The Confounding World of LDS Doctrinal Pronouncements...

[_Coggins7]

Any TBMs who know the answer to this, I'd like to see a post helping the Dawkinites with Joseph's quote regarding God being a personage of Spirit. Gee, I wonder why I never had a problem understanding what Joseph, in light of other basic LDS doctrine, meant here?

Hint: we are all personages of spirit in LDS teaching.

Nope Coggins this duck does not fly. In the lecture where God is declared a personage of spirit this is contrasted against Christ who is declared to be a personage of tabernacle. Really why do you think that after 1916 when the FP issued Talmage's treatise on the Godhead and it conflicted with the Lectured on Faith , they were removed from Canon.

Just keep playing head games with yourself like this Jason, and soon you'll be up there in lights with Beastie, Tarski, Sethbag, Dude, and the rest in the great and spaciousat building pointing and wagging fingers at the Saints.

You clearly have no direct evidence here, but semantic quibbles, and this isn't convincing for the reason that (as we all know, right Jason) the Church was restored line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little (right Jason?). Hence, If (and this is "if") Joseph thought God the Father was a personage of Spirit in the 1820s and 1830s, he had certainly changed his mind by the 1840s. And your point is precisely what? How does this effect the divine truth claims of the Church, or its claim to be the only true Church? What does it have to do with anything in this context?

The doctrines of the Church developed people, just as they did in the New Testament Church. Now, let's take the intellectual training wheels off and see if you can give Joseph the benefit of the doubt for a moment and understand that according to our own history and Joseph's own teachings, there were a number of things he didn't understand in full at the beginning that he clarified and expanded upon much later.

The fact of the matter is that the concepts that God was once a man like we ourselves, that there is an infinite regression and progression of God's in etenity (which, if you and Bro. Oster doesn't' believe, you can, I suppose, continue to the logical conclusion and dump the PofGP, major portions of the D&C and a century and a half of Church teaching) and that all god's have bodies of flesh and bones, as tangible as man's (because all god's, according to core, official LDS scriptural doctrine, must be resurrected beings (you see, all LDS doctrines are conceptually interrelated, such that they logically imply or presuppose the others) ) are doctrines more advanced conceptually than those Joseph received in the early years of his ministry.

Here's the ninth article of faith:

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


This applies just as much to the origin and development of Josephs ideas and the accepted Church doctrine in the past as it does for us today. OK, let's argue now over whether the Articles of Faith are official Church doctrine.

This is apparently what a cross between the American public school system and a steady diet of Dialog does to otherwise normal, healthy minds.

[_Coggins7]

You've another problem trying to plumb the original intent of Joseph's mind regarding his statements in the Lectures regarding The Father and Christ, and that is the following:

1. In LDS theology, The Father is a personage of spirit, embodied in a glorified, resurrected body.

2. Christ is a personage of spirit embodied in a glorified, resurrected body.

3. We are all personages of spirit, embodied in mortal, corruptable earthly bodies.

4. All who live the Gospel to its full extent will become personages of spirit embodied in glorified, resurrected bodies.

So, what was Joseph likely referring to here, and how do you know? Was his understanding of these things not fully developed? Perhaps, but this is irrelevant for apologetics. Was this nothing but a slip of the tongue; a rhetorical flourish, or hyperbole (true as far as it goes, but incomplete (is not God, in LDS theology, a "personage of spirit"?))?

Jason, you don't tug on Superman's cape, spit into the wind, pull the mask of the Lone Ranger, and you don't kick against the pricks.

Unless you have a lot of band aids...

[_Runtu]

Just keep playing head games with yourself like this Jason, and soon you'll be up there in lights with Beastie, Tarski, Sethbag, Dude, and the rest in the great and spaciousat building pointing and wagging fingers at the Saints.

Apparently, finger-pointing is OK when you're making fun of unbelievers and those who have serious questions.

You clearly have no direct evidence here, but semantic quibbles, and this isn't convincing for the reason that (as we all know, right Jason) the Church was restored line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little (right Jason?). Hence, If (and this is "if") Joseph thought God the Father was a personage of Spirit in the 1820s and 1830s, he had certainly changed his mind by the 1840s. And your point is precisely what? How does this effect the divine truth claims of the Church, or its claim to be the only true Church? What does it have to do with anything in this context?

Hmmm. The Father as a personage of spirit is a mere semantic quibble, but use the word "magic" to describe Joseph Smith's beliefs, and you're in big trouble. No, this doesn't really "effect [sic] the divine truth claims of the Church" but it is interesting watching people flail about trying to downplay such contradictions.

The doctrines of the Church developed people, just as they did in the New Testament Church. Now, let's take the intellectual training wheels off and see if you can give Joseph the benefit of the doubt for a moment and understand that according to our own history and Joseph's own teachings, there were a number of things he didn't understand in full at the beginning that he clarified and expanded upon much later.

That's as it should be, your jab about intellectual training wheels aside. If it were a case of evolving understanding, that would make sense. That doesn't seem to be what has happened in the church. Rather, you have some folks declaring gospel truth, only to be rejected as heretical by future "prophets." Sounds more like a Kuhnian model than an evolution and clarification of thought.

The fact of the matter is that the concepts that God was once a man like we ourselves, that there is an infinite regression and progression of God's in etenity (which, if you and Bro. Oster doesn't' believe, you can, I suppose, continue to the logical conclusion and dump the PofGP, major portions of the D&C and a century and a half of Church teaching) and that all god's have bodies of flesh and bones, as tangible as man's (because all god's, according to core, official LDS scriptural doctrine, must be resurrected beings (you see, all LDS doctrines are conceptually interrelated, such that they logically imply or presuppose the others) ) are doctrines more advanced conceptually than those Joseph received in the early years of his ministry.

Can you give me a reference in correlated church publication that teaches the prior mortality of God and the "infinite regression and progression of God's [sic]"?

Here's the ninth article of faith:

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


This applies just as much to the origin and development of Josephs ideas and the accepted Church doctrine in the past as it does for us today. OK, let's argue now over whether the Articles of Faith are official Church doctrine.

We don't have to argue about this. It's in the canon, so it's by nature "official Church doctrine."

This is apparently what a cross between the American public school system and a steady diet of Dialog does to otherwise normal, healthy minds.

And the sneering at Jason accomplishes exactly what other than to make you appear to be a jerk?

[_beastie]

Of particular interest regarding the Lectures on Faith is the following statement: "Elder John Smith, taking the lead of the High Council in Kirtland, bore record that the revelations in said book [the "covenants"] were true, and that the lectures [Lectures on Faith] 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" (Messenger and Advocate, 1:161; RDC 108A:4d-e; emphasis added).

http://www.centerplace.org/hs/dc/lec-hist.htm

But, according to coggins, this was perhaps just a slip of the tongue, rhetorical flourish, hyperbole. I guess stating that the godhead had two personages and the Holy Ghost was the MIND of God is another rhetorical flourish.

Coggins, you're a hoot.

[_Coggins7]

So you doubt my witness? Why is that? Because it disagrees with yours.

What! Little ol' me doubt a witness? Heaven forfend.

I recall you once blowing your top when I insinuated you could now "KNOW" certain things.

That's a different issue. Whether one can know certain things is another issue from whether or not one in actuality does know something.

Well Like it or not our current Prophet downplayed the idea the God was once a man as we are now. And the church teaches little about an infinite regression of Gods. And these both do confict with Canon, but this could be added to canon. Neither teaching have even gone through the canonization process.

And I've already explained (as have others) why GBH downplayed this idea, and I disagree with you that either of these concepts conflicts with canon. Indeed, the cannon makes much more sense, and is much more beautiful and coherent as a metaphysical system with them intact than without them.

Oh, and by the way, the "spirit" you're talking to is telling you things inconsistent with what he's told me on the matter.

Well this is a problem because I can tell you this issue has been for me the most important truth to determine since it is the one Joseph Smith said more often then once that knowing God and His attributes was the most important thing for us to know. And I believe I have had a spiritual witness that at least God the eternal father and the eternal God of all other gods as the D&C says, was never a man like us. I do hold out that he may have been a man like Jesus His son was. And I believe he is eternal in the way we understand that word and that nothing came before him. I believe that there may have been gods after Him . And I am quite sure I have had a witness of this.

Now you're equivocating with the term "man". What, precisely do you mean when you use this term with respect to God the Father?

Philosophically, I have a problem with The Father being the first god of all gods in all possible worlds, universes, and realities that ever existed before which there was nothing at all. This appears to be a retreat to orthodox sectarian Christianity (if not the Platonism that spawned much of its doctrine in this area), not part of the Restoration.

In contemplating this issue, which has also been of major importance to me, I have not received the witness you have received, nor do I quibble with the term "man" when Joseph says "a man like ourselves". I'm convinced that Joseph's meaning here was, at face value, exactly what it appears to be: that God the Father was born to mortal parents on an earth much like this one, progressed from one degree of intelligence to another, through faith and obedience to eternal law; died, was resurrected to a fullness of Celestial glory, and became the father of our spirits. When you say that he was a man as Jesus was a man. Jesus was born into this world with a mortal body, grew, progressed, learned, and advanced, died, was resurrected, and became a god equal to the Father in glory, intelligence, and power. He is our redeemer and savior, but he, according to the Gospel plan, will become a Father in Heaven himself as his own father did before him. So will we.

Why there is any necessity, if you accept this at all, of conceiving of the Father as the first and only god that ever existed, I'm not at all sure. The Gospel as a system doesn't require that, nor is it in any way logically necessary.

So say it conflicts with canon, but this is simply false. Cutting the plan of salvation off at some point in the past isn't a part of core gospel teaching and no GAs for almost two centuries have taught that. The plan is from eternity to eternity (as are all of us and as is the Priesthood). Unless you're going to retreat to the idea that God has always existed as God, then the canon both teaches and implies (as Joseph taught) an endless, cyclic pattern of preexistence, mortality, and godhood that is clearly taught in the scriptures, and the canon and generations of the teachings of the prophets explicitly places this cycle infinitely into the past just as it extends it infinitely into the future.

That little caveat is also food for some very serious thought (and I'm sure Bro. Ostler has some deeply sophisticated arguments to make on that subject as well). Well, I can make deeply sophisticated arguments too, but that's not how Gospel knowledge is either gained or maintained (though it is a useful appendage).

Perhaps what is serious food for thought is the spirit seems to have given us conflicting witnesses and you seem to think yours Trump's mine. Why?

[/quote]

No, that's not the question. The question is "did the Spirit", not "the Spirit did".

[_Coggins7]

But, according to coggins, this was perhaps just a slip of the tongue, rhetorical flourish, hyperbole. I guess stating that the godhead had two personages and the Holy Ghost was the MIND of God is another rhetorical flourish.

Coggins, you're a hoot.

And you appear to be as big an intellectual poseur as Scratch, but with an admittedly more sophisticated gloss.

Until you can show a compelling reason to believe that it wasn't rhetorical flourish (and the doctrine is still harmonious with the rest of Church teaching regardless), or unless you can demonstrate that this cannot entirely be explained as a part of the doctrinal development of the Church (in which case Joseph did believe that the Father had only a spirit body in the early years of the Church, but modified this in later years as he understood the Gospel in a deeper way), then no matter how many tentacles you flail and ink you squirt, you simply end up, once again, looking more like an intellectual hack with an ax to grind than an intellectually serous interlocutor.

[_Coggins7]

Hmmm. The Father as a personage of spirit is a mere semantic quibble, but use the word "magic" to describe Joseph Smith's beliefs, and you're in big trouble. No, this doesn't really "effect [sic] the divine truth claims of the Church" but it is interesting watching people flail about trying to downplay such contradictions.

And there's a reason for this too Runtu: Quinn's use of the term magic, as in the alleged Mormon "magic world view" is nothing but a pure piece of smarmy liberal academic snobbery dressed up as dispassionate analysis, and its no different than when other liberal intellectuals compare serious religious belief to belief in the Easter Bunny and serious religious believers to primitive, superstitious rubes.

The ironic reality is, Mormons don't believe in magic, at least not nearly as much as many secular liberals do. Just ask Richard Dawkins. He actually believes that we and the universe exist purely thorough fortuitous, blind, random chance.

As Santayana said, one generation trades in its superstitions for another set.

[_Coggins7]

Rather, you have some folks declaring gospel truth, only to be rejected as heretical by future "prophets."

Example?

[_Coggins7]

If the only reliable teachings needed is how to behave like Christ, then why did the apostasy even occur? Why would God ever withdraw his authority from his church? Who cares what they're teaching, as long as they teach people to follow Christ.

This is turning into a fine example of how wide the divide is between internet apologetics and chapel Mormonism.

Its actually a superb indication of how wide the divide between serious, ingenuous critics of LDS thought and ax grinding provocateurs with little actual knowledge of their subject.

'the only reliable teachings needed is how to behave like Christ." What does this mean? Is this LDS doctrine? Who's taught that? Do you know that they teach it? Do you know much about it? If you could just put that into a couplet, we could start another thread about how "its just a couplet" and that could go on for three or four pages.

Oh the pain...the terrible pain...

[_Coggins7]

I see. Here's how it goes:

Joseph Smith sees Jesus and Heavenly Father.

After that apparition, Joseph Smith initially teaches that Heavenly Father, whom he saw, is a personage of spirit while Jesus has a tabernacle of flesh.

Later, Joseph Smith changes that teaching to state that HF also has a body of flesh.

And this, according to wade, is just the evolution of knowledge. Even more, for me to regard this as an example of the unreliability of LDS teachings means that I expect perfection and infallibility.

Unless you have a cogent, compelling, logical argument that would provide reason to believe otherwise, then yes, that is how it goes.

But of course, since you quite patently have no such argument, lets let sleeping dogs lie and move on to something more important...like the number 42.