This Is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology

[Jeff Lebowski]

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

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...-Physical-Body

Note the quotes by PPP and Erastus Snow here:

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

[clackamascoug]

You guys are making parallel dimensions seems downright normal.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

• 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]

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_Sp...od_is_a_spirit

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

[Sullyute]

I've enjoyed this book. Thanks, Jeff. SU can go f*** himself.

After that rousing endorcement and all the other good things said on here I just dropped my order in for a copy. Looking forward to joining the cognoscenti in this thread.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't like the Sunday block. At all. 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).

But I go because, well, in part because of all of the reasons you mentioned above. But, I also go because (1) it's my tribe and I'm loyal to it; (2) at its finest, it is a theologically vibrant religion, even if we do our best to look like all the other conservative Protestants around us; and (3) because I'm a lazy, misanthropic sod that would happily retreat into my own bubble if I could get away with it. But I have home teaching families that really need me and, by god, there are chairs that need to be stacked and sidewalks that need to be shoveled. I wish the three-hour block itself were more spiritually edifying. But then again, that is why God revealed to Steve Jobs the design of the iPad, worlds without end.

Harry, we should start a sainthood movement for Steve Jobs for the iPad miracle and its impact on churchgoers everywhere. Let's get this baby rolling!

[Northwestcoug]

I don't like the Sunday block. At all. 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).

But I go because, well, in part because of all of the reasons you mentioned above. But, I also go because (1) it's my tribe and I'm loyal to it; (2) at its finest, it is a theologically vibrant religion, even if we do our best to look like all the other conservative Protestants around us; and (3) because I'm a lazy, misanthropic sod that would happily retreat into my own bubble if I could get away with it. But I have home teaching families that really need me and, by god, there are chairs that need to be stacked and sidewalks that need to be shoveled. I wish the three-hour block itself were more spiritually edifying. But then again, that is why God revealed to Steve Jobs the design of the iPad, worlds without end.

All very good reasons, I think.

I agree. If people get more good than bad out of church, it usually doesn't make sense to stop going.

[Katy Lied]

But I go because, well, in part because of all of the reasons you mentioned above. But, I also go because (1) it's my tribe and I'm loyal to it; (2) at its finest, it is a theologically vibrant religion, even if we do our best to look like all the other conservative Protestants around us; and (3) because I'm a lazy, misanthropic sod that would happily retreat into my own bubble if I could get away with it. But I have home teaching families that really need me and, by god, there are chairs that need to be stacked and sidewalks that need to be shoveled. I wish the three-hour block itself were more spiritually edifying. But then again, that is why God revealed to Steve Jobs the design of the iPad, worlds without end.

All very good reasons, I think.

[Harry Tic]

It's been awhile since I've gone to church, but I still keep in contact with a few ward members. But while I was still in making my way slowly out, I was kind of startled by a realization: there were many active members I could point to, knowing that church worship was not rewarding to them. They were there for a number of reasons: habit, a good place to raise kids, keep peace at home, job commitments. But you could tell that many of them just didn't want to be there. Maybe it is because the orthodoxy is not accurate nor satisfying, as you say.

Sometimes I think I could really get behind your 'messy' view of organized religion, that it's a crude and not a perfect way to access divine, but the divine is still there. 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. Of course I would be supported and loved by local members, and we could still enjoy regular comraderie. But I would definitely be on the outside if I were to share half the ideas Harrell brings up.

I don't like the Sunday block. At all. 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).

But I go because, well, in part because of all of the reasons you mentioned above. But, I also go because (1) it's my tribe and I'm loyal to it; (2) at its finest, it is a theologically vibrant religion, even if we do our best to look like all the other conservative Protestants around us; and (3) because I'm a lazy, misanthropic sod that would happily retreat into my own bubble if I could get away with it. But I have home teaching families that really need me and, by god, there are chairs that need to be stacked and sidewalks that need to be shoveled. I wish the three-hour block itself were more spiritually edifying. But then again, that is why God revealed to Steve Jobs the design of the iPad, worlds without end.