MG Three Point One enters into his Exaltation

[Moksha]

One of the things Mason proposes is that the larger group of humanity outside of the small population which comprises the LDS church is also part of the 'body of Christ' and that all people have their part to play in the human story/drama. And in this sense, the eye cannot say to the heart, I do not need thee...and so on.

Perhaps the Mormons were a group of notes sung by the Maiar, while Ilúvatar was conducting The Music of the Ainur.

[malkie]

I don't see a contradiction when looked at in the whole.

Here is the whole:

LECTURES ON FAITH: The Holy Ghost is not a personage, it is merely the mind & will of God. Two members of the godhead.
MODERN Mormonism: The Holy Ghost is a separate entity, a being of spirit only. Three members of the godhead.

That is a HUGE contradiction when looked at in the whole.

Core doctrines have remained the same while there have been alterations/adjustments in the understanding of the nuts and bolts of the doctrines/ordinances/practices.

No, core doctrines have not remained the same. An alteration to the number of beings in the godhead is the most fundamental doctrine you can change.

One of the things Mason proposes is that the larger group of humanity outside of the small population which comprises the LDS church is also part of the 'body of Christ' and that all people have their own part to play in the human story/drama. And in this sense the eye cannot say to the heart, I have no need of thee...and so on.

But the Book of Mormon proposes that there are only two churches: The church of the lamb and the church of the devil, the great and abominable whore of all the earth. So, which carries the greater authority? Mason, or the Book of Mormon?

This is important because, as LoF3 notes:

2 Let us here observe, that three things are necessary, in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

3 First, The idea that he actually exists.

4 Secondly, A correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes.

5 Thirdly, An actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing, is according to his will.

The implication is that as long as the church members accepted the teachings of the LoF, they were not " exercis[ing] faith in God unto life and salvation" due to their lack of a "correct idea of [God's] character, perfections and attributes". The LoF were part of the LDS canon until 1921.

[MG 2.0]

I don't see a contradiction when looked at in the whole.

Here is the whole:

LECTURES ON FAITH: The Holy Ghost is not a personage, it is merely the mind & will of God. Two members of the godhead.
MODERN Mormonism: The Holy Ghost is a separate entity, a being of spirit only. Three members of the godhead.

I've mentioned the book by Charles Harrell, "This Is My Doctrine".

Here is a short summary provided by Perplexity A.I. dealing with the understanding and development of the doctrine of the Holy Ghost:

Prompt: What did charles harrell have to say about the holy ghost doctrinal development in "This Is My Doctrine?"
Charles Harrell on the Doctrinal Development of the Holy Ghost in "This Is My Doctrine"

Summary of Harrell's Approach

Charles Harrell, in This Is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology, offers a comprehensive historical analysis of how Latter-day Saint (LDS) doctrines-including the doctrine of the Holy Ghost-have evolved over time. Harrell is noted for his honest, systematic, and non-dogmatic approach, acknowledging doctrinal shifts and the latitude for differing beliefs among members on non-essential topics

.
Doctrinal Development of the Holy Ghost

Harrell traces the LDS doctrine of the Holy Ghost through several distinct stages, highlighting significant changes from early Mormonism to present-day teachings

:
1. Early View: The Holy Ghost as God in the Book of Mormon

The earliest LDS scripture, the Book of Mormon, presents the Holy Ghost in a manner similar to mainstream Christian views-a divine personage, part of the Godhead alongside the Father and the Son

.

2. The Holy Spirit as Divine Mind (Lectures on Faith, 1835)

By the mid-1830s, LDS teaching shifted. The Lectures on Faith (1835), included in the Doctrine and Covenants, described the Godhead as consisting of two personages (the Father and the Son) who share a single "mind," which is the Holy Spirit. Here, the Holy Spirit is not a separate person but the shared mind or power of the Father and Son, filling all things-aligning with the idea of the "light of Christ" as a universal divine influence

.

3. The Holy Ghost as a Distinct Personage (Early 1840s)

In the early 1840s, Joseph Smith's theology evolved again. He began to refer to three distinct personages-God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost-as three separate Gods. Smith explicitly taught that the Holy Ghost is a "personage" but, unlike the Father and the Son, does not have a body of flesh and bones but is a "personage of Spirit"

.

This teaching was canonized in Doctrine and Covenants 130:22–23, which states: "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. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us"

.

4. Modern LDS Doctrine

Today, the LDS Church teaches that the Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead, a male spirit personage, and a minister of the Father and the Son. He is "one with the Father and the Son in mind, purpose, character, attributes, and glory," but remains a distinct being without a physical body

.

Modern LDS manuals clarify that while the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, his influence (not his person) can be everywhere at once, but he himself can only be in one place at a time

.

Harrell’s Perspective on Doctrinal Change

Harrell emphasizes that LDS doctrine has not been static and that such evolution is both historically evident and theologically significant. He argues that members should recognize this development and feel comfortable with some diversity of belief on non-core doctrines, including nuanced understandings of the Holy Ghost

.

He also notes that Mormonism, like earlier Christian traditions, has reinterpreted scripture to accommodate new theological ideas, often resulting in significant shifts in doctrine over time

.
Conclusion

Charles Harrell’s analysis in This Is My Doctrine demonstrates that the LDS doctrine of the Holy Ghost has undergone substantial development-from an early, more traditional Christian view, to a conception as the shared "mind" of the Father and Son, and finally to the current teaching of the Holy Ghost as a distinct, male spirit personage. Harrell’s work encourages openness to doctrinal evolution and diversity of thought within the LDS tradition.

Can you point to any direct source before the Lectures on Faith that show Joseph Smith had explicit knowledge of the Holy Ghost being a personage of Spirit?

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Here is the whole:

LECTURES ON FAITH: The Holy Ghost is not a personage, it is merely the mind & will of God. Two members of the godhead.
MODERN Mormonism: The Holy Ghost is a separate entity, a being of spirit only. Three members of the godhead.

I've mentioned the book by Charles Harrell, "This Is My Doctrine".

Here is a short summary provided by Perplexity A.I. dealing with the understanding and development of the doctrine of the Holy Ghost:

Charles Harrell on the Doctrinal Development of the Holy Ghost in "This Is My Doctrine"

Summary of Harrell's Approach

Charles Harrell, in This Is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology, offers a comprehensive historical analysis of how Latter-day Saint (LDS) doctrines-including the doctrine of the Holy Ghost-have evolved over time. Harrell is noted for his honest, systematic, and non-dogmatic approach, acknowledging doctrinal shifts and the latitude for differing beliefs among members on non-essential topics

.
Doctrinal Development of the Holy Ghost

Harrell traces the LDS doctrine of the Holy Ghost through several distinct stages, highlighting significant changes from early Mormonism to present-day teachings

:
1. Early View: The Holy Ghost as God in the Book of Mormon

The earliest LDS scripture, the Book of Mormon, presents the Holy Ghost in a manner similar to mainstream Christian views-a divine personage, part of the Godhead alongside the Father and the Son

.

2. The Holy Spirit as Divine Mind (Lectures on Faith, 1835)

By the mid-1830s, LDS teaching shifted. The Lectures on Faith (1835), included in the Doctrine and Covenants, described the Godhead as consisting of two personages (the Father and the Son) who share a single "mind," which is the Holy Spirit. Here, the Holy Spirit is not a separate person but the shared mind or power of the Father and Son, filling all things-aligning with the idea of the "light of Christ" as a universal divine influence

.

3. The Holy Ghost as a Distinct Personage (Early 1840s)

In the early 1840s, Joseph Smith's theology evolved again. He began to refer to three distinct personages-God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost-as three separate Gods. Smith explicitly taught that the Holy Ghost is a "personage" but, unlike the Father and the Son, does not have a body of flesh and bones but is a "personage of Spirit"

.

This teaching was canonized in Doctrine and Covenants 130:22–23, which states: "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. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us"

.

4. Modern LDS Doctrine

Today, the LDS Church teaches that the Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead, a male spirit personage, and a minister of the Father and the Son. He is "one with the Father and the Son in mind, purpose, character, attributes, and glory," but remains a distinct being without a physical body

.

Modern LDS manuals clarify that while the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, his influence (not his person) can be everywhere at once, but he himself can only be in one place at a time

.

Harrell’s Perspective on Doctrinal Change

Harrell emphasizes that LDS doctrine has not been static and that such evolution is both historically evident and theologically significant. He argues that members should recognize this development and feel comfortable with some diversity of belief on non-core doctrines, including nuanced understandings of the Holy Ghost

.

He also notes that Mormonism, like earlier Christian traditions, has reinterpreted scripture to accommodate new theological ideas, often resulting in significant shifts in doctrine over time

.
Conclusion

Charles Harrell’s analysis in This Is My Doctrine demonstrates that the LDS doctrine of the Holy Ghost has undergone substantial development-from an early, more traditional Christian view, to a conception as the shared "mind" of the Father and Son, and finally to the current teaching of the Holy Ghost as a distinct, male spirit personage. Harrell’s work encourages openness to doctrinal evolution and diversity of thought within the LDS tradition.

Can you point to any direct source before the Lectures on Faith that show Joseph Smith had explicit knowledge of the Holy Ghost being a personage of Spirit?

Regards,
MG

Once again you’ve failed to provide the prompt you used to generate the A.I. response.

“Can you point to any direct source before the Lectures on Faith that show Joseph Smith had explicit knowledge of the Holy Ghost being a personage of Spirit?”
How is that relevant to your claim that core Mormon doctrine hasn’t changed since day one?

Your source:

Harrell emphasizes that LDS doctrine has not been static and that such evolution is both historically evident and theologically significant. He argues that members should recognize this development and feel comfortable with some diversity of belief on non-core doctrines, including nuanced understandings of the Holy Ghost

…supports Shades view that core Mormon doctrine HAS changed, and contradicts your view that it hasn’t.

[MG 2.0]

Once again you’ve failed to provide the prompt you used to generate the A.I. response.

Oops. Thanks for that. I went back and entered the prompt for all to see.

If I fail to add the prompt at another time, let me know. I'll try to remember.

You're a good man, IHQ.

By the way, just a reminder, I will answer your questions when I see that you are answering mine with the caveat that there will be some I might find interesting and make comment on.

It's difficult to keep up with all your questions. I'm sure you might understand that IF, big if, you took the time to adequately answer the many questions I have thrown your way.

Regards,
Mg

[MG 2.0]

Harrell emphasizes that LDS doctrine has not been static and that such evolution is both historically evident and theologically significant. He argues that members should recognize this development and feel comfortable with some diversity of belief on non-core doctrines, including nuanced understandings of the Holy Ghost…supports Shades view that core Mormon doctrine HAS changed.

Yes, that is true. So?

Have you even read my posts?

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I've mentioned the book by Charles Harrell, "This Is My Doctrine".

Here is a short summary provided by Perplexity A.I. dealing with the understanding and development of the doctrine of the Holy Ghost:



Can you point to any direct source before the Lectures on Faith that show Joseph Smith had explicit knowledge of the Holy Ghost being a personage of Spirit?

Regards,
MG

Once again you’ve failed to provide the prompt you used to generate the A.I. response.

“Can you point to any direct source before the Lectures on Faith that show Joseph Smith had explicit knowledge of the Holy Ghost being a personage of Spirit?”
How is that relevant to your claim that core Mormon doctrine hasn’t changed since day one?

Your source:

Harrell emphasizes that LDS doctrine has not been static and that such evolution is both historically evident and theologically significant. He argues that members should recognize this development and feel comfortable with some diversity of belief on non-core doctrines, including nuanced understandings of the Holy Ghost

…supports Shades view that core Mormon doctrine HAS changed, and contradicts your view that it hasn’t.

Well, at least he learned something. He's thoroughly refuted his own original position:

...Core doctrines have remained the same...

[I Have Questions]

Once again you’ve failed to provide the prompt you used to generate the A.I. response.

“Can you point to any direct source before the Lectures on Faith that show Joseph Smith had explicit knowledge of the Holy Ghost being a personage of Spirit?”
How is that relevant to your claim that core Mormon doctrine hasn’t changed since day one?

Your source: …supports Shades view that core Mormon doctrine HAS changed, and contradicts your view that it hasn’t.

Well, at least he learned something. He's thoroughly refuted his own original position:

...Core doctrines have remained the same...

He’s arguing against hinself. Brilliant.

[MG 2.0]

Well, at least he learned something. He's thoroughly refuted his own original position:

He’s arguing against hinself. Brilliant.

No. The foundation doctrines remain the same. Understanding has increased over time.

I don't think you actually read what I've already discussed earlier.

If so, I don't know that you gained any insight.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

He’s arguing against hinself. Brilliant.

No. The foundation doctrines remain the same. Understanding has increased over time.

Harrell disagrees with you

Harrell emphasizes that LDS doctrine has not been static and that such evolution is both historically evident and theologically significant.

Theologically significant evolution (change). That’s your source. When you start rebutting yourself you put me out of a job