This Is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology

[Jeff Lebowski]

It lays the BOOM down in the first couple paragraphs when it brings out the Lectures on Faith and their teachings that the Holy Ghost is not a personage and that the Father does not have a body. To the believing member this wouldn't make sense, especially given that the LoF were published in 1835 (or at least canonized at that time) which is 15 years after Joseph supposedly saw a corporeal Father. But it makes sense in that Joseph never mentioned the Father as part of the First Vision until 1838, which would have been after the writing and canonization of the LoF and fits in with the timeline of a changing First Vision account.

that lectures on faith quote blew my mind. my wife has a copy from an institute class and I just had to verify it. what makes it even more interesting is the quote early on that says that a correct understanding of the nature of God is prerequisite to exercising faith in him. in other words, the distinction is sort of important.

The trajectory of the Lectures on Faith is fascinating. For many years it was officially canonized scripture (part of the D&C) and it was then removed in 1921. Now you can't even find it on the LDS.org website (if you can, it must be hidden quite well - I can't find any link to the LOF from an official LDS source). How does something go from canonized scripture to rarely cited and not published? However, there is a nice website by the RLDS folks containing a complete copy of the LOF:

http://www.centerplace.org/hs/dc/lectures.htm

Be sure to check out Lecture #5. It is a doozy.

• God the Father is a spirit
• There are two members of the Godhead
• Christ is called "the Son" because he became mortal (classic Christian theology)

The BOM also describes God as a spirit. Apologists will argue that it doesn't really say that:

http://en.fairmormon.org/God_is_a_Spirit/Book_of_Mormon_teaches_God_is_a_spirit

but it was black-and-white LDS doctrine for many years that God is a spirit.

[Indy Coug]

• There are two members of the Godhead
  

Not based on the following from your cited Lecture on Faith:

[Lec 5:2j] And he being the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fullness of the glory of the Father - possessing the same mind with the Father;

[Lec 5:2k] which Mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son;

[Lec 5:2L] and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things; by whom all things were created and made, that were created and made:

[Lec 5:2m] 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;

[Jeff Lebowski]

Not based on the following from your cited Lecture on Faith:

True. But from earlier in the lecture:

Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead?

A. Two: the Father and the Son (Lecture 5:1).

Note from the quote you linked that the Holy Ghost was characterized as a shared "mind" between the Father and the Son, not as actual person (spirit or otherwise). This "binitarian" view of the Godhead was promoted in the early 1800's by primitivists. It wasn't until 1841 that JS clarified that there were three personages in the Godhead with distinct roles.

The binitarian LOF actually represent a middle ground. Earlier LDS doctrine promoted a classic trinitarian three-in-one Godhead. So we went from one, to two, to three.

[Indy Coug]

True. But from earlier in the lecture:



Note from the quote you linked that the Holy Ghost was characterized as a shared "mind" between the Father and the Son, not as actual person (spirit or otherwise). This "binitarian" view of the Godhead was promoted in the early 1800's by primitivists. It wasn't until 1841 that JS clarified that there were three personages in the Godhead with distinct roles.

The binitarian LOF actually represent a middle ground. Earlier LDS doctrine promoted a classic trinitarian three-in-one Godhead. So we went from one, to two, to three.

The operative word appears to be "personage". How is that word defined? Is the Holy Ghost a personage? In any event, I don't believe you can read that Lecture on Faith and come away with the notion that Joseph Smith taught the Godhead consisted of only God the Father and Jesus Christ.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The operative word appears to be "personage". How is that word defined? Is the Holy Ghost a personage? In any event, I don't believe you can read that Lecture on Faith and come away with the notion that Joseph Smith taught the Godhead consisted of only God the Father and Jesus Christ.

At best it is ambiguous. Again, the LOF explicitly say that there are two personages in the Godhead with a shared mind that is the Holy Ghost. In 1841, JS changed this and explicitly said that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit and that there are three distinct personages in the Godhead.

[Moliere]

The operative word appears to be "personage". How is that word defined? Is the Holy Ghost a personage? In any event, I don't believe you can read that Lecture on Faith and come away with the notion that Joseph Smith taught the Godhead consisted of only God the Father and Jesus Christ.

Current LDS theology teaches that the HG is a personage, meaning a spirit just like you and I have a spirit. I believe it was D&C 130 that sets the groundwork for that theology. A personage is an important distinction and not one that is made in the LoF in regards to the HG.

[Harry Tic]

Current LDS theology teaches that the HG is a personage, meaning a spirit just like you and I have a spirit. I believe it was D&C 130 that sets the groundwork for that theology. A personage is an important distinction and not one that is made in the LoF in regards to the HG.

Not to mention the folk (?) doctrine associated with the HG. That he (he?) will receive a body at some point in time. What's the backstory with this?

I'm kind of partial to the idea that the HG is somehow connected to Heavenly Mother, although this obviously implies all sorts of difficulties as well. I mean, isn't it slightly weird that the Trinity/Godhead--which is analogous to a family unit--is an exclusively male association? What kind of family is that? My sense is that Mormon theology is uniquely qualified to deal with some of these issues but our theological resources are pretty much untapped.

[Katy Lied]

For many years it was officially canonized scripture (part of the D&C) and it was then removed in 1921. Now you can't even find it on the LDS.org website (if you can, it must be hidden quite well - I can't find any link to the LOF from an official LDS source).

CALLING UNCLE TED

Not to mention the folk (?) doctrine associated with the HG. That he (he?) will receive a body at some point in time. What's the backstory with this?

I'm kind of partial to the idea that the HG is somehow connected to Heavenly Mother,

Me too. Maybe the HG will receive a body when she receives her paradisaiacal glory.

[clackamascoug]

You guys are making parallel dimensions seems downright normal.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Oh, and by the way, we already discussed "God is a spirit" LDS doctrine in this thread:

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthread.php?66316-Do-Any-Other-Christians-Believe-God-has-a-Physical-Body

Note the quotes by PPP and Erastus Snow here:

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthread.php?66316-Do-Any-Other-Christians-Believe-God-has-a-Physical-Body&p=954747&viewfull=1#post954747

[SeattleUte]

SU, you would be interested in this book. It's a fantastic exercise in ambiguity.
Just like Galileo worked out all of the physics to point to an inevitable heliocentric universe while he cleverly avoided concluding anything that would get him burned at the stake, Harrell - a prof. at the byu - shows a similar flair for self-preservation.

He assiduously avoids drawing conclusions at all while inundating the reader with example after example of 19th century anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith's misunderstanding of Biblical contexts, abrupt lurches in theological beliefs even during Joseph Smith's lifetime, and contemporary Mormonism's marked departure from early LDS and the Book of Mormon's teachings (let alone contemporary Mormonism's distance from Biblical theology).

I don't know Harrell personally, nor do I aspire to understand his personal beliefs, but in this book the "orthodox" or mainstream contemporary LDS belief comes across as the Simplicio of Galileo's writing, upholding an untenable belief-system against a landslide of contrary evidence in a safely "fictional" dialogue.

IMO, this book presents a challenge to today's LDS teachings and, perhaps more importantly, to contemporary LDS authority much more strongly than some attack from a typical anti-Mormon or the usual chirping over social issues. While this book is not anti-Mormon, it's anti-status quo, and anti-traditional assumptions. For better or for worse, this book cuts some of Mormonism's most central teachings to their cores.

In the meantime, progressive Mormons, ex-Mormons, and anyone else who reads this book will incorporate its information in their searches for enlightenment. This (IMO) will only lead to good things.

This is a great post and a wonderful piece of writing and psychoanalysis. Unfortunately, there are so many books and subjects that interest me a great deal more than the sources and makings of Mormon theology. You have wonderfully deconstructed this fellow's mind. However, if I wanted to spend a thousand pages psycholanalyzing a really quirky even strange persona and psyche, there's that very interesting looking biography of Himmler that came out last year.

[CardiacCoug]

I'm reading this now, thanks CS Book Club!

I find the evolution of these ideas fascinating, but I can't help focusing on how abstract theology is totally arbitrary and mostly ridiculous. I'm amazed that anyone could have strong feelings one way or another about the true nature of the Godhead, for example. I could see having a strong opinion about what the doctrine regarding the Trinity currently is or what it was at a certain time. But it's unknowable and it doesn't matter, anyway. It just never fails to amaze me that people want to treat this stuff like it's a factual matter, like it's math or something.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm reading this now, thanks CS Book Club!

I find the evolution of these ideas fascinating, but I can't help focusing on how abstract theology is totally arbitrary and mostly ridiculous. I'm amazed that anyone could have strong feelings one way or another about the true nature of the Godhead, for example. I could see having a strong opinion about what the doctrine regarding the Trinity currently is or what it was at a certain time. But it's unknowable and it doesn't matter, anyway. It just never fails to amaze me that people want to treat this stuff like it's a factual matter, like it's math or something.

As I have read this book I have often thought to myself that I can't imagine a more convincing treatise on the futility/arbitrariness of abstract theology. And of course I always think of you when I think of the term "abstract theology".

[CardiacCoug]

As I have read this book I have often thought to myself that I can't imagine a more convincing treatise on the futility/arbitrariness of abstract theology. And of course I always think of you when I think of the term "abstract theology".

Yeah, I like the term because when people say "I don't believe in God (or Christ or Mormonism, etc.)" I think sometimes it's good to point out that they are probably just rejecting the abstract theology. And really who could blame anybody for rejecting the idea that abstract theology has a basis in fact? It doesn't. It's unknowable and improbable. It's conjecture.

If you explain it like that I think most people agree that they still believe in most of what people talk about in Church -- they still believe in most of the real world Christian and LDS values.

I've thought about trying to estimate the percentage of time in Sacrament Meeting and other Church meetings that I would categorize as "abstract theology" versus "concrete Christian living/values." Maybe I'll bring a stopwatch and try it sometime.

[ERCougar]

Oh, and by the way, we already discussed "God is a spirit" LDS doctrine in this thread:

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthread.php?66316-Do-Any-Other-Christians-Believe-God-has-a-Physical-Body

Note the quotes by PPP and Erastus Snow here:

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...l=1#post954747

This was really the part that blew my mind. The LOF is really quite unambigous on the point--Jesus is the member of the Godhead with a body. I'm with Cardiac in that I think all of this is a little silly, but Joseph Smith didn't--he justifies his whole discourse on the (what we now believe is mistaken) nature of God by stating that one can't exercise faith in God without having a correct idea of his nature. I guess JS did not exercise faith in God until 1841.

It's not completely unimportant. Our view of the Godhead, with Jesus as a separate being from God the Father, is a big part of the reason that people don't think we're Christian. Interesting that we would cling so hard to an idea that's given us so many problems, when it wasn't even our original conception of God, in our first attempt to define Him/It/Etc.