 

It's remarkable how many "Mormons" (of sorts) bang on about the fallibility of apostles and prophets, and yet fail to recognise their own fallibility.

 

However fallible the Lord's anointed servants may be, the vain fashions of a wicked world are more fallible.  By several orders of magnitude.

[CCRW]

It's remarkable how many "Mormons" (of sorts) bang on about the fallibility of apostles and prophets, and yet fail to recognise their own fallibility.

 

However fallible the Lord's anointed servants may be, the vain fashions of a wicked world are more fallible.  By several orders of magnitude.

 

Morning sunshine ... coming on winter down there?

 

I'm thinking they have great intentions and just kind of got wrapped up into something much bigger than them.

[oremites]

Brigham also said this...

“I have heard ministers of the gospel declare that they believed every word in the Bible was the word of God. I have said to them “you believe more than I do.” I believe the words of God are there; I believe the words of the devil are there; I believe that the words of men and the words of angels are there;”

Brigham Young - pp. 276-281 - Journal of Discourses

Discourses of Brigham Young : 11 : 124 : - Discourses of Brigham Young : 11 : 129 : 5

This is a very healthy view of scripture and frankly it would seem living oracles would be every bit as fallible.

 

Have you read the talk that contains that quote?  I don't believe Brigham is saying what you seem to think he's saying.  That is, his point was not that the Bible is fallible.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Have you read the talk that contains that quote?  I don't believe Brigham is saying what you seem to think he's saying.  That is, his point was not that the Bible is fallible.

 

So despite BY's words you're claiming that BY really believed the bible to be infallible? OK. Tough sell, but ok. Choosing the infallibility of the Bible as a worthy fight is definitely a hill to die on.

[ttribe]

It's remarkable how many "Mormons" (of sorts) bang on about the fallibility of apostles and prophets, and yet fail to recognise their own fallibility.

 

However fallible the Lord's anointed servants may be, the vain fashions of a wicked world are more fallible.  By several orders of magnitude.

 

Why consistently question the LDS bona fides of any who express doubts or criticisms?  I really don't see the value in that tactic.

[Scott Lloyd]

When you state your opinion like it's fact and not opinion.

 

But then again, as you so eloquently stated:

 

So I'm guessing that you have such a high opinion of your own opinions that in my opinion you don't know where your opinion ends and fact begins.

Some opinions are so self-evident and obvious it makes little sense to demand a qualifier.

 

Does anyone really doubt that user convenience was a factor, for example, in binding the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price together in the Triple Combination? Or binding all three with the Bible in the Quadruple Combination? Or publishing the Bible Dictionary (or for non-English language versions, the Guide to the Scriptures) with the LDS edition of the King James Bible?

Edited April 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Why consistently question the LDS bona fides of any who express doubts or criticisms?  I really don't see the value in that tactic.

So you see no value in considering the source? Ever?

 

If a historian or a journalist failed to do that, it would rightly be considered professional malpractice.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Some opinions are so self-evident and obvious it makes little sense to demand a qualifier.

 

Does anyone really doubt that user convenience was a factor, for example, in binding the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price together in the Triple Combination? Or binding all three with the Bible in the Quadruple Combination? Or publishing the Bible Dictionary (or for non-English language versions, the Guide to the Scriptures) with the LDS edition of the King James Bible?

 

So now you're arguing that the D&C contained the Lectures because it was easier for binding and that it therefore doesn't matter that the entire book was presented and accepted by the church as scripture. I do agree with your first statement that some opinions are so self-evident that there is little need for a qualifier. I felt the exact same way when stating the Lectures were part of the canonized D&C.

Things are obvious to us in our own world view. The struggle is trying to understand others without becoming hostile, arrogant or dismissive.It's a legitimate challenge.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

So now you're arguing that the D&C contained the Lectures because it was easier for binding and that it therefore doesn't matter that the entire book was presented and accepted by the church as scripture.

My position is consistent with the statement in the introduction to the 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, that "they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons."

 

Sounds a lot like the Bible Dictionary to me. Or a typical Church lesson manual. Doesn't really sound like scriptural canon.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

So you see no value in considering the source? Ever?

 

If a historian or a journalist failed to do that, it would rightly be considered professional malpractice.

 

Did I say anything about "ever"?  No.  But nearly every time?  On a message board?  C'mon, it's nothing but combative nonsense to continually wonder out loud whether the person on the side of the screen really is a member of the Church with honest questions.

Edited April 20, 2015 by ttribe

[Scott Lloyd]

What happens though, Scott, when we juxtapose the settled doctrines of plural marriage versus monogamous marriage? 

The settled doctrine is that monogamous marriage is always the proper and right thing unless the Lord temporarily commands plurality of wives. Viewed with that understanding, I see no conflict here.

 

Or the settled doctrine of the nuclear family versus the extended family?

 

You've lost me here. Is there a conflict that should be apparent to me? I'm not seeing it.

 

Do you and I have differing definitions of extended family?

Edited April 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Did I say anything about "ever"?  No.  But nearly every time?  On a message board?  C'mon, it's nothing but combative nonsense to continually wonder out loud whether the person on the side of the screen really is a member of the Church with honest questions.

It's not self-evident to me that it's "combative nonsense." People have the right to question the overall position or agenda of a critic or an accuser or to wonder, for example, whether there is a set-up going on or a trap being laid.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

 

My position is consistent with the statement in the introduction to the 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, that "they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons."

 

Sounds a lot like the Bible Dictionary to me. Or a typical Church lesson manual. Doesn't really sound like scriptural canon.

 

What did the pre-1921 editions say? Scott, why are you so afraid of accepting the Lectures as the "Doctrine" in the original Doctrine and Covenants as it was originally intended? Does the concept threaten to destroy a fragile framework?

[Thinking]

My position is consistent with the statement in the introduction to the 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, that "they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons."

 

Sounds a lot like the Bible Dictionary to me. Or a typical Church lesson manual. Doesn't really sound like scriptural canon.

 

Of course the anonymous explanation in the 1921 D&C is not canon because, well, it's just that - an explanation.

 

Again, here's the relevant part of the quote from the 1835 D&C.

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.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Thinking

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

What did the pre-1921 editions say?

You tell me. Was there anything in there to contradict what was published in 1921?

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course the anonymous explanation in the 1921 D&C is not canon because, well, it's just that - an explanation.

 

Again, here's the relevant part of the quote from the 1835 D&C.

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.

 

So, parsing what John Smith said here, the revelations were attested to as being true, and the lectures were endorsed as being "judiciously arranged and compiled" and as being "profitable for doctrine." Again the same might be said of a typical Church lesson manual or of a study aid in the scriptures as is being said here about the lectures without it compelling the conclusion that said lesson manual or scriptural study aids are cononical.

 

As for the introduction in 1921 being "anonymous," I think it can be safely said that it was published under the Church's imprimatur.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

It's not self-evident to me that it's "combative nonsense." People have the right to question the overall position or agenda of a critic or an accuser or to wonder, for example, whether there is a set-up going on or a trap being laid.

 

The prevalence of this attitude is exactly why this board is so useless for people enduring an actual faith crisis; their questions are all too often met with suspicion and thinly-veiled accusation.

[Thinking]

So, parsing what John Smith said here, the revelations were attested to as being true, and the lectures were endorsed as being "judiciously arranged and compiled" and as being "profitable for doctrine." Again the same might be said of a typical Church lesson manual or of a study aid in the scriptures as is being said here about the lectures without it compelling the conclusion that said lesson manual or scriptural study aids are cononical.

 

As for the introduction in 1921 being "anonymous," I think it can be safely said that it was published under the Church's imprimatur.

 

Again, I will quote the 1835 preface which categorizes the lectures as the doctrine and the revelations as the principles for the regulation of the Church.

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 into 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.

[Scott Lloyd]

Again, I will quote the 1835 preface which categorizes the lectures as the doctrine and the revelations as the principles for the regulation of the Church.

Fine. This is not inconsistent with what was stated in retrospect in 1921: that the lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons."

 

Do you have anything else?

[Scott Lloyd]

The prevalence of this attitude is exactly why this board is so useless for people enduring an actual faith crisis; their questions are all too often met with suspicion and thinly-veiled accusation.

Well then maybe people ought not come here to deal with their faith crises, especially if they are going to take an adversarial stance, which they can expect to be met with a defense against rather than an upholding or sustaining in affirmation of their doubts and criticisms.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

Well then maybe people ought not come here to deal with their faith crises, especially if they are going to take an adversarial stance, which they can expect to be met with a defense.

 

Lovely.

[Scott Lloyd]

Lovely.

Thank you.

[ALarson]

Well then maybe people ought not come here to deal with their faith crises, especially if they are going to take an adversarial stance, which they can expect to be met with a defense against rather than an upholding or sustaining in affirmation of their doubts and criticisms.

I think people are happy that there is a place where they can come and ask questions and discuss some of their doubts and issues.

 

From what I've seen, they are met here with both reactions that you described above (defense against and an upholding or sustaining...or at least an understanding from many).

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Well then maybe people ought not come here to deal with their faith crises, especially if they are going to take an adversarial stance, which they can expect to be met with a defense against rather than an upholding or sustaining in affirmation of their doubts and criticisms.

 

Classy. Who's adversarial?