A Different God?

[halconero]

One interesting consideration is the extent to which Joseph Smith's views evolved in contrast to the rate at which he revealed things to the Saints.

Throughout his ministry, Joseph repeatedly stated that 1) he knew a whole heck of a lot more regarding the Godhead, the economy of Heaven, our pre-mortal identities, and other doctrines than what he publicly preached, that 2) he knew this because he wasn't the type to shout out a revelation the moment he received it, and that 3) most of the Saints were not ready to receive what he had to share. I mean...as early as 1832, Joseph was hinting at exaltation with his statement that archangels were the exalted sons of God whose spouses remained married to them.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while I believe that Joseph Smith's views on God certainly evolved (via study and revelation), but that the rate of said evolution was a lot faster than we believe and that much of what he shared with the Saints were preliminary explanations designed to prep their hearts, souls, and minds for further revelations.

[mfbukowski]

Kuhnian paradigms

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Rico said:

Mfbukowski,

You: "There is no such thing as "plain facts" there are only interpretations."
Me: Is that assertion self-evident?  I don't think so.  Please provide evidence.

You:  And shall we examine changes in Catholic doctrine and the mass?
Me:  Is this discussion about the Catholic Mass or about Mormonism's "Different God"?

You: From Augustine through Aquinas down to the present day?  Limbo?  The manufacturing of transubstantiation? Bleeding hosts?  The stigmata?
Me: Are you trying to hijack the thread?

You: The present alleged apostasy of Francis?
Me: Mormonism's different God resulted from Joseph Smith's apostasy from his own initial belief about the "one God".  If you think my interpretation of the facts is wrong, then don't hijack the discussion.  Refute the evidence.

You: There are a hundred ways to interpret anything.
Me:  There is only One God.  I don't blame you that you ended up following a confused prophet.

You are a traditional Catholic and are imbued with pagan Greek philosophy as adjusted by Aquinas et al

I am not prepared to teach 800 years of philosophy here and now. Those here who understand me, understand me. I have said it a hundred times before.

I wish I could say that better but I don't know how to. I just don't have the time

I wish you well. I'm sorry but I'm here for the other members of the board who understand me. The differences are just too great to write at this time.

 

Edited April 15, 2016 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

34 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Thanks for the clarification.

Do you believe the current belief of the LDS Church regarding the nature of God and the Godhead should continue to evolve?

If not, why not?

I don't believe it is a should or shouldn't question. Can it change? Yes, but at the present time I see no overwhelming need for it to change.

[halconero]

21 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I don't believe it is a should or shouldn't question. Can it change? Yes, but at the present time I see no overwhelming need for it to change.

Heck yeah it should. There is so much more we don't know, and so much to be revealed. Our exaltation is based in part on the evolution of our understanding of the Godhead.

[Kevin Christensen]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

I appreciate your insights, Kevin.  I think I have mentioned it before, but I will always consider myself indebted to you for the insights you brought into my life with your paper regarding paradigms and introducing me to the writings of Margaret Barker. 

That said, I have to question Joseph Smith's statement made in his last recorded sermon from which you quote the following:
 

Here I think Joseph Smith is projecting his current thought (as of 1844) all the way back to 1829.

Although Joseph Smith claims he has always taught this, the historical record does not support that claim.

For instance, Joseph claims he has always taught that "these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods."

And yet, the Lectures on Faith, given in 1834-35 and published with the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835, states the following regarding the number of personages in the Godhead:

 

http://www.lecturesonfaith.com/5/

In the same lecture, the Holy Ghost is not described as "a distinct personage and a Spirit," as Joseph Smith claims in 1844 he and the Elders have "always declared."

Rather, the Holy Ghost is clearly not a personage, as there are only "two personages" in the Godhead described there, "the Father and the Son."

The Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit) is instead the "mind of the Father" which is shared by the Son:

 

 

This is one reason I tend to think Joseph was not being entirely accurate when stating in 1844 he had always taught "that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods."

The Lectures on Faith also teach the Father has a body of spirit, as contrasted with the Son, who has a body of flesh and bone.

Clearly Joseph's view of the nature of God's body evolved between 1835 and 1843 when D&C 130:22 was received, which teaches that 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."

So I am left to conclude that, in spite of what Joseph Smith said in 1844, the historical record demonstrates that his views of God were indeed evolving over time.

And that his accounts of the First Vision tend to mirror that evolution of Joseph's views.

 

 

 

I don't think Joseph's listeners always understood him, nor that they didn't come into the church free of influences from their own traditions and preconceptions.  Nor do I suppose that Joseph Smith was inclined to nit-pick over what everyone thought and said in order to enforce a complete unity and harmony of thought, and thereby treat Mormonism as though it were a static list of things to think. "It dont [sic] prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine”; Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center Monograph, 1980), 183-84. And I don't think Joseph Smith himself comprehended everything at once.  D&C 1 formally sets out the "authority of my servants" and permitting err, sin, weakness, and a need to study and ask before answers arrive.  

Quote

I told them I was but a man, and they must not expect me to be perfect; if they expected perfection from me, I should expect it from them; but if they would bear with my infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, I would likewise bear with their infirmities. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1972), 268.

That said, and given evidence that Rigdon wrote the Lectures (word prints, for instance, are very clear) and that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, I'll look to the Book of Mormon as a reasonable place to explore early LDS thought, and in that light, the favorite anomalous passages from the Lectures are just that, anomalies, infirmities to be born with patience, not something to stumble over.   And reading the Book of Mormon as an ancient text with a context (see Brant Gardner's FAIRMormon paper, for instance), rather than a resource for proof-texting without regard to contexts, I think the Book of Mormon is, and remains, a much more reliable source, particularly in grouping Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and Joseph Smith's statements deserve serious consideration.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited April 15, 2016 by Kevin Christensen

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

The question of whether Joseph Smith authored or approved of the Lectures on Faith is a manufactured dispute--and it is manufactured precisely because of the parts of Lecture 5 that I quoted above.

How can you reasonably say that Joseph Smith did not approve of the Lectures on Faith when they were included in the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835, and remained in the Doctrine and Covenants through the rest of Joseph Smith's lifetime--without one word of disapprobation of their inclusion by Joseph Smith?

It is a hard argument to make.

The statement on marriage was likewise included in the 1835 edition and remained through the rest of Joseph Smith's lifetime.  I am not a historian so I don't know whether we have a record of any difficulties he may have had with the LOF, and I take note that, the majority of the text is well within the doctrines of the church, except perhaps for this one issue.  

So, if you want to hang your hat on that argument, and use it to justify to yourself and to your associates that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, which is the only conclusion that I can draw from this argument, I have no problem with that.  Each of us will be held responsible for the path we follow here in this life, and I feel very comfortable with the path I have chosen.   

I can think of a hundred reasons to leave the church, and there is only one reason to stay.

Edited April 15, 2016 by cdowis

[Steve Noel]

20 hours ago, Rico said:

Steve,

I came in rather late in this thread.  I don't know if you will revisit this discussion, but I think something truly important was not brought out even after 11 pages of discussion.  So, here it is:

Joseph Smith's First Vision is the foundation for most of Mormon theology about God.  This is where Mormons separate from traditional Christianity.  As Pres. Gordon Hinckley once affirmed:

In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints "do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He, together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/31188/Crown-of-gospel-is-upon-our-heads.html

The First Vision is where Mormons began to deviate from the Catholic doctrine about God.  I use the adjective Catholic to refer to the Church that held the first seven ecumenical councils to affirm authentic Christian doctrine against pseudo-Christian teachings.

There is however a severe problem with the First Vision account.  Joseph Smith published many different versions of the account with fundamentally contradictory details.  This has been investigated, criticized, and pointed out to the Mormon Church since the 1960s.  It was only in the 2010s that it has finally acknowledged the problem:

"First Vision Accounts"
https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

The earliest known account of the vision is dated 1832, or two years after Joseph established his church, and 12 years since the alleged vision happened.  This is the only account written in his handwriting.  The document can be viewed here:

"Joseph Smith's First Vision"
https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

In this document, Joseph Smith narrates about seeing only ONE personage whom he called "the Lord," not two personages as officially recorded in "Joseph Smith History" of the Pearl of Great Price.

This 1832 version of the vision is actually consistent with the Book of Mormon that he published just three years earlier in 1829.  The book affirms that God is only one.

Alma 11:27-34, 38-40

27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
29 And he answered, No.
30 Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things?
31 And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.
32 And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God?
33 And he said unto him, Yea.
34 And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word...
38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;
40 And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else.

Ether 3:14
14 I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.

In affirming that there is only God, the Book of Mormon confuses the Father and the Son as the same person.  This is further confirmed in Joseph Smith's revision of the Bible, aka, the "Inspired Version" (or JST, Joseph Smith translation):

Luke 10:23, JST
23 ...no man knoweth that the son is the Father, and that the Father is the son.

So here are the facts:
1.  The 1832 version of the First Vision narrates only one personage, "the Lord".
2.  The Book of Mormon speaks only of one God where the Father is the same as the Son.
3.  The JST also confirms the there is only one God.

However, all of that changed in the 1840s.  In the Book of Abraham, we now read that "the Gods" created the entire universe from pre-existing matter.  And then there is the "King Follett Discourse" where Joseph taught many controversial teachings about God not supported by the Evangelical Protestant theology found in the Book of Mormon.

Therefore, it is rather disingenious to say that Catholic teaching on God is a departure from Biblical teaching.  The Catholic and Orthodox churches have stood firm in their Trinitarian dogma for more than a thousand years.  If the Church is the "pillar and ground of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) and a "kingdom that cannot be moved" (Hebrews 12:28) then Catholic Trinatarian dogma fits the description.  It hasn't moved after it was established.

In contrast, Joseph Smith cannot even hold on to the the "restored truths" he claimed to have received.  He apostatised from his own beliefs about God without officially repudiating them.  All in less than 15 years.  "...Tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" (Ephesians 4:14) seems an accurate description of this theology.

Therefore, if Gordon Hinckley's Jesus turns out to be a "different God" than what the Catholic Church has always preached everywhere, it is not a defect in Trinitarian doctrine.  It is more a defect in Joseph Smith.

Today I received my copy of LDS scholar Terryl Givens' Wrestling with the Angel in the mail. Carl Mosser, an Evangelical scholar, recommended it to me as "The best overview of Mormon theology by an LDS writer." You may want to check it out. In the first chapter he writes:

Quote

"It is common to think of Smith's prophetic career as advancing through several stages, each marked by substantial doctrinal developments of increasing boldness: the Smith of 1830, organizing a church and producing a Book of Mormon that both bear marks of his own Protestant background; a Kirtland, Ohio, period characterized by a new human anthropology and organizational developments; and finally the radical Nauvoo, Illinois, phase, where he introduced polygamy, human theosis, and a God who seems to be a highly evolved human. Several facts argue for a more nuanced approach to his doctrinal development. Most importantly, the seeds of almost all his furthest-reaching innovations are present as early as 1830, as this study will show" (4).

I was listening to an old Dividing Line podcast today and heard James White make the same claim you have here about the development of Joseph Smith's doctrine of God. Now I don't know yet if the case Givens makes is compelling, but to just repeat old criticisms without interacting with LDS responses is insufficient.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Steve Noel

[cdowis]

Rico,

Here are the facts

1.  "The Son is His own Father."

the scriptures say:     Mosiah 5  [7] And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters
 

I am a father, I am a son, I am a brother, I am a grandfather.  I am one individual but have several titles, based on my relationships.   The Book of Mormon specifically tells us what the title "Father" means as applied to Christ.  It does refer to the "one substance entity" of the Nicene Creed.

2. The Father and Son are one.

Christ carefully explains what ONE means In John 17:19-23 (especially the last two verses.  
Christ said to the Father, Luke 22 [42] Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

The Nicene Creed doctrine of the "one substance entity"" is a false doctrine, created by majority vote after the historic Christian church had replaced the apostles and prophets, who were lead by revelation, with theologians and philosophers who are lead by the wisdom and philosophies of man.

3.  Joseph Smith published many different versions of the account with fundamentally contradictory details. 

You are mistaken.  I have started a new thread for you, and we will be happy to educate you.

Edited April 16, 2016 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Today I received my copy of LDS scholar Terryl Givens' Wrestling with the Angel in the mail. Carl Mosser, an Evangelical scholar, recommended it to me as "The best overview of Mormon theology by an LDS writer." You may want to check it out. In the first chapter he writes:

I was listening to an old Dividing Line podcast today and heard James White make the same claim you have here about the development of Joseph Smith's doctrine of God. Now I don't know yet if the case Givens makes is compelling, but to just repeat old criticisms without interacting with LDS responses is insufficient.

Excellent book, excellent post.

I am so glad you decided to read it.  You will understand us well after reading it, and most importantly you will understand that we are familiar with the issues covered.

I promise your understanding of how we see these issues, at least, will be greatly enhanced and will perhaps see the folly of many of the anti-Mormon attacks which are commonly leveled against us.  Givens presents a sophisticated understanding of the issues and the faith, and his view contrasts so profoundly with the childish criticisms leveled against us by members of other faiths, I can't see how it could not change your perceptions of Mormons.

I am not sure if I mentioned this or not, but I recently did a review of this volume for Interpreter

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/

The book also contains many references to early Christianity and how our doctrines directly reproduce many beliefs found in early Christianity which were eventually pronounced anathema by the Catholic Church.

Especially since you are not Catholic, I would be interested in your take on those points and why Evangelicals now ignore these true Christian doctrines thrown out by a church which the originators of Protestantism "reformed"- but seemingly incompletely

I guess my question would by why Evangelicals are still so Catholic.

I revised this more than once- sorry- I am finished

Edited April 16, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Rico]

Steve,

You said:

Thank you for digging into this a little further. You write:

"I never made the argument that it was only recent that the LDS Church acknowleged the problem."

But this is what you wrote in your first post:

"It was only in the 2010s that it has finally acknowledged the problem:"

---------

Sorry for the confusion.  I think have used wrong words to convey what I meant.  Your initial question was, "Based on this evidence would you grant that you are incorrect in stating that they did not acknowledge the discrepancies until 2010 or later?"  So let me answer that one more time:

I acknowledge that the Church has long been AWARE of the different versions.  Evidence:  Milton Backman's 1980 book "Joseph Smith's First Vision.  But the first time it really ADDRESSED its critics was in the 2013 Gospel Essay "First Vision Accounts".  There is a difference between knowing there is a problem, and acting on it.

Note: Barry Bickmore's rebuttal in 2001 does not count.  It was only his personal opinion, not the Church's.

Thanks for continuing to show an interest in this discussion... :-)

 

[Rico]

 

Mfbukowski,

Earlier you claimed that "there are a hundred ways to interpret anything".  To me, that's an assertion that is not self-evident.  But if you truly believe it, let me interpret and say what I think about your statements:

You:  You are a traditional Catholic and are imbued with pagan Greek philosophy as adjusted by Aquinas et al.
Me: Silly.

You: I am not prepared to teach 800 years of philosophy here and now. 
Me: Unprepared.  Making excuses.

You: Those here who understand me, understand me. 
Me: Superstitious.

You: I have said it a hundred times before.
Me: Repetitious

You: I wish I could say that better but I don't know how to. 
Me: Stumped!

You: I just don't have the time
Me:  Lame excuse!

You:  I wish you well. 
No:  Not after this.

You:  I'm sorry but I'm here for the other members of the board who understand me. 
Me:  Wishful thinking

You: The differences are just too great to write at this time.
Me: They are

My overall assessment: Lacking in substance!

How's my interpretation?

[cdowis]

38 minutes ago, Rico said:

I acknowledge that the Church has long been AWARE of the different versions.  Evidence:  Milton Backman's 1980 book "Joseph Smith's First Vision.  But the first time it really ADDRESSED its critics was in the 2013 Gospel Essay "First Vision Accounts".  There is a difference between knowing there is a problem, and acting on it.

Note: Barry Bickmore's rebuttal in 2001 does not count.  It was only his personal opinion, not the Church's.

Thanks for continuing to show an interest in this discussion... :-)

 

Rico,

We have opened a new thread on whether there are contradictions on the First Vision accounts.

[Kevin Christensen]

23 hours ago, Rico said:

Steve,

You said:

Thank you for digging into this a little further. You write:

"I never made the argument that it was only recent that the LDS Church acknowleged the problem."

But this is what you wrote in your first post:

"It was only in the 2010s that it has finally acknowledged the problem:"

---------

Sorry for the confusion.  I think have used wrong words to convey what I meant.  Your initial question was, "Based on this evidence would you grant that you are incorrect in stating that they did not acknowledge the discrepancies until 2010 or later?"  So let me answer that one more time:

I acknowledge that the Church has long been AWARE of the different versions.  Evidence:  Milton Backman's 1980 book "Joseph Smith's First Vision.  But the first time it really ADDRESSED its critics was in the 2013 Gospel Essay "First Vision Accounts".  There is a difference between knowing there is a problem, and acting on it.

Note: Barry Bickmore's rebuttal in 2001 does not count.  It was only his personal opinion, not the Church's.

Thanks for continuing to show an interest in this discussion... :-)

 

If you think the institutional arms of the church are the fact the only real church, you are still neglecting the point that the four different essays on the accounts, starting in the Improvement Era (April 1970) and three in the Ensign (which have been online for several years) somehow don't represent the church.  And somehow the BYU Studies essay in 1969 doesn't count, nor Bachman or various others, such as Matthew Brown's book, or things like Samuel Alonzo Dodge and Steven C. Harper, eds. Exploring the First Vision. Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2012. 338 pp. don't count.  Or FAIR, or Quinn's anonymous little pamphlet, or Richard L. Anderson's studies, or Bushman, or various websites.  What is not official and conspicuously so (that is, recent) is not real.

Since Ekklesia means "assembly" the church to me a bunch of people, and I've found an embarrassment of riches on the topic just as soon as I took enough initiative to seek and knock on my own.  Those who wait to be spoonfed, perched on a sense of entitlement will have a different experience.  Institutions, being large and unwieldy simply cannot respond as quickly as individuals.  But there have always been individuals among the covenant assembly, willing and eager and able to share whatever knowledge they have with anyone who  is interested.  And the institutional arms eventually notice and process what is going on among the individuals, treating their work and effort as a resource.  "I send you wise men and scribes..."  It's not all  edicts from above, but different gifts among the membership, the covenant people who are, by reasonable definition, also church.

So it's not a matter of what has always been there.  It's a matter of who counts in relationship with the narrative you want to sell, and, lest we forget, a matter of what that narrative is intended to accomplish.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited April 17, 2016 by Kevin Christensen

[Rico]

Kevin,

Since you seem to have done a great deal of research on the subject, I have a question:  

In the 1832 First Vision account, how many personages did Joseph Smith see?  My answer is only one person.  

If you have another answer other than that, then please explain in about a 100 words.  If I find the explanation worth digging into, I will ask for references.

Thanks.

 

[Rico]

Cdowis,

You said:

1.  "The Son is His own Father."

the scriptures say:     Mosiah 5  [7] And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters
 
I am a father, I am a son, I am a brother, I am a grandfather.  I am one individual but have several titles, based on my relationships.   The Book of Mormon specifically tells us what the title "Father" means as applied to Christ.  It does refer to the "one substance entity" of the Nicene Creed.

I say:

Your assertion "The Son is His own Father" is based on Mormon scripture.  I do not consider Mormon scripture or any revelation from Joseph Smith worth believing especially if it contradicts Catholic teaching.

When the Lord Jesus established his Church, he built it in such a way so that the "gates of hell" will not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18).  The Apostle Paul also said the Church is the "pillar and ground of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).  The church founded by Joseph Smith does not fit this two descriptions.  That is why I don't see any compelling reason to believe anything that Joseph teaches or promotes.

However, if you believe the Bible to be the word of God, you may cite that for your claims.  After all, there was no Bible before 325 AD when the Council of Nicaea condemned the heresy of Arius.  The Church that Jesus built would produce that Bible several years later after that council.   We can go from there.

 

[consiglieri]

18 hours ago, cdowis said:

The statement on marriage was likewise included in the 1835 edition and remained through the rest of Joseph Smith's lifetime.  I am not a historian so I don't know whether we have a record of any difficulties he may have had with the LOF, and I take note that, the majority of the text is well within the doctrines of the church, except perhaps for this one issue.  

So, if you want to hang your hat on that argument, and use it to justify to yourself and to your associates that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, which is the only conclusion that I can draw from this argument, I have no problem with that.  Each of us will be held responsible for the path we follow here in this life, and I feel very comfortable with the path I have chosen.   

I can think of a hundred reasons to leave the church, and there is only one reason to stay.

You have put your finger on the critical point, cdowis.

You think that if Joseph Smith's views of God evolved over time, he must have been "a false prophet."

I think this is an incorrect premise.

Surely prophets, like all people, must have truth revealed to them line upon line; and they can therefore only teach it line upon line as they receive it.

If a prophet waits to open her mouth until all truth is received, her mouth will never be opened.

Therefore, it is only reasonable to expect that a prophet's views of God (and everything else) will evolve over time, and that earlier teachings will be contradicted by subsequent teachings.

As Bluebell put it, it would be a "red flag" is such a thing did not happen.

 

I have already gone over why it is that many LDS will argue about the connection between Joseph Smith and the Lectures on Faith, even though they constituted the "Doctrine" in the "Doctrine and Covenants," were put into the D&C by a committee which included Joseph Smith, and remained in the D&C until they were removed in 1921.

All of this is admitted by the FAIRMormon article on the subject:

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Doctrine_and_Covenants/Lectures_on_Faith/Removed

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

The Lectures were the "doctrine" portion of the Doctrine and Covenants

 

 

While the Lectures on Faith were at one time included in the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed from the 1921 edition (along with other items; for more information see D&C Textual Changes) that were not considered official revelation and binding doctrine by the church. The Lectures were included as the "doctrine" portion of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants (the revelations comprised the "covenants" portion). The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." ^[2]    While the Lectures on Faith were at one time included in the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed from the 1921 edition (along with other items; for more information see D&C Textual Changes) that were not considered official revelation and binding doctrine by the church.

 

 

[cdowis]

There is one tiny problem with your analysis.  It's a little thing called The First Vision.

Now, you can pretend that JS was deceived and thought he saw a "one substance entity" without body, parts and passions, and then you can justify your analysis based on that assumption.  Now this is the assumption of the unbelievers, proving that the First Vision was a manufactured story and based on the LATER development of this doctrine.  Ergo, he is a false prophet.

If that is your position, I am fine with that.   I just wanted to make it clear what you are saying.

Again, to make it clear.  I am not saying that, over time, he would not be gaining a greater understanding of the nature of God, but this is fundamental to whether the First Vision is a real, actual experience, or a gradually developing story.

 

Edited April 16, 2016 by cdowis

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

Now, you can pretend that JS was deceived and thought he saw a "one substance entity" without body, parts and passions, and then you can justify your analysis based on that assumption.  Now this is the assumption of the unbelievers, proving that the First Vision was a manufactured story and based on the LATER development of this doctrine.  Ergo, he is a false prophet.

This is a straw man, of course.

Nobody has argued, much less pretended, that JS was deceived and thought he saw a "one substance entity" without body, parts and passions.

The first of Joseph Smith's accounts (written in his own hand) describes one being ("the Lord") who appeared to him in the grove.  "The Lord" is clearly described later in the same account as being the Savior.

It is consistent with Joseph Smith's views of Jesus in 1832 that he was a resurrected being who indeed had a physical body.

There is nothing strange about this.

What I am trying to do is look at the historical documents and see what they reflect as of the time they were written.

What you are doing is insisting that later historical documents must be consistent with earlier historical documents.

This is why you end up making a mish-mash of the earlier historical documents and interpreting them against their most straightforward meaning.

[cdowis]

del

Edited April 16, 2016 by cdowis

[Teancum]

On ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 0:49 PM, mfbukowski said:

You are a traditional Catholic and are imbued with pagan Greek philosophy as adjusted by Aquinas et al

I am not prepared to teach 800 years of philosophy here and now. Those here who understand me, understand me. I have said it a hundred times before.

I wish I could say that better but I don't know how to. I just don't have the time

I wish you well. I'm sorry but I'm here for the other members of the board who understand me. The differences are just too great to write at this time.

 

You understand 800 years of philosophy? 

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, cdowis said:

There is one tiny problem with your analysis.  It's a little thing called The First Vision.

Now, you can pretend that JS was deceived and thought he saw a "one substance entity" without body, parts and passions, and then you can justify your analysis based on that assumption.  Now this is the assumption of the unbelievers, proving that the First Vision was a manufactured story and based on the LATER development of this doctrine.  Ergo, he is a false prophet.

If that is your position, I am fine with that.   I just wanted to make it clear what you are saying.

Again, to make it clear.  I am not saying that, over time, he would not be gaining a greater understanding of the nature of God, but this is fundamental to whether the First Vision is a real, actual experience, or a gradually developing story.

 

But Joseph's teachings about God from 1830 to about 1838 don't jive with the now official version of the FV account. The Lectures, the early revelations in the D&C and the Book of Mormon do not reflect what Joseph taught about God from 1838 to his death in 1844.   In fact in many ways the later teaching contradict the earlier.

Joseph did not walk out of the grove with the ideas we teach about God in the LDS Church today.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

You understand 800 years of philosophy? 

Pretty much- I have been studying the history of philosophy for 40 years, and have picked up a point or two.

It's not all that complicated when you understand trends.

[Rico]

Mfbukowski,

In your first response to my first post in this thread, you were tempting me to discuss the Catholic Mass, Augustine, Aquinas, Transubstantiatin, Stigmata, Limbo, Pope Francis.  That's nearly 2,000 years worth of Catholic philosophy.

But when I asked you to provide evidence to an assertion you made that is not self-evident, you backed out while making the silly excuse that you're not prepared to lecture on a philosophy spanning only 800 years.

Come on, mfbukowski, you have fans here reading your every post.  Don't let them down.  Is this how a Wittgensian pragmatist runs away from an opportunity to educate a poh boy like me about the wonders of phelonomagical philosophy?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Rico said:

Mfbukowski,

In your first response to my first post in this thread, you were tempting me to discuss the Catholic Mass, Augustine, Aquinas, Transubstantiatin, Stigmata, Limbo, Pope Francis.  That's nearly 2,000 years worth of Catholic philosophy.

But when I asked you to provide evidence to an assertion you made that is not self-evident, you backed out while making the silly excuse that you're not prepared to lecture on a philosophy spanning only 800 years.

Come on, mfbukowski, you have fans here reading your every post.  Don't let them down.  Is this how a Wittgensian pragmatist runs away from an opportunity to educate a poh boy like me about the wonders of phelonomagical philosophy?

Well I am not really a phenomenologist, but at least I can spell it.

I am I suppose more in to analytical philosophy of the Wittgensteinian variety which of course you are familiar with.

I have done many threads on this subject and the folks here are bored with it all.

Here is one:

Here are others

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

And, I am sorry to say for the others who have seen this several dozen times, this great explanation.  Of course you are ready to comment on these views right now, but please give the ideas some thought and I will be happy to comment on any relevant comments you make.

 

I would be interested in any refutation of Rorty- no one I am aware of at this point has given one.

Edited April 17, 2016 by mfbukowski