. . . that God has a body of flesh and bones.

From the RfM Archival Summary on this subject:

"This 1835 lecture makes a sharp distinction between the Elohim and Jesus concerning physical natures. The Father is described as a 'personage of Spirit,' in contrast with the Son who is said to be a 'personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man. The obvious clash between this view of the Godhead and later statements by Joseph Smith [1838 version of the first vision] himself has been offered as a possible explanation for the 'Lectures on Faith' eventual removal from post 1921 editions of the 'Doctrine and Covenants.'"
_____


What evidence is there that Joseph Smith actually did not believe or teach that he had seen God the Father and Jesus Christ with separate physical bodies in what Smith calls his "First Vision" experience?

Answer: Plenty.

What does this evidence do the foundational claims of the Mormon Church with regard to the nature of God?

Answer: It totally contradicts and destroys the fundamental underpinnings of official Mormon claims regarding the supposed physically tangible body of God the Father--thus destroying the central elements of Smith's "First Vision."

Below are the devastating details:
_____


Joseph Smith declared that he personally met (face-to-face, no less) with God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ in a grove of trees in 1820. Based on that alleged encounter, he further declared that God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ both had separate and distinct bodies of flesh and bones.

Making no mistake about that fact of Mormon faith is the official website of the LDS Church--wherein reference is made to Lesson 3 of the "Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual," under the heading “I Had Seen a Vision" (p.11).

There it explicitly states that “[m]any truths were revealed in the First Vision," including that "[t]he Father and the Son are real, separate beings with glorified bodies of flesh and bones."

("The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," at: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=84010fd41d93b010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD[enter "I Had Seen a Vision" in the search bar, then click on "Lesson 3" for its online text under the heading, "Lesson 3: 'I Had Seen a Vision,' Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Class Member Study Guide, What are some of the truths we can learn from the First Vision?"]; see also, “'I Had Seen a Vision,' Lesson 3 – Joseph Smith—History 1:1-26; 'Our Heritage,' pgs. 1-4, at:nhttp://www.neumanninstitute.org/dc3.html)
____


Moreover (again on the Mormon Church's own official website under the general heading "The Scriptures"), LDS canonized doctrinal teaching regarding the physical bodies of God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ are described as found in the current and duly-noted "Official Scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"--namely, the “Doctrine and Covenants"--Section 130, verse 22:

"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."

("The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Section 130," at: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130?lang=eng)
_____


Yet, a photographic copy of p. 53 of the 1835 edition of the then-equally official version of the Mormon Church's "Doctrine and Covenants" states in no uncertain terms that God the Father does NOT have a body of flesh and bones but, rather, is a personage of spirit.

Without any ambiguity whatsoever, this officially Joseph Smith-sanctioned version of the LDS "Doctrine and Covenants" declares the following about the entities of "the Father and the Son," comparing and contrasting their individual--and in this case, different--forms:

"The Father being a PERSONAGE OF SPIRIT, glory and power, possessing all perfection and fullness; 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 or likeness of man, and in his image; . . ." (emphasis added).

(Jerald and Sandra Tanner, "The Godhead," Chapter 7, in "The Changing World of Mormonism," at: http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech7.htm ; for a complete version of the 'Fifth Lecture,' see "Lecture Fifth of Faith, Section V," at: http://www.centerplace.org/hs/dc/lec-005.htm)
_____


What has subsequently happened to this "Fifth Lecture on Faith" (along with all the other lectures in that official doctrinal series), which originally appeared in virtually all the early editions of the the Mormon Church's canonized "Doctrine and Covenants"?

The answer can be found (among many places) in Jerald and Sandra Tanner's book, "The Changing World of Mormonism":

" . . [I]n 1921 they [the 'Lectures on Faith'] were completely removed and have not appeared in subsequent editions."

Why did this happen? Explain the Tanners:

"John William Fitzgerald, who wrote his [Masters] thesis at BYU, asked Joseph Fielding Smith why they were removed from the 'Doctrine and Covenants.' One of the reasons given was that they were not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead.

"Actually, these lectures were considered complete with regard to their teachings concerning the Godhead at the time they were given.

"On page 58 of the 1835 edition of the 'Doctrine and Covenants' the following question and answer appear: 'Q. Does the foregoing account of the Godhead lay a sure foundation for the exercise of faith in him unto life and salvation? A. IT DOES.'" (emphasis added)

So, what, then, is the logical explanation for the officially doctrinal "Lectures on Faith" being subsequently and in wholesale fashion excised from the present, officially canonized scriptures of the Mormon Church?

The reason is as plain as the non-fleshly nose on the original-but-now-surgerized Mormon Father God's face:

"The truth of the matter is that they [the 'Lectures on Faith'] contradict what is presently taught by [Mormon] Church leaders with regard to this subject.

"To avoid 'confusion and contention' over the Godhead the Mormon leaders slyly removed the 'Lectures on Faith' from the 'Doctrine and Covenants.'

"This was done in spite of the fact that Joseph Smith himself had considered them important enough to include. Since these lectures were about 70 pages long, this amounted to a major deletion.

"On page 345 of his thesis, 'A Study of the Doctrine & Covenants,' Mr. Fitzgerald supplies this information:

"'The 'Lectures on Faith' were voted on unanimously by the conference assembled August 17, 1835, to be included in the forthcoming book of doctrine and covenants. The writer could find no documentary evidence that they were voted on by a General Conference of the Church to be omitted in the 1921 and all subsequent editions of the 'Doctrine [and] Covenants.'"

(Tanner and Tanner, "The Godhead," Chapter 7, in "The Changing World of Mormonism," at: http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech7.htm)
_____


The Tanners amplify on the makeover of Mormonism's Father God in their book, "Mormonism: Shadow or Reality":

"In 1835 the 'Lectures on Faith,’ which were originally delivered before a class of the Elders, in Kirtland, Ohio, were printed in the 'Doctrine and Covenants.' In these lectures it was definitely stated that God the Father was a personage of spirit.

"In the 'Fifth Lecture' we find this statement about the Godhead:

"'. . . [T]he Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power, possessing all perfection and fulness, the Son . . . a personage of tabernacle . . .' ('Doctrine and Covenants,’ 1835 Edition, p. 53) . . .

"President Joseph Fielding Smith admits that Joseph Smith helped prepare these lectures:

"'Now the Prophet did know something about these "Lectures on Faith," because he helped to prepare them, and he helped also to revise these lectures before they were published . . . ' ('Doctrines of Salvation,' Vol. 3, p. 195).

"These 'Lectures on Faith' were printed in all of the early editions of the 'Doctrine and Covenants,' but they have been removed from recent editions.

"John William Fitzgerald, in his thesis, 'A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants,' states as follows:

"'The reasons for the omission of these 'Lectures' from the 'Doctrine and Covenants' beginning in the 1921 edition and all the subsequent editions as given to the writer by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith were as follows:

"'(a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.

"'(b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.

"'(c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the 'Doctrine and Covenants.'

"'(d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the 'Doctrine and Covenants' ('A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants,' M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, p. 344).

"The reasons Joseph Fielding Smith gave John William Fitzgerald as to why the 'Lectures on Faith' were removed from the 'Doctrine and Covenants' are very interesting.

"Reason (a), that they 'were not received as revelations,' could hardly be considered at all. If every section that is not a revelation was removed from the 'Doctrine and Covenants,' it would be a much shorter book. There are a least nine, if not more, sections from the 'Doctrine and Covenants' that are not revelations; they are Sections 102, 113, 121, 123, 128, 131, 134 and 135.

"Reason (b), that they were not doctrine does not agree with the statement on page 256 of the 1835 edition of the 'Doctrine and Covenants.' This statement reads as follows: '. . . [T]he lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine . . . .'

"Joseph Smith himself signed a statement which was printed in the preface to the 1835 edition of the 'Doctrine and Covenants.' In this statement we read: 'The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of 'Lectures' as delivered before a theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important DOCTRINE OF SALVATION, we have arranged them into the following work.' (emphasis added)

"Reason (c), 'that they are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead' is getting much closer to the truth than the first two reasons. A more correct way of wording this, however, might be, 'they contradict what is now taught concerning the Godhead in the Mormon Church.' . . .

"Reason (d), that to avoid 'confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume,' is probably the true reason they were left out. Certainly it would cause confusion and contention in the Mormon Church if one of the elders started to teach that God is a personage of spirit . . . , as the 'Lectures on Faith' taught."

(Tanner and Tanner, "Lectures on Faith," in "Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?," pp. 166-67, at: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/lecturesonfaith.htm)
_____


Such blatant, fundamental and deceptive revision by the LDS Church of its official doctrine on the very essence of the Mormon God Elohim has not gone unnoticed by non-LDS scholars.

James E. Walker, in his article "Re-imagining Elohim: Rethinking the Mormon Doctrine of God for the 21st Century," observes:

"Today the Mormon Church maintains the Father has a body of flesh and bones. Consequently, these 'Lectures on Faith' have been removed from recent editions of the 'Doctrine and Covenants.'"

Walker explains their removal as part of the Mormon Church's phased-in re-making of God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ in ways that "could be described as experimental, temporary or transitional."

Writes Walker:

"In 1834-35, less than five years after the publication of the 'Book of Mormon,' the 'Lectures on Faith' were delivered to the School of the Elders in Kirtland, Ohio.

"The lectures, probably written by Joseph Smith, were printed as the first part of the 'Doctrine and Covenants' in every edition of that LDS scripture from the first edition in 1835 to 1921, when they were removed.

"The fifth lecture teaches that Christ is a distinct and separate Person from the Father. . . .

"Also, the lecture makes a sharp distinction between the Elohim and Jesus concerning physical natures. The Father is described as a 'personage of Spirit,' in contrast with the Son who is said to be a 'personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man.'

"The obvious clash between this view of the Godhead and later statements by Joseph Smith himself has been offered as a possible explanation for the 'Lectures on Faith' eventual removal from post 1921 editions of the 'Doctrine and Covenants.' ['Encyclopedia of Mormonism' author and LDS apologist] Larry E. Dahi writes:

"'Many have pointed to the content of 'Lecture 5' concerning the Godhead, suggesting that it contains incomplete, if not erroneous doctrine--doctrine which was corrected or clarified in 1843 by Joseph Smith (D&C 130:22-23).

"'The argument is that the 'Lectures' were removed to avoid these inconsistencies. Some have claimed that the removal of the 'Lectures' from the 'Doctrine and Covenants' constitutes decanonization of material once affirmed by the Church as scripture.'

" . . . [T]he fact that they [the 'Lectures on Faith'] were printed with the 'Doctrine and Covenants' for over 80 years coupled with their subsequent removal and relative obscurity raises interesting questions.

"Did the 1921 change in the 'Doctrine and Covenants' reflect an earlier re-imagining of Elohim?

"A strong case can be made for this hypothesis."

(James K. Walker, President, Watchman Fellowship Lecture, "Re-imagining Elohim: Re-thinking the Mormon Doctrine of God for the 21st Century," delivered at CESNUR 2004 International Converence, "Religious Movements, Conflict and Democracy: International Perspectives," Baylor University, Waco, Texas, 17-20 June 2004, at: http://www.cesnur.org/2004/waco_walker.htm)
_____


Indeed, the "Fifth Lecture on Faith" was written before a finalized, LDS Church-approved version of Joseph Smith's "First Vision" was even available to the early Mormon Church membership at large.

As one critic points out:

"In 1835 the 'Doctrine and Covenants' was printed at Kirtland, Ohio, and its preface declared that it contained 'the leading items of religion which we have professed to believe.' Included in the book were the 'Lectures on Faith,' a series of seven lectures which had been prepared for the School of the Prophets in Kirtland in 1834-35.

"It is interesting to note that, in demonstrating the doctrine that the Godhead consists of two separate personages, no mention was made of Joseph Smith having seen them, nor was any reference made to the first vision in any part of the publication. . . .

"The 'Lectures on Faith' were written in 1834 as part of Joseph Smith's curriculum for the School of the Prophets in Kirtland, Ohio, and they were included in the 1835 edition of the 'Doctrine & Covenants.'

"So, why is Joseph Smith saying [in the Fifth Lecture] that God is a spirit, but Jesus Christ has a body? If Smith had seen the First Vision 12-15 years earlier, he would have said they both have bodies, right?

"The reason is because the final version of the 'First Vision' story had not been written yet. It also corroborates the fact that the membership hadn't heard the story either."

("Early Mormons Didn't Know About the First Vision," by "Deconstructor," posts on Recovery from Mormonism bulletin board, under "NO EVIDENCE That Early Church Members Knew About the First Vision," 27 January 2004, and "More Problems with Your Apologetics," 27 January 2004, at: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon317.htm)
_____


Former Mormon Bill Kempton, in his article, "Dear Bishop--I'm Leaving the Fold," explains how the "Fifth Lecture on Faith" completely undermines Joseph Smith's "First Vision" story:

" . . . [A]ll 'Doctrine and Covenants' before 1921 contained the doctrine of the 'Fifth Lecture on Faith' that was bound in scripture as doctrine in 1835. The 'Fifth Lecture' basically stated that the Father is only a spirit, that only Jesus has a body, and the Holy Ghost is not a person but the same Mind (or essence) of the Father and the Son; and the Father and the Son are not two gods but one Deity, which is very similar to the Catholic Trinity . . . . How could Joseph Smith bind this doctrine in scripture if he really saw two flesh and bone persons in 1820? . . .

"I decided to research this matter further . . .

"The earliest LDS members held in their hands the 'Doctrine and Covenants,' which contained the doctrine of the 'Fifth Lecture' until 1921. LDS members believed that only Jesus had a body of flesh and bone, and the Holy Ghost was not a person!

"That was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. I had found the murder weapon with finger prints on it, a video of the crime taking place, and a taped confession. It was the final nail that was hammered into the coffin of my Mormon testimony.

"I learned that the foundation of Mormonism, the First Vision, was unfounded. This led me to realize that like a house on a bad foundation, the LDS church was founded on fiction, suspicious hearsay, and supported not by facts but subjective emotionalism."

(Bill Kempton, "Dear Bishop--I'm Leaving the Fold," posted 6 August 2006 (updated 2009),at: http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/pomopedia/Dear_Bishop_Im_Leaving_the_Fold/ )


As Kempton asks in an earlier article (no longer Internet-provided) entitled, "The First Vision: Fact or Fiction?":

"Is the early Mormon's testimony of the 'Doctrine and Covenants' (that stated that the Father is only a spirit . . .) any less valid than the Mormon testimony today regarding the true nature of the Godhead?

"If the first Mormons believed in the 'Fifth Lecture on Faith,' that was doctrine in scripture for decades, what guarantee does the Mormon today have that what they believe to be absolutely true doctrine won’t be changed tomorrow?"
_____


The answers to those inquiries are quite simple and historically undeniable:

Reworked, reinvented Mormon Church "history" is, at its corrupted and bedrock core, totally invalid.


(related link: "My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me??: The Ever-Changing, Contradictory, Confusing, Vacillating, Befuddling and Constantly Adrift Official Mormon Church Doctrine on God," at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,846759)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2013 03:15AM by steve benson.

"Yet, a photographic copy of p. 53 of the 1835 edition of the then-equally official version of the Mormon Church's "Doctrine and Covenants" states in no uncertain terms that God the Father does NOT have a body of flesh and bones but, rather, is a personage of spirit."

On page 53 is a Lectures on Faith page which says:
"The Father, being a personage of spirit, glory and power: posessing all power: posessing all glory and power"

I don't see where it says in no uncertain terms that the father does not have a body of flesh and bones.

Besides, in the Fifth Lecture, God--who is made of Spirit--is contrasted against Jesus--who comes with a physical tabernacle.

Now, please explain why the Lectures on Faith were eventually pulled out of the D&C.

Not enough room for all those post-Joseph Smith "revelations"?



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2013 04:50AM by steve benson.

according to Jesus a Spirit does NOT have flesh and bone.

LUKE 24:39
"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see me have."

It's clear to me that Joseph Smith made up his bullcrap flesh and bone stuff much later.

Early LDS recruits were being taught a more regular type of Trinity style doctrine until Smith changed his mind. Even his duff book of Mormon was Trinitarian in style.


as I posted earlier on this same thread according to Jesus a Spirit does NOT have flesh and bone.

LUKE 24:39
"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see me have."

More Mormon Contradictions that are not biblical but clearly Joe Smith in origin.

". . . One of the authorship studies of the Lectures on Faith was done by Alan J. Phipps as a master’s thesis in 1977. He compared the frequency of use of certain 'function words' in the Lectures with the use of the same words in the writings of several persons who may have had a hand in writing the Lectures, i.e., Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, William W. Phelps and Parley P. Pratt. He concludes:

"'The study showed that . . . Joseph Smith’s use of function words matched closely those in Lecture Five, with some evidence of his having co-authored or edited Two, Three, Four, and Six. . . . The data and tests appear, therefore, to assign the authorship of the Lectures on Faith mainly to Sidney Rigdon, with Lecture Five and perhaps some parts of the other lectures, except One and Seven, to Joseph Smith (66–67)."

("Authorship and History of the Lectures on Faith," by Larry E. Dahl, BYU Religious Studies Center, at: http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/lectures-faith-historical-perspective/authorship-and-history-lectures-faith)



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2013 05:03AM by steve benson.

Steve,

You have been quiet lately, and I knew you were digging up some more bones in the Mormon History Graveyard.

Great stuff...

My tabernacle grows weary tryin to figure this stuff out and what my TBM relatives actually believe....

...how JS made things up as he went along, never bothering to check with what he'd already said.

And later leaders weren't that detail oriented themselves. They decided to make the bodies-of-flesh-and-bones version of the First Vision official while temporarily forgetting about the Lectures on Faith. Oops.

And there's the question of where the supposed divine direction was in receiving, compiling and canonizing scripture was. Is scripture not so important that Heavenly Father and/or Jesus wouldn't step in to correct errors and confusion? Or is it all just the f-ed up work of men? Guess which way I lean.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2013 09:57AM by Stray Mutt.

Steve,

If you would only read the Book of Mormon one more time and pray about it, you would know by the spirit that although your arguments are compelling and clearly correct to one who lacks spiritual discernment, the Book of Mormon was actually written by ancient prophets long before God took on a body to show to Joseph in 1820. God could take on a body anytime he wanted and even change bodies and sexes. Your mistake is to use intellect, study, common sense and honesty to answer this mystery. What do any of these qualities have to do with Mormon doctrine?

. . . in the Mormon Godhead.

Let's back up a bit and review how this "Spirit" thing has made itself known through "divienly-revealed" Mormon doctrine:

According to the LDS line, I can come to know the truthfulness of these things by the Spirit of the Holy Ghost--who, according to early original Mormon doctrine, wasn't part of the initial Mormon Godhead; but who next became the mind of God; and who then after that became a personage with God--as in God the Father in the Godhead--a God who, as the Father of Jesus Christ, was declared only to have a spirit and not a body (as opposed to Jesus, who had a both a spirit and a body); and who was originally declared in early official Mormon doctrine to be the physical manifestation of God and Jesus.

That's the multi-personality-disordered, schizoid spirit that I'm supposed to rely on to get at the identity of truth?

Thanks, but, um, no thanks.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2013 12:08PM by steve benson.

I think you've hit on the key. God is a multi-personality, schizoid spirit, which is why he is so identified with Joseph Smith and Mormonism. Praise to the Man who went to analysis with Jehovah.

Don't forget this contradiction from the 5th lecture.

"How many personages are there in the Godhead? Two: the Father and Son."

From http://www.lds.org/topics/godhead?lang=eng
"The Church's first article of faith states, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven."

"My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me??: The Ever-Changing, Contradictory, Confusing, Vacillating, Befuddling and Constantly Adrift Official Mormon Church Doctrine on God," at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,846759



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2013 02:42AM by steve benson.

Thanks, Steve, for your post.

BTW, the quote on p. 53 of the 1835 edition of the D&C ("...the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness, the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle...") can be seen (digital image) at http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835?p=61

because it makes me think of an inlaid wood side table in a formal parlor or something. "Jeeves, just set the tea on the tabernacle, and see you don't spill any."

And what's up with Holy Baby? 2000 years after Christ and still no body? The Ho-G has to hover? Poor bastard can't even sip tea over the tabernacle. You can see right through his blurry ass.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2013 12:04PM by steve benson.

Good posts Steve. Keep it up.

There are likely many new people reading here and discovering this kind of stuff for the first time.

Just more confirmation that Mormonism and Smith's First Vision is all a big lie. Smith never saw two tangible bodied men (Heavenly father and son) in any first vision and the lectures on faith further refute it.

I actually never saw this as a contradiction when I was mormon. God, like us, is a spirit, who has/is inside a physical body.

That's kinda the point, right? In the pre-mortal life you're a spirit who has no body; then in mortality you're a spirit who has a body of flesh & blood; then in the resurrection if you're really really good you're a spirit who gets a body of flesh & bone.

Joseph Smith claimed that both the First-¥ision God the Father and Jesus Christ had physical bodies the flesh and bone.

In contrast, the Fifth Lecture on Faith expressly teaches that only Jesus Christ has a physical body of flesh and bone, while God the Father is a personage of spirit only. You claim that these resurrected Mormon Gods both have physical bodies, but that's not what the Fifth Lecture teaches. That's why it (along with the other Lectures) was yanked from the Doctrine & Covenants back in the early 20th century because its description of a spirit-only God the Father directly contradicted Joseph Smith's now-officially-accepted teaching of a physically-bodied God tbe Father.

One further related correction per you assertions: The Mormon Church does not teach that God the Father and Jesus Christ have bodies of "flesh and blood" but, rather, that they have bodies of flesh and bone.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2018 03:47PM by steve benson.

At the point of my reply, you've edited your reply 7 times. In the current iteration of your reply, you constructed a strawman by saying I asserted that the mormon church teaches god the father and jesus christ have bodies of flesh and blood. I never said that. My original reply has not been edited, so please re-read it and point out where I said that.

There's plenty wrong with mormonism, but this argument is just grasping at straws, and at strawmen.

. . . plus, I added a couple of extra observations. I did all of that before you replied. Roll with it. If that's all you've got to offer as a response to the Mormon Church pulling its official-doctrine Fifth Lecture on Faith because it doesn't square with the Joseph Smith story when it comes to the Mormon God's bod, perhaps you should consider returning to the LDS concentration camp. You could perhaps put out their weekly inmate newsletter.

Either the Mormon God Father has a body of flesh and bones (not flesh and "blood," as you falsely contended), or he doesn't. Either Mormons can resurrect with similiar God bods and eventually themselves become like Gods with physical bods or they can't. That's not grasping at straws or strawmen.That's basic boilerplate Mo'ism.

Quit being so touchy and be glad I'm here to set you straight on the historical facts behind the eventual de-doctrinization and ultimate scriptural elimination of the Fifth (along with its associated Lectures) from canonized LDS scripture. These Lectures were originally considered by the Mormon Church and its members back in the 1830s to be doctrinally binding, then were eventually yanked from the D&C in 1921 and redefined as only being "lessons."

Geezus. Whine, whine, whine. Give up choking on your gnats and instead focus on the facts, This is about an element of official Mormon Church doctrine and its related history, not about your personal interpretative feelings.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2018 02:49AM by steve benson.

That's twice now you've asserted that I said god had a body of flesh and blood.

Again, please point out where in my unedited reply I said that. Quit being so obstinate and be glad I'm here to set you straight on reading comprehension.

It was an historical error on your part. Accept that fact and move on. If you don't, Brigham Young will impose a blood atonement punishment on you.

And grow yourself a humor gene.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2018 03:40PM by steve benson.

straw man

ˌstrô ˈman/

noun

1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.


What was my historical error? What was my "blood" goof?

You kinda remind me of Boyd K. Packer: all heat, no humor, and no light. In other words, the unholy trinity of the Three H's.

That said, it's time for YOU to get real. Which leads us to your on-the-record blood "goof," which you apply to both the Mormon God Father (a bloodless spirit in the context of Lecture 5), as well as to resurrected-body beings (who. according to Mormon doctrine, don't have blood, either).

This subject has historical significance as far as Mormon developmental doctrine goes. As noted by BYU history prof Thomas G. Alexander, the matter of physical bodies existing among the Mormon Three Stooges Godhead has over time been, well, a matter of controversy--which led to the LDS Church doing some major doctrinal revisions (like, for instance, when the Holy Ghost got his own personal faceless face lift). Alexander writes:

"By January 1915, Charles W. Penrose had completed a revision of Parley P. Pratt’s 'Key to the Science of Theology.' Penrose deleted or altered passages which discussed the Holy Ghost as non-personal and which posited a sort of 'spiritual fluid' pervading the Universe."

Interesting. That sounds like the Holy Ghost was to be officially regarded as a non-fluid spirit person without a physical body. You know, kinda like the Mormon God Father of Lecture 5, wherein he is declared to be a spirit with no body, either. (By the way, despite Joseph Smith traditionally being cited as the author of the "Lectures on Faith," Lecture 5 appears likely to have been mainly authored by Sidney Rigdon).

Now, as to the Mormon blood thing, it applies specifically to earthling human beings--who are not spirits but, rather, who are mortals with physical tabernacles. Lecture 5, in its own way, makes the same related point (here we go again), by differentiating between Jesus, the Physical Tabernacle Son of God, and his dad, Elohim, the Disembodied Spirit God Father.

For your reference, below is what you wrote. Since you typed it up, please re-read it carefully. You essentially claim that Lecture 5 teaches that the God Father has a physical body--the same God Father whom Mormons are taught they can become like through the so-called Law of Eternal Progression)

Alas, Lecture 5 does not teach that Elohim has a resurrected body of flesh and bones; rather, it teaches that he has no body at all. Therefore, unless Mormons devolve into spirit beings only, they can't become like him (as in Elohim) because they have physical bodies and, according to Lecture 5, the Mormon God Father doesn't--which means that a resurrected Mormon with a bod has a leg up on the Super Latter-day Saint Sky Daddy God with no bod.

Behold, thus saith you:

"I actually never saw this as a contradiction when I was mormon. God, like us, is a spirit, who has/is inside a physical body.

"That's kinda the point, right? In the pre-mortal life you're a spirit who has no body; then in mortality you're a spirit who has a body of flesh & blood; then in the resurrection if you're really really good you're a spirit who gets a body of flesh & bone."

No, that's not the point. In Lecture 5, God--in the here and now--has no physical body but Jesus does. That's the relevant point per this discussion.

You need to do your Church history homework on the subject. (Hint: Focus on Joe and Sid, modern-day handwriting analysis and, oh, the teachings of Lecture 5).

Put that in your straw hat (take the peeptone out first) and wear it. :)



Edited 14 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2018 12:07AM by steve benson.

"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."

Does this mean that Gawhd the Father is not all powerfull, because unlike the Holy Ghost, he cannot dwell in us?

At least on Tuesdays.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2018 01:18AM by steve benson.