The Spirit of God

[Finrock]

Question: Is their a difference between the Spirit of God and the Holy Ghost?

-Finrock

[Vort]

In some contexts, yes. In others, they are synonymous.

[Guest]

Depends on who you're talking about. If you're talking about God as in the Godhead, then Holy Ghost is the spirit of God.

If you're talking about a specific person in the Godhead, then, like us, they each have their own Body and Spirit. A lot of times we use the word God to refer to Heavenly Father. The Spirit of our Heavenly Father is His Spirit which is different from the Holy Ghost.

[Finrock]

I was reading from 1 Corinthians 2.

"9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit dsearcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."

Now this may be old news to all of you but for me when I read verse 11 I saw that there is an equivalency being made. The spirit of man is his mind. The Spirit of God is His Mind. This made me realize that God's Spirit, His mind, is not a separate personage. I guess I have neglected to realize that just as God's body is perfected and glorified and exalted, so is His Spirit. It is through His Spirit, His Mind, that God is all in all. It is how He is in all things and through all things. His Spirit, in effect, bursts from His body to fill all of existence.

This made me realize how close God actually is. Not just in some nebulous way, but that His actual Mind fills all of existence. This is how God can be in all things yet have a distinct spatial existence. His body doesn't need to be extended.

I'm kind of rambling but any thoughts?

-Finrock

[Vort]

I was reading from 1 Corinthians 2.

Our FHE on Monday featured everyone being asked to read their favorite scripture. Mine was 1 Cor 2:9-10.

Now this may be old news to all of you but for me when I read verse 11 I saw that there is an equivalency being made. The spirit of man is his mind. The Spirit of God is His Mind. This made me realize that God's Spirit, His mind, is not a separate personage. I guess I have neglected to realize that just as God's body is perfected and glorified and exalted, so is His Spirit. It is through His Spirit, His Mind, that God is all in all. It is how He is in all things and through all things. His Spirit, in effect, bursts from His body to fill all of existence.

This made me realize how close God actually is. Not just in some nebulous way, but that His actual Mind fills all of existence. This is how God can be in all things yet have a distinct spatial existence. His body doesn't need to be extended.

I'm kind of rambling but any thoughts?

-Finrock

I interpret it somewhat differently.

Our bodies, being of the earth, crave earthly pleasures. Our spirits, being from God, crave divinity. Which of these two is stronger within us? If our bodies rule us, we are carnal. If our divinity rules us, we are spiritual.

It is the divine part of man, the spirit from God, that gives us our sense of holiness and love of God. If we suppress that part of us, Godly things seem foolish. This is why the natural man is an enemy to God: The natural man is carnal, ruled by the flesh, and in opposition to the spirit within us.

Our spirit comes from God. This is why our bodies are temples -- because the spirit of God very literally dwells within them. Each of our spirits are divine in that they come from God. In my opinion, this is what the scripture is teaching.

[Traveler]

In addition to what has already been said the word spirit can be symbolic rather than designate an individual spirit of a person. The word spirit can also mean influence - so that the spirit of G-d can mean the noble enlightenment of divine association. So being filled with the spirit of G-d does not be that we are being possessed by a personage of spirit but rather inspired or influenced to a purpose or cause.

The Traveler

[Finrock]

Our FHE on Monday featured everyone being asked to read their favorite scripture. Mine was 1 Cor 2:9-10.

I interpret it somewhat differently.

Our bodies, being of the earth, crave earthly pleasures. Our spirits, being from God, crave divinity. Which of these two is stronger within us? If our bodies rule us, we are carnal. If our divinity rules us, we are spiritual.

It is the divine part of man, the spirit from God, that gives us our sense of holiness and love of God. If we suppress that part of us, Godly things seem foolish. This is why the natural man is an enemy to God: The natural man is carnal, ruled by the flesh, and in opposition to the spirit within us.

Our spirit comes from God. This is why our bodies are temples -- because the spirit of God very literally dwells within them. Each of our spirits are divine in that they come from God. In my opinion, this is what the scripture is teaching.

In the past when I've read this scripture and others I have read it with the understanding that the Spirit being spoken about here is the Holy Ghost. But, this isn't the case. It is the Spirit of God. This makes a difference to how I understand this verse of scripture.

What you describe is essentially what the chapter heading describes. However, there is a connection between spirit and mind. This scripture also speaks to how we are commanded to become one. Just as Christ is of one mind with the Father, we need to be one with them.

The way that we do this is by putting aside the wisdom of man and conforming to the dictates of the Spirit. We must put aside the wisdom of ALL men. Even the testimony of a prophet is just a testimony of a man and if that is all we have, is faith in their words, then we are still believing in the wisdom of man. We must gain our own witness. God is no respector of persons and He wants us to get our answers from the source; from Him. This way our faith and knowledge about truth is not from man in any degree.

We must gain an assurance that our life conforms with the mind and will of God. Anything less than what God says or anything more than what God says will not save us. No man can save us. Their testimony can't save us. Their knowledge and wisdom can't save us. We must become one with Christ and with God and this can be done now. It doesn't have to wait. We just need to believe. I'm one of the non-believers who lacks sufficient faith.

-Finrock

[skalenfehl]

The Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead and the First Comforter, a Sanctifier, a Sealer unto Salvation.

The Spirit of the Lord, of God, etc is different (although the Holy Spirit has been used interchangeably with the Holy Ghost). We get a distinction in Moroni chapter 7.

...15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God....

When we begin our journey of faith, the Spirit of the Lord/Spirit of God/His Spirit/My Spirit (as spoken by the Savior to others)/Light of Christ of etc, is discerned as a prompting. Often, we call it our conscience. When we do something wrong, our conscience (or the Spirit of God) causes us to feel guilty and prompts us to repent and continue on our journey of faith ("I think I should return the toy I stole"). As we continue to fine tune ourselves to His Voice, the promptings become more distinct, like suggestions ("Call Brother Doe."). As we continue on our path and as we make our eye single in purpose and our supplications intently, we come to recognize this as Jesus Christ's voice.

63 Draw near unto me and I will draw near unto you; seek me diligently and ye shall find me; ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

We can see this manifest in Nephi's journey, which began with a simple prayer to know if his father was telling the truth or if he was loco. The Lord "softened his heart" that he did believe Lehi. As time progressed and Nephi proved diligent and true and faithful, he received further light and knowledge. The promptings and impressions from the Spirit of the Lord turned into real communications:

7 And it came to pass that after I, Nephi, had been in the land of Bountiful for the space of many days, the voice of the Lord came unto me, saying: Arise, and get thee into the mountain. And it came to pass that I arose and went up into the mountain, and cried unto the Lord.

As we mature in our journey, strengthening our relationship with Him and gaining His trust, there comes a time where having been true and faithful parts the veil and that tiny prompting, which turns into a voice that commands, finally becomes a face to face conversation with the Lord and you realize that all along, it was Him speaking to you, drawing near to you as you drew near to Him until you come to the end of your journey, finding rest in this mortal life until you rest with him in heaven.

Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

and

Moroni 6:4 And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith.

So the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit can be distinguished from each other as completely separate things. We receive one when we are confirmed members of the church and are baptized with fire and the other is the influence and voice of Him who opens when we knock.

[ElectofGod]

Expanding on skal's post.

2 nephi 33: 1 And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people; neither am I mighty in writing, like unto speaking; for when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men.

Very next verse,

2 But behold, there are many that harden their hearts against the Holy Spirit, that it hath no place in them; wherefore, they cast many things away which are written and esteem them as things of naught.

Distinguishes between the two. They are not the same though sometimes they are used interchangeably.

Joseph smith in the lectures on faith defined the holy spirit as the mind of god. This is what made Christ one with the father because they both possed the holy spirit or mind of god.

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: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space--They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: 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;--he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the flesh--and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer, or, in other words, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be. But notwithstanding all this, he kept the law of God, and remained without sin: Showing thereby that it is in the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin. And also, that by him a righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and that all who walk not in the law of God, may justly be condemned by the law, and have no excuse for their sins. And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father-possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, 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: and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one: The Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fulness: Filling all in all--the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father--possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom: sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father--a Mediator for man--being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments: and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one. (Lecture 5 Par 2)

Notice he did not say Holy ghost but holy spirit.

The holy ghost,

Moses 6:61 Therefore it is given to abide in you; the record of heaven; the Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal glory; the truth of all things; that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive all things; that which knoweth all things, and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment.

the Comforter

the record of heaven

the truth of all things

the peacable things of immortal glory

that which quickeneth all things

that which knoweth all things

that which has all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice and judgment.

We receive the holy ghost, but we communicate with the holy spirit (mind of god) via the holy ghost.

[skalenfehl]

Excellent post, Elect. Man, how unfortunate that the LoF were removed from the D&C. I really need to get me a copy of the 1835 edition.

[Vort]

Excellent post, Elect. Man, how unfortunate that the LoF were removed from the D&C. I really need to get me a copy of the 1835 edition.

Or you could buy them for seven bucks at Deseret Book. Or you could click this link.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think one reason the LoF were removed is that some of their language was outmoded by subsequent revelation. The portion already quoted here from the fifth Lecture is an example. It defines "Godhead" as two Personages, the Father and the Son, united by a third entity, the "Holy Spirit", which is some sort of mystical "mind" which unites the other two. Those three, together, are what Lecture 5 defines as the "Godhead"--attempts to distinguish between the "Holy Spirit" versus the "Holy Ghost" are unsupported by the text of that section.

By contrast, D&C 130:22 is clear that--regardless of its other properties and functions--the Holy Ghost is most certainly a "personage of Spirit" in its own right.

You can chalk it up to an evolution in Joseph Smith's understanding, or to the fact that Sidney Rigdon had heavy input in--and apparently ghost-wrote portions of--the Lectures on Faith. Or you could even argue that LoF is textually correct, and D&C 130 is a corrupted text and that everything the Church has built onto that particular idea is necessarily false. But the bottom line is, the LoF doesn't always square with the plain language of revealed scripture.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[skalenfehl]

I did order it. I've had it bookmarked online for some time having studied it often and still do. Very valuable.

In the Joseph Smith papers (I'll have to find the reference), we read that Joseph Smith wrote in his journals that he spent days dong the final writing and editing of the LoF to ensure that it was correct doctrine. So it doesn't matter who the bulk of the writing was attributed to and if it was indeed Sidney Rigdon. What matters is that Joseph Smith personally had the final say in its content before declaring it (in the preface) to be doctrine, it also having been accepted as law by common consent from all the quorums of the church from the least to the greatest and also by common consent from the church membership. Then in 1921, it was removed by a committee, if I remember correctly, because they said LoF was not written as doctrine. So either they are correct or Joseph Smith was correct. I'll have to dig up the resources. I don't believe that this committee had access to the Joseph Smith papers or this information, but maybe they did and overlooked it.

The fifth lecture on faith declares Father to be a personage of Spirit and the Son a personage of Tabernacle. It goes on to clarify and also to explain the Holy Ghost. I see nothing wrong about what Joseph Smith wrote. Jesus Christ did take on a tabernacle as have we all. Both are as are all of us "spirit", which is only finer matter, which cannot be detected without purer eyes. They are glorified beings now. We are all spirits undertaking a mortal experience. Anyway, this is my understanding, not to be argumentative. This is a good discussion and one worthy of continuing.

[james12]

I think one reason the LoF were removed is that some of their language was outmoded by subsequent revelation. The portion already quoted here from the fifth Lecture is an example. It defines "Godhead" as two Personages, the Father and the Son, united by a third entity, the "Holy Spirit", which is some sort of mystical "mind" which unites the other two. Those three, together, are what Lecture 5 defines as the "Godhead"--attempts to distinguish between the "Holy Spirit" versus the "Holy Ghost" are unsupported by the text of that section.

By contrast, D&C 130:22 is clear that--regardless of its other properties and functions--the Holy Ghost is most certainly a "personage of Spirit" in its own right.

You can chalk it up to an evolution in Joseph Smith's understanding, or to the fact that Sidney Rigdon had heavy input in--and apparently ghost-wrote portions of--the Lectures on Faith. Or you could even argue that LoF is textually correct, and D&C 130 is a corrupted text and that everything the Church has built onto that particular idea is necessarily false. But the bottom line is, the LoF doesn't always square with the plain language of revealed scripture.

Just recently I was reading in "Words of Joseph Smith" and came across the original written accounts from those who heard the prophet. Having reviewed them all I'm not sure I agree with the your last paragraph. Here are the accounts:

Current D&C 130:22, "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."

Willard Richards, "...but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit. - and a person cannot have the personage of the H G in his heart he may receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. it may descend upon him but not to tarry with him (Joseph Smith Diary, April 2, 1843, emphasis added)

William Clayton, "The Holy Ghost is a personage, and a person cannot have the personage of the H. G. in his heart. A man may receive the gifts of the H.G., and the H.G. may descend upon a man but not to tarry with him" (William Clayton Diary, April 2, 1843, emphasis added)

Here is note 5 from "Words of the Prophet Joseph Smith" regarding the above quotes:

Neither the William Clayton Diary, the Joseph Smith Diary here quoted, nor the draft Manuscript History of the Church entry for this date, implies the phrasing of D&C 130:22 "Were it not so [that the Holy Ghost is a spirit], the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." Originally the wording in the Manuscript History of the Church entry for this date was the same as in the original draft, but in the 1850s the Church historians reworded it to read the way it appears in the Doctrine and Covenants. Other than this alteration, the Joseph Smith Diary is the source for D&C 130:22-23

[ElectofGod]

I did order it. I've had it bookmarked online for some time having studied it often and still do. Very valuable.

The fifth lecture on faith declares Father to be a personage of Spirit and the Son a personage of Tabernacle. It goes on to clarify and also to explain the Holy Ghost. I see nothing wrong about what Joseph Smith wrote. Jesus Christ did take on a tabernacle as have we all. Both are as are all of us "spirit", which is only finer matter, which cannot be detected without purer eyes. They are glorified beings now. We are all spirits undertaking a mortal experience. Anyway, this is my understanding, not to be argumentative. This is a good discussion and one worthy of continuing.

Excellent observation. This same observation is in mosaiah. For the same logic we would have to reject the book of mormon.

The wording in lectures was tabernacle. So we have to understand what was trying to be said. I won't state it but will give some references to help the process.

D&C 93:3,4

3 And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one—

4 The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men.

Mosiah 15:1-5

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

Mosiah 15:4

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

Mosaiah 3:5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

Thats enough for now,

The second issue was, whether josephs understanding changed. Or sidney who both saw the heavens and God sitting upon the throne. In the lectures on faith it states. Keep in mind they were at least doctrine until 1921, though there was no vote to take them out thus by common consent technically they are still true. McConkie even stated they are eternally true.

Lecture 5,

2. Let us here observe that three things are necessary for any rational and intelligent being to 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;

In order for one to excercise or have faith in God unto eternal life (salvation) they must have a correct understanding of the character, perfections, and attributes. We know joseph DID have a correct understanding of these things. If the lectures are true, and this statement is true, than the lectures purpose was to give us this correct understaning.

If JFS is correct, than the lectures are false or incorrect doctrine, if the lectures are true and we reject them, we will be damned. We will never have the faith neccesary unto life and salvation, for we will never have the correct understanding of the 3 ideas of god.

We must choose, are teh lectures true or false. We choose wrong we very well could be choosing damnation. Salvation is always our choice. We always choose between light and truth or darkness and deception. I know joseph and sideny rigdon wrote correctly and understood the character of God. They saw him, they know what they are and were talking about. Joseph approved the lectures. I accept the LOF as eternal doctrine.

If the people will do as they are told, I will tell you what to do. Get the visions of heaven, and seek not what you shall eat or what you shall drink, but seek the will of God. Get into the presence of God, and then you will have johnny-cake and milk-and-water no more. (HC 6: 292?, sidney rigdon)

james123 had a good post, if you look at D&C 130, they are talking about completely different topics at hand. One talks about three beings, another talks about the Godhead. Normally we say because tehre are three beings discussed they correspond to the godhead, but in this case a different idea is trying to be portrayed. My belief anyways.

Edited October 25, 2013 by ElectofGod

[skalenfehl]

...lots of stuff...

You said it much better than I could have. I absolutely agree that Joseph Smith knew what he was talking about. He SAW both Father AND Son. Joseph KNEW them and their attributes. I also recall that Joseph said that what the Lord reveals to Joseph, he will also reveal to the least saint as fast as he is able to bear it. Something to that effect. I don't have time to look for it.

I defer to Joseph Smith's inclusion of the LoF in the original D&C. We don't do things by common consent anymore (that I am aware of). We have committees decide for us now and probably with the best of intentions, but it is obvious that they don't have a monopoly on truth. I disagree with the committee that decided to remove the LoF as scripture from the D&C. They comprised a chunk of the "doctrine" part of the book. Far too many saints probably have not truly read it--feasted upon it--and it's likely that many today even know it exists.

I've made a study of the Lectures over the course of this year and I realize now that Abinadi absolutely knew what he was talking about. All my life, until recently, his commentary on this principle had eluded me. There's a lot more to Abinadi that we know, at least in this estate.

[ElectofGod]

Another interesting quote, JS final discourse,

I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it?

This is inline with 130, seperate teaching than what he was trying to portray as only being two personages and the holy spirit. Two very different but true teachings.

[Just_A_Guy]

You know, I'm as much in favor of garnishing the sepulchres of deceased prophets as anyone; and I know there's a certain quarter of the Church that takes pleasure in disparaging the modern institution whilst lionizing Joseph Smith--but let's remember our facts here.

• Fact - Lecture 5 describes the Godhead as comprising two Personages, not three. Those Personages are therein identified as the Father and the Son. Therefore, logically, the Lectures contemplate a Godhead where the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit--whatever it is--is not a personage.
• Fact - Lecture 5 thus contradicts D&C 130, and the underlying source material for that section. The only reasons I can think of for Smith's giving his imprimatur to incorrect teaching, is that either Joseph didn't yet fully understand the Godhead or else that he simply didn't catch an error originated by the formerly Trinitarian Sidney Rigdon.
• Fact - these scripture publication "committees" of whom it has become fashionable to speak so dismissively, consisted of and/or had their actions approved by Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ who were prophets, seers, and revelators in their own right and together were/are heirs to the mantle of the sealing power originally held by Joseph Smith.
• Fact - other former scriptures that were removed "by committee" and without the "common consent" (as you define it) of the Church include the Article on Marriage that appeared in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. (You know, the one that flat-out denied and condemned the practice of polygamy?)
• Fact - Celestial marriage, the temple liturgy, the idea of having one's calling and election made sure and the ritual of the second anointing--none of those came into the Church via "common consent" (as you seem to define it), either.

Are the Lectures on Faith mostly right, and intensely profitable for study? Sure.

Are they perfect? No.

Did Heber J. Grant and the Twelve, as constituted in 1921, have the authority to relegate them or any other part of the D&C to non-canonical status? Well, Lorin Woolley didn't think so. John Barlow didn't think so. Joseph Musser didn't think so. Warren Jeffs doesn't think so. Denver Snuffer doesn't think so.

Where has that gotten them?

Edited October 25, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Finrock]

Good afternoon Just_A_Guy. I hope you are doing well! :)

You know, I'm as much in favor of garnishing the sepulchres of deceased prophets as anyone; and I know there's a certain quarter of the Church that takes pleasure in disparaging the modern institution whilst lionizing Joseph Smith--but let's remember our facts here.

[*]Fact - Lecture 5 describes the Godhead as comprising two Personages, not three. Those Personages are therein identified as the Father and the Son. Therefore, logically, the Lectures contemplate a Godhead where the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit--whatever it is--is not a personage.

[*]Fact - Lecture 5 thus contradicts D&C 130, and the underlying source material for that section. It does this, either because either Joseph didn't fully understand the Godhead yet or because Joseph didn't catch an error originated by the formerly Trinitarian Sidney Rigdon.

These aren't facts. Lecture five does not contradict D&C 130 anymore than John 4:24 contradicts D&C 130. You are creating a false dichotomy. Lecture five is teaching a different aspect of the Godhead, not a contradiction. The Lectures on Faith also makes clear that the Godhead consist of three personages. You are misunderstanding the scripture and calling it a contradiction.

I have received my own independent witness that the Lectures on Faith are eternal doctrine. Of course you are free to believe what you wish, but just as I know the Book of Mormon is true I know the LoF are true doctrine. Same Spirit, same witness, same feeling, same glorious vision in my mind.

[*]Fact - these scripture publication "committees" of whom it has become fashionable to speak so dismissively, consisted of and/or had their actions approved by Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ who were prophets, seers, and revelators in their own right and together were/are heirs to the mantle of the sealing power originally held by Joseph Smith.

[*]Fact - other former scriptures that were removed "by committee" and without the "common consent" (as you define it) of the Church include the Article on Marriage that appeared in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. (You know, the one that flat-out denied and condemned the practice of polygamy?)

[*]Fact - Celestial marriage, the temple liturgy, the idea of having one's calling and election made sure and the ritual of the second anointing--none of those came into the Church via "common consent" (as you seem to define it), either.

I know you probably aren't implying this but let me remind you that having a calling (any calling) doesn't make one infallible. Titles are meaningless in the end. But, even so, it could be possible that at the time the Church wasn't ready for this doctrine and thus it was taken away. It could very well have been done in wisdom. We need not necessarily suppose that the committee who removed the LoF did so in error. It might have been God's will just as He has withheld many things from us because of our unbelief.

Have you truly taken the time to comtemplate what the consequences of accepting the LoF as eternal doctrine entails? Meaning, what would the beliefs in the Lectures require of you? If you began to implement the truths found in LoF in to your life, what would be the outcome? It would be greater understanding of the Godhead, greater faith in Jesus Christ, and greater power to bring about God's purposes on earth. I think the time is about right where we are ready to accept greater truths. Sometimes truth can cause us to doubt because we aren't ready to accept it. Righteousness can be a stumbling block too. I don't think it is a coincidence that there has been a major project to bring to light the writings of Joseph Smith from relative obscurity (Joseph Smith Papers). In my anecdotal experience members of the Church are afraid and peevish about some of the doctrines that has been preached in the past because it seemed so foreign or it didn't jive with the popular tradition. However, we have nothing to be afraid or ashamed of. It is time we embraced all true doctrine and stop running away from things that are supposedly "weird" or "strange".

We are living beneath our privilege and LoF restores to the forefront what it is we are truly doing here on this earth and it details what God really wants to give us.

-Finrock

[ElectofGod]

EDIt as I was writing finrock already wrote out a response.

Disparaging? No body said anything ill against anyone.

So you are allowed to say joseph smith and sidney rigdon got it wrong but we are not allowed to say JFS and all the others on that comittet got it wrong without disparaging anyone. With that logic you are disparaging all those who voted in AS doctrine the lectures on faith. I really don't mind if you disagree just pointing out the other view of this.

Either the first 100ish years they had it right, or the next 90ish years. Its pretty simple. One group of people has an incorrect understanding of the Godhead if its not correct. I take LOF as doctrine. You don't have to. It is not disparaging anyone.

You jus said those, along with Uchtdorf in GC that they make mistakes. The question here is who did? The church in 1835 who voted it as doctrine or the church in 1921 who said it should not be included in the standard works. Do I know the minds of the 1921 committee no. Just what they wrote or was published for that matter.

Or there is a third option here. The church failed to keep accurate records and there is more to the story. This one is more serious. So I will give the committee the benefit of situation. Because I believe it was done with best intentions.

Edited October 25, 2013 by ElectofGod

[Just_A_Guy]

Good afternoon Just_A_Guy. I hope you are doing well! :)

These aren't facts. Lecture five does not contradict D&C 130 anymore than John 4:24 contradicts D&C 130. You are creating a false dichotomy. Lecture five is teaching a different aspect of the Godhead, not a contradiction. The Lectures on Faith also makes clear that the Godhead consist of three personages. You are misunderstanding the scripture and calling it a contradiction.

How am I misunderstanding this?

In our former lectures we treated of the being, character, perfections and attributes of God. What we mean by perfections, is, the perfections which belong to all the attributes of his nature. We shall, in this lecture speak of the Godhead: we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

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: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space--They are the Father and the Son: . . .

And he [the Son] being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father-possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, 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: and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one:

Not a lot of wiggle room there: Father (Personage) + Son (Personage) + Holy Spirit ("Mind") = Godhead.

I have received my own independent witness that the Lectures on Faith are eternal doctrine. Of course you are free to believe what you wish, but just as I know the Book of Mormon is true I know the LoF are true doctrine. Same Spirit, same witness, same feeling, same glorious vision in my mind.

Very well; but I have received my own witness that portions of the Lectures on Faith are facially misleading, and that it was the mind and will of God that they be removed from the canon of LDS scripture.

But, even so, it could be possible that at the time the Church wasn't ready for this doctrine and thus it was taken away. It could very well have been done in wisdom. We need not necessarily suppose that the committee who removed the LoF did so in error. It might have been God's will just as He has withheld many things from us because of our unbelief.

An intriguing thought. What, specifically, in the LoF do you think that the Church was not ready for? What did Joseph and Sidney teach in 1835 that isn't being taught in 2013?

It's one thing to quit talking about a doctrine because the Church isn't ready for it. It's another thing to substitute it with a contradictory doctrine. Is the Holy Ghost a Personage, or isn't he? In 1835 Joseph Smith is saying (or approving Sidney Rigdon's saying) "no". By Nauvoo, he changes that answer to "yes". So where does that leave the 1835 statement?

Have you truly taken the time to comtemplate what the consequences of accepting the LoF as eternal doctrine entails? Meaning, what would the beliefs in the Lectures require of you? If you began to implement the truths found in LoF in to your life, what would be the outcome? It would be greater understanding of the Godhead, greater faith in Jesus Christ, and greater power to bring about God's purposes on earth. I think the time is about right where we are ready to accept greater truths. Sometimes truth can cause us to doubt because we aren't ready to accept it. Righteousness can be a stumbling block too. I don't think it is a coincidence that there has been a major project to bring to light the writings of Joseph Smith from relative obscurity (Joseph Smith Papers). In my anecdotal experience members of the Church are afraid and peevish about some of the doctrines that has been preached in the past because it seemed so foreign or it didn't jive with the popular tradition. However, we have nothing to be afraid or ashamed of. It is time we embraced all true doctrine and stop running away from things that are supposedly "weird" or "strange".

I don't believe I wrote anything that should be interpreted as "The Lectures on Faith should be rejected". Indeed, I described them as "mostly right" and "intensely profitable for study". What I pointed out is that they aren't perfect, and that maybe there was a good reason for their removal from the canon of scripture.

And while the particular language of the LoF may resonate with particular members more than the other scriptures or Church teachings that are available to us, I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that the LoF spur us to some kind of belief or action that the Church just isn't teaching otherwise.

We are living beneath our privilege and LoF restores to the forefront what it is we are truly doing here on this earth and it details what God really wants to give us.

Well, yes and no. We are certainly living beneath our privileges; and part of that is probably due to a degree of theological apathy in some quarters of the Church. But I think the larger problem isn't so much that we don't know or care where God wants to take us, but that we want to get there playing by our own rules. We've become carnal. We want to do things our way. We view priesthood authority as a bunch of out-of-touch old men or mere bureaucratic sycophants to Salt Lake, and that attitude makes us willing to walk out of our own disciplinary hearings rather than accept reproof from those whose prerogative and duty it is to reprove.

[Just_A_Guy]

EDIt as I was writing finrock already wrote out a response.

Disparaging? No body said anything ill against anyone.

Did you not read your own previous post?

If JFS is correct, than the lectures are false or incorrect doctrine, if the lectures are true and we reject them, we will be damned. We will never have the faith neccesary unto life and salvation, for we will never have the correct understanding of the 3 ideas of god.

We must choose, are teh lectures true or false. We choose wrong we very well could be choosing damnation.

So you are allowed to say joseph smith and sidney rigdon got it wrong but we are not allowed to say JFS and all the others on that comittet got it wrong without disparaging anyone. With that logic you are disparaging all those who voted in AS doctrine the lectures on faith. I really don't mind if you disagree just pointing out the other view of this.

Either the first 100ish years they had it right, or the next 90ish years. Its pretty simple. One group of people has an incorrect understanding of the Godhead if its not correct. I take LOF as doctrine. You don't have to.

What you're missing here, is the concept of continuing revelation. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet. Even in the Church, many are prone to garnish the sepulchres of yesterdays prophets and mentally stone the living ones.

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

It is not disparaging anyone.

Wait--aren't you on record as saying that at least one of the prophets of the LDS Church is subject to damnation?

You jus said those, along with Uchtdorf in GC that they make mistakes. The question here is who did? The church in 1835 who voted it as doctrine or the church in 1921 who said it should not be included in the standard works. Do I know the minds of the 1921 committee no. Just what they wrote or was published for that matter.

Didn't keep you from invoking the possibility of their (and our) damnation for getting it wrong, though, did it?

Or there is a third option here. The church failed to keep accurate records and there is more to the story. This one is more serious. So I will give the committee the benefit of situation. Because I believe it was done with best intentions.

Oh, yes. "Sir, you have the benefit of the situation. Except that I believe, and am publishing and actively attempting to recruit others to my belief, that you a) are teaching false doctrine, b) have led the Church to do the same, and c) that you and all who believe you are quite possibly going to hell--hey, simmer down! It's not like I'm disparaging you!"

[Anddenex]

You jus said those, along with Uchtdorf in GC that they make mistakes. The question here is who did? The church in 1835 who voted it as doctrine or the church in 1921 who said it should not be included in the standard works. Do I know the minds of the 1921 committee no. Just what they wrote or was published for that matter.

Or there is a third option here. The church failed to keep accurate records and there is more to the story. This one is more serious. So I will give the committee the benefit of situation. Because I believe it was done with best intentions.

Why does one need to assume that the Church in 1835 or the Church in 1821 made a mistake? The Church in 1835 and the Church in 1821 are the same Church.

What if they are both correct? What if God realized his children would incorrectly interpret Joseph Smith's words and lead his children astray by the precepts of men mingled with a little bit of correct scripture?

Why couldn't the "Lectures on Faith" be considered like the apocrypha? Within these words are great mysteries revealed, yet unless guided by the spirit a person may easily be lead by the adversary.

I am thinking it will be nice to actually sit down with Joseph Smith and actually listen to his clarification for his words, and I think this ( personally ) is why the spirit is very important to reveal truth.

Although at first glance I would agree that Lecture 5 appears to contradict D&C 130 pertaining to the Godhead, I will openly admit that I have not yet come to the understanding Joseph Smith had and other prophets who most likely were in contact ( physically ) with the Father and Son.

When I read your last paragraph, I wonder if this paragraph already answers the question of who is right. If the Church failed to keep accurate records ( which is plausible ), then we would not have a complete revelation regarding these instructions -- similar to the apocrypha. I am thinking both Joseph Smith and the Doctrine and Covenants as it stands now are both correct. For I have met no man who could tell me with authority ( save Thomas S. Monson ) and bind it to the Church collectively and individual what Joseph Smith actually meant when he called the spirit the "mind" yet continued to refer to the Godhead as "these three are one," or "these three constitute."

Either way, all the comments have been enjoyable to ponder.

[skalenfehl]

I see no contradiction in the LoF with D&C. In fact I see it with greater clarity than I did a few years go. It wasn't, however, without much laboring in the Spirit. It's simply something for each individual to realize alone through the Spirit and by the Spirit only. I don't imply that this makes me special. I am just adding my witness.

[ElectofGod]

Didn't keep you from invoking the possibility of their (and our) damnation for getting it wrong, though, did it?

By joseph smith own words. If one rejects or even if they do not understand the character of God, doees not understand what Joseph was trying to say when in fact it says one must understand it to receive life unto salvation, by definition they do not have the knowledge unto life and salvation.

This is my point right here...

Very well; but I have received my own witness that portions of the Lectures on Faith are facially misleading, and that it was the mind and will of God that they be removed from the canon of LDS scripture.

If it was not cannon and was misleading, than it truly is not doctrine. IF it is cannon and NOT misleading, than we are rejecting PURE doctrine.

Simple it was at one time doctrine and decanonized. Or it was false misleading doctrine revealed to the church sustained as doctrine. Which is worse?

A ) We decanonized doctrine

B ) The church was able to canonize misleading or false doctrine.

Whether it was the will of the lord or not for category A or B is not the issue as its possible it was. ITS The consequences of why is huge.

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

YES, I believe all that he HAS revealed including the LOF.

Or again lack of records... But I do not believe this to be the case as the spirit tells me they are eternally true.

Edited October 26, 2013 by ElectofGod