Lectures On Faith-

[ttribe]

Okay then, Ttribe.Absolutely nobody who bangs on about the fallibility of the prophets and apostles is ever trying to persuade us to accept their opinions instead of the teachings of the brethren.Not one. Not ever.There, is that good enough for you?

Again with the extremes. I never said, nor even implied, such a thing. In fact, I acknowledged that such things do occur. My only protest was that somehow the exception has become the rule.

[CCRW]

Thanks Robert,

 

I don't question the need of the corp, but the fruits of the corp.  No desire to get into all the known arguments here, just wondering if its unthinkable that the corp may error, maybe grievously error and the Gospel remain in full force.  Isn't there prophecy where its said the cleaning will start in my own house?  I believe part of ETB's talk on pride and his pleading that the BoM story was meant for us, that we should apply it to our time, with the same implications ... i.e. of a swap of sides as it were.

 

I just get wrapped around the axle when my wife, for example,  so automatically associates her deepest self with "The Church" where an automatic association with the Gospel might be a safer endoctrination (not trying to use that word in a negative way)

[Robert F. Smith]

Thanks Robert,

 

I don't question the need of the corp, but the fruits of the corp.  No desire to get into all the known arguments here, just wondering if its unthinkable that the corp may error, maybe grievously error and the Gospel remain in full force.  Isn't there prophecy where its said the cleaning will start in my own house?  I believe part of ETB's talk on pride and his pleading that the BoM story was meant for us, that we should apply it to our time, with the same implications ... i.e. of a swap of sides as it were.

 

I just get wrapped around the axle when my wife, for example,  so automatically associates her deepest self with "The Church" where an automatic association with the Gospel might be a safer endoctrination (not trying to use that word in a negative way)

As long as us humans run the LDS Church, it will be fallible, and mistakes will be made.  That is inevitable.  You know the old story of the salesman who must make many failed approaches before he has one success.  That always applies.

 

As for your wife's self-identification with the Church, bear in mind that the Body of Christ is his people.  We don't often use that sort of language, and many members are uncomfortable thinking of us as an ethnicity, yet we are indeed a people with a sacred history (as non-Mormon historian Jan Shipps likes to point out).  We are not merely an atomistic group of individuals, but we are an official part of the gathering of Israel, and Saints of the Last Days.  We are God's High Priests. This is a big deal and the consequences are huge.

[CCRW]

Yes, that is what I learned Sunday, its about the members.  There is a whole lot of tooth paste out of the tube.  I will always be viewed as a Fifth Columinst threat, even like here ... with that not being in my heart.  Not sure what to do with it.  I felt no contention with the hpg lesson being on JS, first vision etc.  Just not sure if I can continue to see the members and not the tooth paste mess.

 

Last post today ... good thing getting to personal ... thanks again

Edited April 21, 2015 by CCRW

[Russell C McGregor]

I'm all hung up on the Church thing verses the Restored Gospel.  I've got a pretty good feeling one could make a substantial list of things that have changed in the Church, not affecting the Restored Gospel.  Is it offensive of me to say I have a hard time seeing anything but the Corporation side and it offends me? 

 

In going to Church yesterday, I realized it might be possible for me, if I can view the Church as the members (which it is), some whom I have not seen for years ... with several genuine hugs and tears, getting a feel of that underlying Gospel.

 

Note to self, when you hear “the Church is true” interpret as the Gospel is true, the members are wonderful, the Corp is temporary quit wrapping yourself around the axle.  Maybe a thread on "What is the Church" would be nice?

Would you prefer that the Church was structured like the Catholic Church?

Modelled, as it is, after the structure of a medieval kingdom, with the pope as the king, the bishops as dukes and parish priests as barons?

Did you know that the very ancient ecclesiastical title "bishop" simply means "overseer" or "supervisor," and is derived from 1st century business vocabulary?

[Russell C McGregor]

Again with the extremes. I never said, nor even implied, such a thing. In fact, I acknowledged that such things do occur. My only protest was that somehow the exception has become the rule.

What "exception?"

AFAICT, this is the rule: that the most common reason for introducing the topic of prophetic fallibility is to bat away some prophetic teaching that the person wants to discount or ignore.

"So what if all 15 of the then-living apostles signed the Proclamation? They're all fallible, y'know!"

[CCRW]

Would you prefer that the Church was structured like the Catholic Church?

Modelled, as it is, after the structure of a medieval kingdom, with the pope as the king, the bishops as dukes and parish priests as barons?

Did you know that the very ancient ecclesiastical title "bishop" simply means "overseer" or "supervisor," and is derived from 1st century business vocabulary?

 

Thanks for answering,

 

No I don't think the fruits of the Catholic Church are any better or worse.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

Exactly.

And our own world view includes a Church with considerable resources for publishing and disseminating written material to many people over a large area.

In the 1830's, not so much.

So they published a book that contained some revelations, which were testified to as being true, and the Word of the Lord to the Church, and some lectures, which were well-organised and useful.

The very fact that the two bodies of material are described differently by every single source really ought to be a good hint.

Regards,

Russell

[Coreyb]

Even for the Evangelical Christian Church (the moniker for the Campbellite Restoration movement) there is a need for some degree of legal incorporation (http://drgbarkman.tripod.com/id43.html ), despite the feeling that maybe it denigrates the Gospel.  So, one might indeed be uncomfortable with the LDS Corporation of the President and all of its subsidiaries.  However, as a practical matter, it could not be otherwise, domain names, auditors, lawyers, and all.  It requires a CEO and Board of Directors as does any other huge corporation.  To do otherwise would be madness, and God's House is a house of order.

If only we could all go out to a desert somewhere, claim all the land, set up our own kingdom with our own rules where we wouldn't have to incorporate and become subject to the whims of the state... ..sigh

[Thinking]

So they published a book that contained some revelations, which were testified to as being true, and the Word of the Lord to the Church, and some lectures, which were well-organised and useful.

 

So now they have been downgraded from profitable for doctrine to useful?

 

The very fact that the two bodies of material are described differently by every single source really ought to be a good hint.

 

Let's check out this source...again!

 

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.

 

It seems that the Lectures are the doctrine.

 

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.

 

The revelations are to be used for the regulation of the Church. Yep, you nailed it - two different descriptions.

 

Lectures = Doctrine

Revelations = Church Handbook of Instructions

Edited April 22, 2015 by Thinking

[ttribe]

What "exception?"AFAICT, this is the rule: that the most common reason for introducing the topic of prophetic fallibility is to bat away some prophetic teaching that the person wants to discount or ignore."So what if all 15 of the then-living apostles signed the Proclamation? They're all fallible, y'know!"

You and I see things very differently.

[Teancum]

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.

You bet. This is the last place an LDS person with questions, doubts or a faith crisis should come. The desperate and nonsensical attempts to dismiss the lectures as non canonical when the historical records clearly shows other wishes demonstrates the desperate defenses of most the self proclaimed apologists here to die on any and every hill and to paint the questionairre as sub standard due to their questions. This place is great for driving the doubter further into doubts,

[Russell C McGregor]

So now they have been downgraded from profitable for doctrine to useful?

No. A paraphrase is not a downgrade.

But the revelations were given by revelation; the lectures were not.

Everyone, including the sources you keep on mechanically reciting as if they supported all the suppositions you pile upon them, say so.

The lectures were classroom lessons when they were given; and they were classroom lessons when they were published with the revelations that make up the Doctrine and Covenants.

The Church never accepted them as anything else.

The revelations were testified to as being "verily true."

The lectures were not.

The revelations carried the same apostolic imprimatur from the predecessor volume, the Book of Commandments; that statement was not altered or expanded to include the lectures.

There are those who imagine that these relevant facts are "desperate" or something.

I suggest that it is the other way around.

[Thinking]

No. A paraphrase is not a downgrade.

But the revelations were given by revelation; the lectures were not.

Everyone, including the sources you keep on mechanically reciting as if they supported all the suppositions you pile upon them, say so.

The lectures were classroom lessons when they were given; and they were classroom lessons when they were published with the revelations that make up the Doctrine and Covenants.

The Church never accepted them as anything else.

The revelations were testified to as being "verily true."

The lectures were not.

The revelations carried the same apostolic imprimatur from the predecessor volume, the Book of Commandments; that statement was not altered or expanded to include the lectures.

There are those who imagine that these relevant facts are "desperate" or something.

I suggest that it is the other way around.

 

You are wrong. The Lectures and the revelations together were accepted as the doctrine and covenants of their faith.

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

You and I see things very differently.

Actually he's spot on.

I think it would be difficult to find an instance on, say, this board where somebody was holding forth about the fallibility of the prophets who didn't have as an underlying motive to marginalize or discredit some settled or normative item of teaching or practice in the Church that the person doesn't like or that he wants to see changed.

You see it in the arguments of those who want the Church to declare homosexual behavior not sinful. You see it in those who are pushing for priesthood ordination for women. You see it in the campaign going on in another thread to get the Church to endorse one person's quirky, and stingy definition of tithing.

Or is this not what you mean when you say you "see things differently"?

Edited April 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

You bet. This is the last place an LDS person with questions, doubts or a faith crisis should come. The desperate and nonsensical attempts to dismiss the lectures as non canonical when the historical records clearly shows other wishes demonstrates the desperate defenses of most the self proclaimed apologists here to die on any and every hill and to paint the questionairre as sub standard due to their questions. This place is great for driving the doubter further into doubts,

What you claim "the historical records clearly show" is not all that self-evident to me. Sorry if that frustrates you, but it just isn't.

But I'm supposed to shut up and keep my opinions to myself, because I otherwise I'll drive some poor soul further into his doubts. Is that it? That seems to be what you're saying.

And, if I might add further, this strikes me as yet another instance of attempted emotional blackmail, for a definition of which see my signature lines below.

[CCRW]

All I know is that they inspired me, and left me with a yearning for a school of the prophets.  Combined or not I always felt it a shame that the average member has never even heard of them.

[Scott Lloyd]

You are wrong. The Lectures and the revelations together were accepted as the doctrine and covenants of their faith.

By unanimous vote, they accepted the revelations as true and the lectures as having been judiciously arranged and compiled and as being "profitable". The 1921 introduction comports better with my understanding than yours, and its authors were closer in time to the original compilation than are you.

[Scott Lloyd]

All I know is that they inspired me, and left me with a yearning for a school of the prophets.  Combined or not I always felt it a shame that the average member has never even heard of them.

Well, I see no one here disparaging them or denying they are "profitable for doctrine," just as was stated. Most of what the Church of Jesus Christ has produced over time is profitable for doctrine. Only a fraction of it is part of the scriptural canon, however.

[ttribe]

Or is this not what you mean when you say you "see things differently"?

It's not what I meant by that statement, but given both you and Russell have repeatedly gone out of your way to put words in my mouth in this thread, I suspect one of you will tell me what I meant and what my secret motive is.

Edited April 22, 2015 by ttribe

[CCRW]

Well, I see no one here disparaging them or denying they are "profitable for doctrine,"

 

I was not suggesting that. It just seemed this is at logger heads and I was suggesting an alternate view. i.e. its in the eye of the beholder.

Edited April 22, 2015 by CCRW

[Scott Lloyd]

It's not what I meant by that statement, but given both you and Russell have repeatedly gone out of your way to put words in my mouth in this thread, I suspect one of you will tell me what I meant and what my secret motive is.

I'm inclined to take your word for it (which is why I asked if that was what you meant) though I'm now at a loss as to what you did mean.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

What you claim "the historical records clearly show" is not all that self-evident to me. Sorry if that frustrates you, but it just isn't.But I'm supposed to shut up and keep my opinions to myself, because I otherwise I'll drive some poor soul further into his doubts. Is that it? That seems to be what you're saying.And, if I might add further, this strikes me as yet another instance of attempted emotional blackmail, for a definition of which see my signature lines below.

Your so called emotional blackmail works both ways. You and many others marginalized in particular members who come here and don't speak the party line quite the way you do. Should I or Ttribe be silent when we disagree with you?

And no you don't need to be silent. I just stated this is not a safe place for someone to come that has serious questions and doubts. Defend away all you want.

[Scott Lloyd]

Your so called emotional blackmail works both ways. You and many others marginalized in particular members who come here and don't speak the party line quite the way you do. Should I or Ttribe be silent when we disagree with you?

 

 

I don't claim victimhood, for myself or anyone else, when I am contradicted.

 

And no you don't need to be silent. I just stated this is not a safe place for someone to come that has serious questions and doubts. Defend away all you want.

 

 

It really depends on how aggressive they are.

 

Falsehood should not be allowed to stand, regardless of how troubled the person claims to be who is purveying it.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Russell C McGregor]

You are wrong. The Lectures and the revelations together were accepted as the doctrine and covenants of their faith.

Let's see what I was wrong about, shall we?

Here is the quote you provided, which you imagine supports you and defeats me:

Elder John Smith, taking the lead of the high council in Kirtland, bore record that the revelations in said book were true,

Evidently you think this is supposed to contradict what I wrote above, which was:

The revelations were testified to as being "verily true."

The lectures were not.

So what does Elder Smith say about the lectures?

and that the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine;

Now by my count, "true" is one word, while "judiciously arranged and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine" is nine words.

Why say nine words if one does the job?

Clearly one doesn't do the job.

Elder Smith didn't testify that the lectures were true.

Why not?

I can think of two possible reasons: (1) he was aware of errors in them, or (2) he didn't see them as having the same degree of authority as the revelations.

Or maybe both.

Note that your entire argument rests upon the presentist fallacy. The assumption is that the concept of canonicity in the Church was as well-developed in 1835 as it is today. It's not at all obvious that that is even remotely likely to be the case. All of the members and leaders of the Church then were recent converts, nearly all from 66-book Protestantism, to a faith system that was based upon an open canon. We take it for granted today that the Doctrine and Covenants has the same scriptural authority as the Bible and the Book of Mormon; but did they?

I put it to you that if any of them thought that the revelations and the lectures had the same degree of authority, it would not be because they thought of the lectures as canonical scripture, but because they didn't think of the revelations that way.

But it is apparent from all of the sources you've cited that at least the leadership cohort of the Church thought of the lectures and the revelations as documents of different levels of authority. Elder Smith said that the revelations were "true," without qualification; the lectures were merely "judiciously arranged and compiled," -- i.e. they were a fully human production -- "and were profitable for doctrine," i.e. useful for teaching purposes.

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

And where does it say that the lectures were true, or regarded as canonical scripture?