The great apostasy

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

My point is the name above every name is Jesus 

Do you even know what that means?  Who exalted Jesus?  To the glory of whom?  Did the Father exalt Jesus above Himself, or did he make him equal to God, aka one with God?

Did you read the scripture that you yourself provided?

Quote

 

Philippians 2

 9 Wherefore God [The Father] also hath highly exalted him [Jesus], and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father

 

I've already explained the 3 Nephi versus, I am not going to explain that again. 

Again, who did Jesus glorify?  Who did he worship?  Who did he pray to?

Edited December 26, 2017 by pogi

[Josh Khinder]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Do you even know what that means?  Who exalted Jesus?  To the glory of whom?  Did the Father exalt Jesus above Himself, or did he make him equal to God, aka one with God?

Did you read the scripture that you yourself provided?

I've already explained the 3 Nephi versus, I am not going to explain that again. 

Again, who did Jesus glorify?  Who did he worship?  Who did he pray to?

The Athanasion Creed does teach Jesus was inferior to the Father on line 33 and the reason for that is in the below verses 

Jesus  laid aside his Equality, Wealth and Joy with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit and humbled himself to the form of a slave, when he became man ..

 

”Who although being essentially one with God and in the Form of God {possessing the fullness of the attributes which make GOD GOD} did not think this equality with God was a thing to be grasped or retained.” Philippians 2:6 Amplified version

 

 “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.” 2 Cor.  8:9

 

Hebrews 12

1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, 2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

 

In the original language “for the joy” means  “he exchanged Joy for Shame”.

 

 Thank you Jesus for coming down from your throne in heaven where you were the Almighty God, “EL SHADDAI”, The Great I AM creator of all things in heaven and earth, visible and invisible, thrones, dominions, and principalities and powers . You were rich yet you became poor. You were Almighty yet you emptied yourself and became a humble servant, you exchanged joy for sorrow, sorrow by dying a shameful death on a cross as a criminal whipped with leaden strips even thou you had no sin . Thank you Jesus for your pain and sacrifice.

 

[3DOP]

On 12/26/2017 at 2:45 PM, pogi said:

Do you even know what that means?  Who exalted Jesus?  To the glory of whom?  Did the Father exalt Jesus above Himself, or did he make him equal to God, aka one with God?

Did you read the scripture that you yourself provided?

I've already explained the 3 Nephi versus, I am not going to explain that again. 

Again, who did Jesus glorify?  Who did he worship?  Who did he pray to?

pogi,

We agree that the Father is greater than the Son. He who begets is greater than He who is begotten. .

When the Creed says that the Son is God of God, Light of Light, True God of true God, it insists upon an equality . My children are not less human than me. Nor is the Son less "God" than the Father. The submission of the Son to the Father, Who is greater, is because he who is begotten has a natural duty to him who who begot, whether we are talking about God the Father, or Rory the father, or Pogi the father. And we have a duty to our fathers. Father and Son are unequal as to relationship. They are equal as to what they are.

Edited December 28, 2017 by 3DOP

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

pogi,

We agree that the Father is greater than the Son. He who begets is greater than He who is begotten. .

When the Creed says that the Son is God of God, Light of Light, True God of true God, it insists upon an equality . My children are not less human than me. Nor is the Son less "God" than the Father. The submission of the Son to the Father, Who is greater, is because he who is begotten has a natural duty to him who who begot, whether we are talking about God the Father, or Rory the father, or Pogi the father. And we have a duty to our fathers. Father and Son are unequal as to relationship. They are equal as to what they are.

There is nothing that I can really disagree with there.  But obviously your understanding of how they are "equal" is different from my understanding.  In fact, your analogy of your children being no less human than you, just as the Son is no less "God" than the Father, is probably a better analogy for Mormons to use than Catholics in explaining the relationship between them 

Jesus (Yahweh), thou Son of Father El Elyon and Mother Asherah.  Whatever happened to those days? 

[3DOP]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

There is nothing that I can really disagree with there.  But obviously your understanding of how they are "equal" is different from my understanding.  In fact, your analogy of your children being no less human than you, just as the Son is no less "God" than the Father, is probably a better analogy for Mormons to use than Catholics in explaining the relationship between them 

Jesus (Yahweh), thou Son of Father El Elyon and Mother Asherah.  Whatever happened to those days? 

I am always pleased to agree pogi! You think we disagree about how the Son is equal to the Father? Crows beget crows. Shrimp beget shrimp. God begets God. That is not to define crows or shrimp or God. It just means that if any of them "beget", they beget what they are. It is natural. 

Perhaps we disagree about God, but I think we are agreed about the equality of the Father and Son of God.

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

I am always pleased to agree pogi! You think we disagree about how the Son is equal to the Father? Crows beget crows. Shrimp beget shrimp. God begets God. That is not to define crows or shrimp or God. It just means that if any of them "beget", they beget what they are. It is natural. 

Perhaps we disagree about God, but I think we are agreed about the equality of the Father and Son of God.

I think we are agreed, so long as we keep substance out of the equality 

[Bobbieaware]

On 12/28/2017 at 7:43 PM, pogi said:

I think we are agreed, so long as we keep substance out of the equality 

I’ve never been able to understand why there is such a negative knee-jerk reaction and summary out-of-hand rejection among so many otherwise knowledgeable Latter-Day Saints to the perefectly justifiable and scripturally sound conclusion that the Father and the Son do indeed share a common spiritual substance, a shared holy substance that is elemental to the reason why they are one God while remaining two separate and distinct personages. It is basic LDS doctrine that there is a divine spiritual substance that unifies the three members of the Godhead with each other and in the very same way also unifies the saints with the Godhead. That substance that fills the members of the Godhead with an eternal fullness of divine knowledge and power, and also fills the Saints with varying degrees of that same divine source of knowledge and power, is the Holy Spirit, or in other words the uncreated Spirit of Truth that fills the immensity of space and empowers both Gods and men to be holy in thought, emotion and action. 

And these three constitute the Godhead, and are one; the Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fullness—filling all in all, the Son being filled with the fullness of the mind, glory, and power; or, in other words, the spirit, glory, and power, of the Father, possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom, sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father, mediator for man, being filled with the fullness of the mind of the Father; or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father, which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments." (Lectures on Faith 5:2.) 

 

Edited January 1, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

I’ve never been able to understand why there is such a negative knee-jerk reaction and summary out-of-hand rejection among so many otherwise knowledgeable Latter-Day Saints to the perefectly justifiable and scripturally sound conclusion that the Father and the Son do indeed share a common spiritual substance, a shared holy substance that is elemental to the reason why they are one God while remaining two separate and distinct personages. It is basic LDS doctrine that there is a divine spiritual substance that unifies the three members of the Godhead with each other and in the very same way also unifies the saints with the Godhead. That substance that fills the members of the Godhead with an eternal fullness of divine knowledge and power, and also fills the Saints with varying degrees of that same divine source of knowledge and power, is the Holy Spirit, or in other words the uncreated Spirit of Truth that fills the immensity of space and empowers both Gods and men to be holy in thought, emotion and action. 

And these three constitute the Godhead, and are one; the Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fullness—filling all in all, the Son being filled with the fullness of the mind, glory, and power; or, in other words, the spirit, glory, and power, of the Father, possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom, sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father, mediator for man, being filled with the fullness of the mind of the Father; or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father, which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments." (Lectures on Faith 5:2.) 

 

Interesting.  Do you consider yourself a trinitarian then?  

The lectures on Faith are not exactly official doctrine, or else God the Father is a non embodied spirit.  And we don’t accept the Holy Spirit (3rd member of the Godhead) as the shared mind of the Father and the Son.  Rather he is a personage of spirit that does not fill all space.  

However, if by “Holy Spirit” you mean the light of Christ, then you might be on to something.  However, they will never accept you as a trinitarian since you believe in a lineage of Gods and Godesses.

Edited January 1, 2018 by pogi

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Interesting.  Do you consider yourself a trinitarian then?  

The lectures on Faith are not exactly official doctrine, or else God the Father is a non embodied spirit.  And we don’t accept the Holy Spirit (3rd member of the Godhead) as the shared mind of the Father and the Son.  Rather he is a personage of spirit that does not fill all space.  

However, if by “Holy Spirit” you mean the light of Christ, then you might be on to something.  However, they will never accept you as a trinitarian since you believe in a lineage of Gods and Godesses.

First of all, I believe the Lectures on Faith refers to God the Father in the way described not because the Prophet Joseph Smith didn’t already know the Father had resurrected body of flesh and bone, but because at that early stage in the restoration the time had not yet come to be bluntly forthright about that particular point of doctrine. The bitter persecution Joseph experienced in Palmyra, after too casually revealing who and what he actually saw in the sacred grove, taught him to be discreet and to not widely reveal the true nature of the Father until the Navoo period when the doctrine was openly revealed in black and white for all the world to see. Line upon line — here a little, there a little..

In answer to your question, it’s the Holy Ghost who uses the medium of the light of Christ to fill the saints with the knowledge and power of God. So in this instance it’s hard to differentiate between the two. But we do know that at his baptism Christ received the gift of the gift of the Holy Ghost and received the fullness of that gift (see D&C 93). The same light and power conveying spiritual substance that filled Christ after his baptism is the very same light and power conveying spiritual substance that enlightens and empowers the saints, howbeit to a lesser degree until they too become perfect. So yes, I’m speaking of the light of Christ as conveyed through the instrumentality of the Holy Ghost. In other words, the higher manifestations of the light of Christ can only be revealed by the Holy Ghost.

“The Light of Christ refers to the spiritual power that emanates from God to fill the immensity of space and enlightens every man, woman, and child. Other terms sometimes used to denote this same phenomenon are Holy Spirit, "Spirit of the Lord," and "Spirit of Truth," but it is different from the Holy Ghost. The scriptures are not always precise in the use of such terminology, and several attempts have been made to describe the various aspects of this important manifestation of God's goodness and being.” (The Encyclopedia of Mormonism)

One of the main differences between the LDS understanding of the oneness of the Godhead and that which is subscribed to by the Trinitarians is that to the Trinitarians the unifying substance is an incomprehensible and undefinable mystery, something far beyond the comprehension of mere mortals; whereas in Mormonism the unifying substance is demystifyed because we know it is nothing more or less that the uncreated spirit of truth, or light of truth (I.e. the eternal spirit of divine intelligence, as described in D&C 93) that fills the immensity of space and is in and through all things, including God Himself.

1 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

13 The light which is in all things (including God), which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. (D&C 88)

 

Edited January 1, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[pogi]

10 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

First of all, I believe the Lectures on Faith refers to God the Father in the way described not because the Prophet Joseph Smith didn’t already know the Father had resurrected body of flesh and bone, but because at that early stage in the restoration the time had not yet come to be bluntly forthright about that particular point of doctrine. The bitter persecution Joseph experienced in Palmyra, after too casually revealing who and what he actually saw in the sacred grove, taught him to be discreet and to not widely reveal the true nature of the Father until the Navoo period when the doctrine was openly revealed in black and white for all the world to see. Line upon line — here a little, there a little..

I disagree, but that is another discussion all together.  I think Josephs understanding of what he actually saw in the grove in vision evolved over time with further revelation.  He didn't actually touch the Father after all.  The lectures on faith were his opinions at the time.  To knowingly place false teachings in a published lecture that Joseph knew would contradict future teachings, would be setting himself up to be doubted in the future.   Joseph wouldn't do that.  If a revelation was premature for the people, Joseph wouldn't teach something contrary to the truth, rather he would simply say nothing about it yet, until the people were prepared.  Otherwise, again, he would be foolishly creating a mess of future confusion and doubt, which does exist today because of the lectures on faith.  The simpler and more likely explanation is that Joseph didn't understand the nature of God fully at the time.  Why would he? 

10 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

In answer to your question, it’s the Holy Ghost who uses the medium of the light of Christ to fill the saints with the knowledge and power of God.

It is not just the Holy Ghost.  I communicate with the Father, and he with me, via the same means.  The Holy Ghost does not serve as an intermediary in prayer.  The light of Christ is given to all men and fills the immensity of space.  It is the power by which the earth was created and formed, it is by the light of Christ that we are given life and understanding (D&C 88:11).  It is the source of revelation, truth, life, power, etc. which comes from God.  It is the law by which all things are governed (D&C 88:13), and is indeed the very "power of God who sitters upon his throne", and is therefore an integral part of the priesthood of God. 

The role of the Holy Ghost, on the other hand, is a more limited role.  He is a testator of the Father and the Son, and he is comforter, and he is a purifier, even by fire.  He probably does use the light of Christ to perform his roles, but the light of Christ is not simply a tool of the Holy Ghost.

10 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

One of the main differences between the LDS understanding of the oneness of the Godhead and that which is subscribed to by the Trinitarians is that to the Trinitarians the unifying substance is an incomprehensible and undefinable mystery, something far beyond the comprehension of mere mortals; whereas in Mormonism the unifying substance is demystifyed because we know it is nothing more or less that the uncreated spirit of truth, or light of truth (I.e. the eternal spirit of divine intelligence, as described in D&C 93) that fills the immensity of space and is in and through all things, including God Himself.

That is an interesting observation.  If we could just convince them that God the Father is not immaterial, then we could do away with the hole hypostatic union nonsense, and we would all be on the same page.  The only thing that really divides us is the nature of the Father. 

Edited January 1, 2018 by pogi

[Bobbieaware]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

I disagree, but that is another discussion all together.  I think Josephs understanding of what he actually saw in the grove in vision evolved over time with further revelation.  He didn't actually touch the Father after all.  The lectures on faith were his opinions at the time.  To knowingly place false teachings in a published lecture that Joseph knew would contradict future teachings, would be setting himself up to be doubted in the future.   Joseph wouldn't do that.  If a revelation was premature for the people, Joseph wouldn't teach something contrary to the truth, rather he would simply say nothing about it yet, until the people were prepared.  Otherwise, again, he would be foolishly creating a mess of future confusion and doubt, which does exist today because of the lectures on faith.  The simpler and more likely explanation is that Joseph didn't understand the nature of God fully at the time.  Why would he? 

It is not just the Holy Ghost.  I communicate with the Father, and he with me, via the same means.  The Holy Ghost does not serve as an intermediary in prayer.  The light of Christ is given to all men and fills the immensity of space.  It is the power by which the earth was created and formed, it is by the light of Christ that we are given life and understanding (D&C 88:11).  It is the source of revelation, truth, life, power, etc. which comes from God.  It is the law by which all things are governed (D&C 88:13), and is indeed the very "power of God who sitters upon his throne", and is therefore an integral part of the priesthood of God. 

The role of the Holy Ghost, on the other hand, is a more limited role.  He is a testator of the Father and the Son, and he is comforter, and he is a purifier, even by fire.  He probably does use the light of Christ to perform his roles, but the light of Christ is not simply a tool of the Holy Ghost.

That is an interesting observation.  If we could just convince them that God the Father is not immaterial, then we could do away with the hole hypostatic union nonsense, and we would all be on the same page.  The only thing that really divides us is the nature of the Father. 

The point is the Trinitarians are happy to admit they don’t know how it’s possible that the three separate and distinct personages of the Godhead can be one God, and they even go so far as to say they can’t know how because the oneness of God is beyond the understanding of men. They are also frank to admit that the nature of the unifying substance is also beyond human comprehension. Therefore the Trinitarians frankly confess they don’t have the answers, so for all they know it could turn out in the end the Latter-Day Saints will be the ones who are correct.

At any rate, rather that place an unnecessary wall of separation and theological enmity between us and the Trinitarians, why not generate potential dialogue by declaring we too believe there is a holy substance that unifies the Godhead, the difference being that we can actually define what that holy substance is while they are perplexed and utterly mystified as what that substance might be.

Off to the movies. I’ll show you where you are mistaken on your other points later.

[Bobbieaware]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I disagree, but that is another discussion all together.  I think Josephs understanding of what he actually saw in the grove in vision evolved over time with further revelation.  He didn't actually touch the Father after all.  The lectures on faith were his opinions at the time.  To knowingly place false teachings in a published lecture that Joseph knew would contradict future teachings, would be setting himself up to be doubted in the future.   Joseph wouldn't do that.  If a revelation was premature for the people, Joseph wouldn't teach something contrary to the truth, rather he would simply say nothing about it yet, until the people were prepared.  Otherwise, again, he would be foolishly creating a mess of future confusion and doubt, which does exist today because of the lectures on faith.  The simpler and more likely explanation is that Joseph didn't understand the nature of God fully at the time.  Why would he? 

It is not just the Holy Ghost.  I communicate with the Father, and he with me, via the same means.  The Holy Ghost does not serve as an intermediary in prayer.  The light of Christ is given to all men and fills the immensity of space.  It is the power by which the earth was created and formed, it is by the light of Christ that we are given life and understanding (D&C 88:11).  It is the source of revelation, truth, life, power, etc. which comes from God.  It is the law by which all things are governed (D&C 88:13), and is indeed the very "power of God who sitters upon his throne", and is therefore an integral part of the priesthood of God. 

The role of the Holy Ghost, on the other hand, is a more limited role.  He is a testator of the Father and the Son, and he is comforter, and he is a purifier, even by fire.  He probably does use the light of Christ to perform his roles, but the light of Christ is not simply a tool of the Holy Ghost.

That is an interesting observation.  If we could just convince them that God the Father is not immaterial, then we could do away with the hole hypostatic union nonsense, and we would all be on the same page.  The only thing that really divides us is the nature of the Father. 

Back from the movie. Now on to my refutation of the second of your two major points of disputation:

1) The scriptures tach us that the Holy Ghost does not have a “limited role” when it comes to revealing truth to mankind, but as “God the Testator” his role it to reveal and empower mankind to know, comprehend and be enabled to live the principles of the truth of ALL THINGS.

61 Therefore it is given to abide in you; the record of heaven; the Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal glory; the truth of all things; that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive all things; that which knoweth all things, and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment.(Moses 6)

Doesn’t sound at all that the Holy Ghost has a limited revelatory and empowerment role me. And then, of course, there are the immortal words of the Prophet Moroni...

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10)

Are you sure you still want to hold on to your limited role for the  Ghost Idea?

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14)

I’ll refute your first point in dispute apropos to the the statement on the nature of God the Father in the Lectures on Faith a little later tonight. Be prepared to be chagrined. 😉

 

Edited January 1, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[pogi]

People severely misappropriate to the Holy Ghost much of what the light of Christ is and does, that is what I meant by my comment.  For example, in the sacrament prayer, people confuse "His spirit" for the Holy Ghost.  However, the Holy Ghost cannot always be with us, the covenant is speaking of the light of Christ.  When people claim to feel "the spirit", they falsely assume that they are feeling the Holy Ghost.  It is the light of Christ within them that they feel, for the Holy Ghost cannot be in the bosom of an entire congregation.   And no, it is not only the HG that uses the medium of the light of Christ.  

19 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

61 Therefore it is given to abide in you; the record of heaven; the Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal glory; the truth of all things; that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive all things; that which knoweth all things, and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment.(Moses 6)

What abides in us exactly? The Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit and a member of the Godhead which cannot abide in us all, all the time. Elder Joseph Fielding Smith taught that “the Holy Ghost should not be confused with the Spirit [the Light of Christ] which fills the immensity of space and which is everywhere present."

What constitutes the truth of all things?   "...whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ (D&C 84:45)."

What is it that quickeneth our understanding?  “the light which shineth, which giveth you light [and] enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings” (D&C 88:11).

What is that "maketh alive all things"? "The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things..." (D&C 88:13).

What is the source of all power? :...which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne" (D&C 88:13).

So what is given to us in this scripture exactly, to always abide with us?  The Holy Ghost or the light of Christ? 

19 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

And then, of course, there are the immortal words of the Prophet Moroni...

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10)

  What is the power of the Holy Ghost?  Again, look up D&C 88:13.

Sure, the Holy Ghost can utilize this power as a tool to reveal things to us.  But it is not limited to the Holy Ghost.  The Lords voice to us is revelation is through the light of Christ also. "I speak unto you with my voice, even the voice of my Spirit" (D&C 97:1).  "God hath made them manifest unto me by his Holy Spirit" (Alma 5:46).  "For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ"

It is the means by which God knows all things.  It is what gives God power. It is the law that God abides by.  Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught that the Light of Christ “is the agency of God’s power; it is the means and way whereby ‘he comprehendeth all things,’ so that ‘all things are before him, and all things are round about him.’ It is the way whereby ‘he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things."

Exaltation and deification is nothing more than gaining access to the full light of Christ:

Quote

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that a person who receives the more sure word of prophecy is “sealed in the heavens and [has] the promise of eternal life in the kingdom of God.”21 Such persons may then, “by making [their] calling and election sure, enjoy the full light of Christ.”

Mormon taught: “Search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ” (Moro. 7:19).

“Feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do” (2 Ne. 32:3)  Again, what are the words of Christ? "For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ".  "I speak unto you with my voice, even the voice of my Spirit" (D&C 97:1).

In other words, the higher manifestations of the light of Christ are not revealed through the Holy Ghost alone, as you suggest.  That is not scriptural.  God can reveal them directly to us with His own word through scripture and direct revelation in a personal communion with Him where there is no intermediary of the Holy Ghost.  He does this via the light of Christ.  

The point is that this spiritual "substance" that we are talking about, which unifies the Godhead and unifies man with God is the light of Christ.  On that point at least we agree.  It is given too little attention in credit in my opinion.  It is vastly misunderstood by most members. 

 

Edited January 2, 2018 by pogi

[Bobbieaware]

On 1/1/2018 at 1:26 PM, pogi said:

I disagree, but that is another discussion all together.  I think Josephs understanding of what he actually saw in the grove in vision evolved over time with further revelation.  He didn't actually touch the Father after all.  The lectures on faith were his opinions at the time.  To knowingly place false teachings in a published lecture that Joseph knew would contradict future teachings, would be setting himself up to be doubted in the future.   Joseph wouldn't do that.  If a revelation was premature for the people, Joseph wouldn't teach something contrary to the truth, rather he would simply say nothing about it yet, until the people were prepared.  Otherwise, again, he would be foolishly creating a mess of future confusion and doubt, which does exist today because of the lectures on faith.  The simpler and more likely explanation is that Joseph didn't understand the nature of God fully at the time.  Why would he? 

It is not just the Holy Ghost.  I communicate with the Father, and he with me, via the same means.  The Holy Ghost does not serve as an intermediary in prayer.  The light of Christ is given to all men and fills the immensity of space.  It is the power by which the earth was created and formed, it is by the light of Christ that we are given life and understanding (D&C 88:11).  It is the source of revelation, truth, life, power, etc. which comes from God.  It is the law by which all things are governed (D&C 88:13), and is indeed the very "power of God who sitters upon his throne", and is therefore an integral part of the priesthood of God. 

The role of the Holy Ghost, on the other hand, is a more limited role.  He is a testator of the Father and the Son, and he is comforter, and he is a purifier, even by fire.  He probably does use the light of Christ to perform his roles, but the light of Christ is not simply a tool of the Holy Ghost.

That is an interesting observation.  If we could just convince them that God the Father is not immaterial, then we could do away with the hole hypostatic union nonsense, and we would all be on the same page.  The only thing that really divides us is the nature of the Father. 

As far as your belief that early on the Prohet Josep Smith was unaware the Father had a body of flesh and bone, even though he testified that in his first vision the Father and the Son appeared as men who “exactly resembled each other in features and likeness,” I have a few things to say. The problem is that there are examples in the scriptures of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ being referred to as a spirit, even though it is beyond all dispute he has a body of flesh and bone. For example:

26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth; (D&C 93) 

So above we strangely see the resurrected Christ testify he is a Spirit, even though he has a glorified body of flesh and bone.

And then Paul throws another monkey wrench into the gears of your scenario with the following words:

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening SPIRIT.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. (1 Corinthians 15)

So above we have the Apostle Paul assert the resurrected Lord is a spirit. In fact, these very verses have been the cause of several Christian denominations to teach that after his resurrection the Lord did indeed temporarily take upon himself a body of flesh and bone, but soon thereafter shed that material body and took upon himself an immaterial spiritual nature.

There are other verses I could quote to further establish my point, but from the foregoing it appears there is adequate scriptural precedent to lay the groundwork for the prophet to rightly and honestly teach that our embodied Father in Heaven is a personage of Spirit, glory and power, and wait till a later day when the time was right, to let the cat out of the bag and reveal Heavenly Father has a tangible body of flesh and bone.

Just as the resurrected Christ didn’t lie when he called himself the Spirit of Truth, and Paul (and the anonymous author who, he quotes) didn’t lie when he taught that the resurrected Christ was made a spirit, so too the prophet Joseph Smith didn’t lie when he said the Father is a personage of spirit glory and power and that Christ is in the express (exact) image of the Fsther’s person (anthropos).

 

 

 

 

[pogi]

16 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

As far as your belief that early on the Prohet Josep Smith was unaware the Father had a body of flesh and bone, even though he testified that in his first vision the Father and the Son appeared as men who “exactly resembled each other in features and likeness,” I have a few things to say. The problem is that there are examples in the scriptures of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ being referred to as a spirit, even though it is beyond all dispute he has a body of flesh and bone. For example:

26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth; (D&C 93) 

So above we strangely see the resurrected Christ testify he is a Spirit, even though he has a glorified body of flesh and bone.

And then Paul throws another monkey wrench into the gears of your scenario with the following words:

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening SPIRIT.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. (1 Corinthians 15)

So above we have the Apostle Paul assert the resurrected Lord is a spirit. In fact, these very verses have been the cause of several Christian denominations to teach that after his resurrection the Lord did indeed temporarily take upon himself a body of flesh and bone, but soon thereafter shed that material body and took upon himself an immaterial spiritual nature.

There are other verses I could quote to further establish my point, but from the foregoing it appears there is adequate scriptural precedent to lay the groundwork for the prophet to rightly and honestly teach that our embodied Father in Heaven is a personage of Spirit, glory and power, and wait till a later day when the time was right, to let the cat out of the bag and reveal Heavenly Father has a tangible body of flesh and bone.

Just as the resurrected Christ didn’t lie when he called himself the Spirit of Truth, and Paul (and the anonymous author who, he quotes) didn’t lie when he taught that the resurrected Christ was made a spirit, so too the prophet Joseph Smith didn’t lie when he said the Father is a personage of spirit glory and power and that Christ is in the express (exact) image of the Fsther’s person (anthropos).

Problems that you need to address:

1) What evidence do you have that the Church was not prepared to receive the revelation that God had a body of flesh?  The lectures of faith were published in 1835.  Joseph first taught that God had a body of flesh in 1843.  That is only 8 years.  What transpired among the saints between 1835 and 1843 that prepared them to receive this revelation?  Is there any evidence that it was received with skepticism or doubt?  Is there any evidence that Joseph prepared the people to receive it in some way?  If not, then your theory that the church was unprepared in 1835, but that they were prepared in 1843 for no good apparent reason, is unreasonable.  

2) The Church removed the Lectures on Faith from the D&C because it was "not received as revelation", and to "avoid contention and confusion on this vital point of belief".  So, your argument that Joseph did it to protect the saints from confusion and doubt is ironic because the lectures actually became a source of confusion and doubt to the point that they would have to be removed from the D&C. 

3)This is perhaps the most important obstacle you face.  What evidence do you have that Joseph knew that God had a body of flesh before the 1843 revelation?  Is the first vision your only evidence?  Where does it say in the first vision that God has a body of flesh?  Where does it say that Joseph touched the father?  Or, where did the Father reveal it?  If you recall the story of the brother of Jared, the premortal Christ appeared to the brother of Jared.  Apparently it is impossible to distinguish from vision the difference between flesh and spirit.  Joseph obviously would have understood this when he published the Lectures.  From the Book of Ether chapter 3: 

Quote

 

6 And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold, the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his finger. And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear.

7 And the Lord saw that the brother of Jared had fallen to the earth; and the Lord said unto him: Arise, why hast thou fallen?

8 And he saith unto the Lord: I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood.

15. ...Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

 

The Brother of Jared thought that Jesus was flesh, but Christ had to explain to him that what he saw was actually his spirit body.  So, how could Joseph have known whether or not the Father had a body of flesh or only a body of spirit simply by looking at him?  He couldn't.  It would have to be revealed to him.  The first evidence of that revelation is in 1843.  Until that point, he likely would have subscribed to the prevailing belief at the time, that the Father was a personage of Spirit with no flesh.  Line upon line, precept upon precept.

We don't need to defend everything that Joseph taught.  We only need to defend his revelations.  We know that his understanding evolved over time as more was revealed.  There is no reason to defend early teachings of Joseph that were incomplete and unwhole, without foundation of revelation.  We can accept the lectures, as the church does, as "theological lectures or lessons", but not revelation.  No point in fighting battles we don't need to.

Edited January 3, 2018 by pogi