This Is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology

[Jeff Lebowski]

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.

To be fair, they believe that most of the LOF were penned by Sidney Rigdon. But it was a joint effort and it was presented by JS.

[UteStar]

I just bought the book off of Amazon. Very curious about the book.

[Uncle Ted]

CALLING UNCLE TED

The Dude is right.

BTW, I prefer...

Ted Nugent Summons.jpg

[Maximus]

Where exactly in the LOF does it teach God doesnt have a body of flesh and bones?

[Donuthole]

Where exactly in the LOF does it teach God doesnt have a body of flesh and bones?

Lecture No. 5, apparently.

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.

[Moliere]

Where exactly in the LOF does it teach God doesnt have a body of flesh and bones?

[Lec 5:2a] There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things - by whom all things were created and made that are created and made, whether visible or invisible;

[Lec 5:2b] whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space.

[Lec 5:2c] They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness.

[Lec 5:2d] The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man - or rather, man was formed after his likeness and in his image.

...

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am reading through the priesthood chapter now and Harrell relies quite a bit on Greg Prince's work on the development of the LDS priesthood. I have been meaning to read this book for while now:

http://www.amazon.com/Power-High-Dev...ds=greg+prince

Anyone read it? Darn it, it looks like it might be tough to track down a copy.

[Katy Lied]

Well, this isnt LDS.org, but it's the sister site, josephsmithpapers.org, that mentions The Father not being corporeal.

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835?dm=image-and-text&zm=zoom-inner&tm=expanded&p=61&s=undefined&sm=none

[Moliere]

I am reading through the priesthood chapter now and Harrell relies quite a bit on Greg Prince's work on the development of the LDS priesthood. I have been meaning to read this book for while now:

http://www.amazon.com/Power-High-Dev...ds=greg+prince

Anyone read it? Darn it, it looks like it might be tough to track down a copy.

I have a copy. It's a tough read mostly because it's academic and not really a page turner. It's also tough because there is so much ambiguity around the PH and how it was developed. I guess what I'm trying to say is it is a great resource book but it doesn't read like Harry Potter.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Lecture No. 5, apparently.

Yes, it's in Lecture No. 5. I thought this was well known, but perhaps it isn't.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Just finished the section on priesthood. Shorter than I would have liked, but quite informative. Interesting to see how instrumental Sidney Rigdon was in driving the development of priesthood organization and the association of a divine power with the priesthood where it was originally viewed simply as holding a ministerial office, similar to how it is viewed in Christianity in general. In the BOM and in early church writings, miracles and healings and so forth were done "by the power of the Spirit" or "by the power of faith" and not by the power of the priesthood.

There was a short section on the priesthood ban and he mentioned the PoGP scripture that implicitly links the ban to the descendants of Ham. Turns out that none of the white members should have held the priesthood either, if we are to believe the lineage typically pronounced in patriarchal blessings:

The book of Abraham implies that Cain was barred from the priesthood and that this curse continued from Cain through Ham: “From Ham sprang the race which preserved the curse in the land” (Abr. 1:24). According to Bruce R. McConkie, “Noah’s son Ham married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, thus preserving the Negro lineage through the flood.” The story of Egyptus appears in Abraham 1:20–25. Given the LDS notion that Ham was the one through whom the “Negro lineage” continued after the flood, some Mormon critics have considered it ironic that Joseph Smith, whom Brigham Young called a “pure Ephraimite,” would not have also been cursed as to the priesthood since, according to LDS scholar Hugh Nibley, “Joseph [of the Old Testament] married Asenath [an Egyptian], who was the daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis and a direct descendant of Ham.” This would make both Ephraim and Manasseh—from whom the majority of Church members have been told they descend—half Hebrew and half Egyptian, carrying the blood of Ham.

Harrell, Charles R. (2011-08-02). "This Is My Doctrine": The Development of Mormon Theology (Part 2) (Kindle Locations 4420-4422). Greg Kofford Books. Kindle Edition.

That's more than one drop! This is a great tidbit to file away and bring up when someone mentions the PoGP supporting the ban from a doctrinal viewpoint.

[wuapinmon]

Well, by Brigham Young's logic, Joseph and Ham should've died the first time they consummated their marriages.

http://journalofdiscourses.com/10

Brigham Young, SLC Tabernacle, March 8, 1863


Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, 10:109-10.)

[Indy Coug]

Well, by Brigham Young's logic, Joseph and Ham should've died the first time they consummated their marriages.

Brigham Young, SLC Tabernacle, March 8, 1863


Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, 10:109-10.)


http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/volume-10/

[statman]

But the problem I have staring me in the face every time I contemplate returning to an active belief is that the religion of my upbringing won't even let me consider some doctrines are incorrect, at least in an official forum..

We all have similar questions that can't be answered by the standard interpretation of doctrine without creating intellectual noise or outright contradiction. But the more accurate answer to these questions really shouldn't be "X happens" or "Y is true." The fact of the matter is that there is a whole lot that's never been revealed, a whole lot where revelations on their face are contradictory (especially things that JS and BY said), and the accurate answer is "We simply don't know."

We know that making and keeping covenants are the most direct mode for us to use to make progress and become more like God in this life. This includes following the basic Christian commandments, sacrificing things in this life for the promise of something more in the hereafter as well as increased spiritual enlightenment now (includes tithing, service in the church and missionary service for Melch. Priesthood holders, and to a certain extent the Word of Wisdom), a specific call to be chaste, and the granddaddy of them all - the all encompassing promise that we will give everything we have to the Church - property, serve, our lives if necessary - if called upon to do so. The Law of Consecration is going to be the real "sheep or goats" commandment.

After those, the Hows? Whens? and Whys? of the Revealed Gospel get hazy around the edges. The best answer in the hazy areas is to remember that we know the most direct path to becoming more like our Creator, and if we choose not to follow that path, we "have no promise."

[statman]

[QUOTE=Harry Tic;966799} I'm an HP now and it was just dawning on me yesterday that I have another probably another thirty or forty years' worth of incredibly inane--if not downright irritating--HP lessons looming ahead of me in the future. A depressing thought. The trouble is not really with the HP group per se. There are some very smart and highly educated members there. Certainly much smarter than I am. The problem is an insipid curriculum that is spiritually vacuous and social codes that inhibit us from speaking openly and honestly (although HP tends to be better than EQ, since some of the old dogs let it all hang out, as it were). [/QUOTE]

I'm in the same boat - a HP who doesn't like going to HPG. But my HPG is much more buttoned down than the EQ. One issue is that in our HPG we have two relatively new members to the Church who have a strong grasp of the gospel basics, but have never been exposed to ANY of the fringe stuff. With them in the room, we hold our tongues. I've been blessed by the fact that for the past five years I've either had a crying infant with me, been in the nursery or taught primary. I haven't been to a HPG meeting on Sunday in at least two years, except one time a few months ago when I was asked to come in to sustain new HPG leadership. I went back to primary after the "vote." I go to our annual meeting of the HGQ for the stake, I home teach the SP and a member of the bishopric, I go to the HPQ ice cream social, and our HPG quarterly socials. And when I'm occasionally asked if I want a substitute so I can go to HPG I say "Nah - I'm good..."