The Lectures on Faith-decanonization.

[skalenfehl]

There is a misconception about the Lectures on Faith, which has been prevalent among many members for at least as long as I have been alive. I did a write-up on this matter after having done my own extensive research. I am writing this as a result of some discussion on another thread, but I feel the need to start a new topic with further clarification. I am a firm believer, or rather, it is my testimony that the Lectures on Faith are scripture. They were written as scripture and what constituted the "doctrine" portion of the Book of Commandments, which later became known as the Doctrine and Covenants. Here is what I have shared before.

 

I will be citing the Joseph Smith Papers and possible Church History series by BH Roberts, the 1835 edition of the Doctrine & Covenants, which has been scanned and presented here.

 

click: Doctrine and Covenants, 1835

 

From the PREFACE page (click forward to pages 11 and 12) of the 1835 Doctrine & Covenants, we read Joseph Smith's words:

 

We deem it to be unnecessary to entertain you with lengthy preface to the following volume, but merely to say that it contains in short the leading items of the religion which we have professed to believe. 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 doctrines of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work...

 

...We do not present this little volume with any other expectation than that. We are to be called to answer to every principle advanced...

 

 

Not only the prophet of the restoration has held himself accountable to God and to the membership, but the publishing committee alongside him, namely Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Ridgon and F.G. Williams.

 

Now if you scroll down the web page to the eleventh paragraph, you will read about the Presidency of the Church and of the general assembly (a few were not present, however) voting by common consent as it was supposed to be done:

 

Doctrine and Covenants 26:2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

 

Doctrine and Covenants 28:13 For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.

 

 

And so they did:

 

...Voting on the book proceeded by quorums and groups, with the leader of each group bearing witness of the truth of the volume before his group voted to accept it. After the voting by quorums, the entire church membership present, both male and female, voted to accept the book as “the doctrine and covenants of their faith.”

 

The entire membership sustained it. But what should be of greater import is that Joseph Smith was the senior committee member. Joseph Smith presented the finalized Lectures On Faith as "doctrines of salvation." He attached his name to it. He vouched for it. He made himself accountable for it. Whatever is attributed to Sidney Rigdon, it was Joseph Smith who was responsible for the final edition. Any falsehoods would have been corrected by Joseph by revelation. That's how it worked. That's how we have the Book of Mormon. This is how scripture was canonized. 

 

Then in 1921 a committee decided to remove them. This committee comprised of George F. Richards, Anthony W. Ivins, Melvin J. Ballard, James E. Talmage, John A. Widstoe, and Joseph Fielding Smith. -- The Story of the Doctrine and Covenants - Ensign Dec. 1984 - ensign

 

According to the lds.org article:

 

In 1921 the “Lectures on Faith” were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants, “not because they were called in question, for they are excellent lectures of great value on the the principles of faith, but because they were not revelations.” (Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl, Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1957, p. xvii.)

 

Brigham Young University's Dr. Thomas G. Alexander, Professor of History, has stated quite assertively in his controversial July–August 1980 "Sunstone" article, "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine," that:

 

 

 

The committee proposed to delete the "Lectures on Faith" on the grounds that they were "lessons prepared for use in the School of the Elders, conducted in Kirtland, Ohio, during the winter of 1834-35; but they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons."

 

It is obvious that the misguided committee members in 1921 erred, did not understand Joseph Smith and used their own judgment in removing them and this without the knowledge or common consent of the membership. I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they erred honestly and that they did not intend to maliciously remove them. But it makes no sense otherwise for them to declare that the Lectures on Faith were never presented to nor accepted by the church when we have documentation at least from the Joseph Smith Papers that proves otherwise and establishes the Lectures On Faith as having been canonized scripture. 

 

Ironically, on Jan. 4, 1972, Bruce R. McConkie has said:

 

In my judgment, it is the most comprehensive, inspired utterance that now exists in the English language - that exists in one place defining, interpreting, expounding, announcing, and testifying what kind of being God is. It was written by the power of the Holy Ghost, by the spirit of inspiration. It is, in effect, eternal scripture; it is true.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that Lectures On Faith should have remained part of canonized scripture. Without them, our minds have been darkened. Our unbelief is greater. Had they remained canonized, every officer of the church, even all members from the greatest to the least would have at the very least been aware of their existence. 

 

D&C 88:127 And again, the order of the house prepared for the presidency of the school of the prophets, established for their instruction in all things that are expedient for them, even for all the officers of the church, or in other words, those who are called to the ministry in the church, beginning at the high priests, even down to the deacons—

 

As it is, many members of the church do not bother to study the scriptures, let alone seek out the best books greater knowledge or seek the mysteries of God as we are commanded to do. I have every confidence in Joseph Smith's testimony regarding the Lectures on Faith and that he knew exactly what he was talking about when presenting them to the membership and finally, that they do not in any way contradict the rest of the canonized scripture, especially the Doctrine & Covenants as we have them even today. These lectures are doctrine. They are scripture. They are true. 

 

 

 

The Lectures on Theology.

 

January, 1835.—During the month of January, I was engaged in the school of the Elders, and in preparing the lectures on theology for publication in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, which the committee appointed last September were now compiling.--Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Volume 2, p. 180

 

 

For anyone who has not read them or heard of them, please feel free to do so at:

 

http://lecturesonfaith.com/

 

 

 

 

 

[Anddenex]

This comment here strikes me as a little off, "It is obvious that the misguided committee members in 1921 erred, did not understand Joseph Smith and used their own judgment in removing them and this without the knowledge or common consent of the membership." (emphasis added)

 

 

These were Apostles, and well respected men within the Church. One of which wrote "Jesus the Christ."  As pertaining to the a key word "obvious," would this be obvious to one who doesn't hold any keys, or to individuals who did hold keys and who held authority to make such a decision -- and did make a decision?

 

This statement draws this to memory, "When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ ~ Dallin H. Oaks

 

I would say, much thought and prayer were put into practice before any decision was resolved.

 

I would agree, "Lectures on Faith," were indeed scripture as given in accordance with this scripture, Doctrine and Covenants 64: 3-5:

 

 

3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

 4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

 5 Behold, this is the promise of the Lord unto you, O ye my servants.

 

As to whether or not it is canonized, I will easily trust those who were given responsibility over the declaration, and to those who now hold authority to canonize "Lectures on Faith."

Edited December 10, 2014 by Anddenex

[skalenfehl]

Perhaps misguided is the wrong word. However as apostles of the Lord, I am surprised that there is no evidence of divine inspiration, or in other words, revelation, for their removal.

 

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons". (1921 edition introduction of D&C).

This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

 

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

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)

 

While I respect them and their contributions to the church in the capacities, which they served, I believe they were acting as men in this case and not as appointed servants of the Lord. It is also not my intention to cast a bad light, but rather to cast light on the matter (D&C 123:13-15). Even apostles make mistakes, however well their intentions may be. I have provided enough citations to refute Joseph Fielding Smith's claims. How could Joseph Smith have known about the nature of God without revelation? It was his first vision that established the Son and Father being two distinct personages. They were indeed presented as doctrine. They are complete as to the teachings of the Godhead in the context in which Joseph presented the lectures. Elder Talmage and the committee members removed them to prevent confusion and not because they received revelation to do so and furthermore without common consent as the Lord ordained his church to function. If they were not misguided, then who or what guided them in their decision? I do not find the LoF confusing, but I do confess to having wrestled with the Spirit for a long time to understand what Joseph Smith was trying to teach. (2 Nephi 32:1-5)

 

 

[Vort]

I do not understand the breast-beating. The Lectures on Faith are freely available for all who care to read them. They are not canonical scripture. Period. That does not mean they aren't true. Heck, my posts on LDS.net aren't canonical scripture, either. :)

 

If "scripture" is taken to mean writings officially recognized by the body of the Church as the word of God -- "canon" is the term usually used, though that's really a Catholic term and only loosely appropriate for our scriptures -- then the Lectures on Faith are NOT scripture. No two ways about it. Period. Done. Discussion over.

 

But you're still free to read them, and if the Holy Ghost testifies to you of their teachings, then you've just found a great source of understanding for one of the most important topics of this or any other dispensation.

[skalenfehl]

Well, my intention was not  to breast beat or to stir contention. It was to clarify and edify. Not all will be edified.That is all. 

[Just_A_Guy]

Skalenfehl, you made a nearly identical post over a year ago, which I addressed here.

And, re your post #5 to this thread: No. You don't get to assert that a committee of apostles whose action was ratified by the entire Quorum of the Twelve as well as the First Presidency, were "misguided" and "erred" in such a way as to darken our minds and increase our unbelief (let alone, assert it twice); and then slither away with a mumbled "I'm not trying to stir contention" when someone calls you on it.

You threw the bombshell, and you clearly knew what you were doing because you've done it before on these forums. So, I'd respectfully suggest you stand honorably and deal with the fallout.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[skalenfehl]

I just read the posts you linked. Thank you for reminding me. I completely forgot that I had posted those. But I feel it necessary, when other bombshells such as "the LoF is not scripture" are dropped, to reply. Please understand from my point of view as well. Joseph Smith spent his entire life trying to teach something, some of which has been ignored, forgotten and/or swept under the rug. This is the only way I know how to  honorably deal with the fallout. If you meant something else, please let me know. I don't have anything else to add, though, but I will stop now and request this thread be locked if you feel it appropriate. I find your accusation interesting that I have slithered away, which makes certain implications about my character. But I am not offended. I don't wish to appear proud or vain either. I do not apologize for what I have written, but I do apologize for its delivery and for having forgotten that I had posted this last year. I have been dealing with memory issues in my life as I get older. I am still working on the tone of my posts and delivery, too. Thank you.

Edited December 10, 2014 by skalenfehl

[FunkyTown]

Skalenfehl: I've read your links. They're good works and definitely enlightening.

But: They are not scripture. They are plain, they are precious and I don't see anything wrong with them.

I don't see these things being swept under the rug. Most of what I read - Such as the attributes of God - Are things we teach almost every week.

If the brethren removed them, then there was a reason.

These are not 'hidden truths'. Most of what I read had been paraphrased in other places or said in other ways.

Those works were good and wonderful. But they are not scripture.

[estradling75]

I am kinda disappointed....  There can be an argument made about the decanonization of the Lectures of Faith and why it should concern us.  That does not require any of the Leaders of the Church to have "Made a mistake/gotten it wrong/been in error."  In fact such an argument would presume both groups where one hundred percent correct in their action and reinforce what our leaders have always taught us while doing so.

[The Folk Prophet]

I am kinda disappointed....  There can be an argument made about the decanonization of the Lectures of Faith and why it should concern us.  That does not require any of the Leaders of the Church to have "Made a mistake/gotten it wrong/been in error."  In fact such an argument would presume both groups where one hundred percent correct in their action and reinforce what our leaders have always taught us while doing so.

 

My thoughts exactly. Most of the OP was quite interesting. I think it a discussion worth having...until the apostle smearing enters in...

 

I don't know about "one hundred percent" correct though. That may be a wee bit extreme. But as a general concept, to drive the discussion from the point of view that God's church was led according to His will, and that what we have as scripture is meant, by the Lord, to be what we have as scripture. Within that context, it's a very interesting thought.

 

Edit: I said my thoughts "exactly" and then proceeded to explain how my thoughts were not "exactly" the same.   Hmm.

Edited December 10, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[estradling75]

My thoughts exactly. Most of the OP was quite interesting. I think it a discussion worth having...until the apostle smearing enters in...

 

I don't know about "one hundred percent" correct though. That may be a wee bit extreme. But as a general concept, to drive the discussion from the point of view that God's church was led according to His will, and that what we have as scripture is meant, by the Lord, to be what we have as scripture. Within that context, it's a very interesting thought.

 

Edit: I said my thoughts "exactly" and then proceeded to explain how my thoughts were not "exactly" the same.   Hmm.

 

By using the term argument I was expecting/implying that not everyone would necessary agree with all the details once it was made...     However the core point was that I think skalenfehl could of reached the point he was going for without the attack on leaders.  And that is what I understood you to mean when you said "My thoughts exactly"

[Just_A_Guy]

I just read the posts you linked. Thank you for reminding me. I completely forgot that I had posted those. But I feel it necessary, when other bombshells such as "the LoF is not scripture" are dropped, to reply. Please understand from my point of view as well. Joseph Smith spent his entire life trying to teach something, some of which has been ignored, forgotten and/or swept under the rug. This is the only way I know how to  honorably deal with the fallout. If you meant something else, please let me know. I don't have anything else to add, though, but I will stop now and request this thread be locked if you feel it appropriate. I find your accusation interesting that I have slithered away, which makes certain implications about my character. But I am not offended. I don't wish to appear proud or vain either. I do not apologize for what I have written, but I do apologize for its delivery and for having forgotten that I had posted this last year. I have been dealing with memory issues in my life as I get older. I am still working on the tone of my posts and delivery, too. Thank you.

Skalenfehl, this sort of thing is EXACTLY what I was talking about. You come on and openly state that the LDS "misguided" leadership "erred" in such a way as to darken our minds and increase our unbelief, but you won't stand and defend it. Instead, when called on it, you adopt a wide-eyed "why ya pickin' on me?" position and suggest that the thread be shut down. It's not the tone or delivery of your post that rankles (in fact, for what it's worth, I think your tone is nearly pitch-perfect); it's the substance.

With regard to the LoF, I see nothing in your argument suggesting that they enjoyed a uniquely sacrosanct position in the 1835 D&C that required them to remain in perpetuity even as other sections (like the one on marriage that denounced polygamy and required marriages in the church to be solemnize in public) were removed when they were superseded by further light and knowledge. The rebuttal that I linked to in my first post to this thread notes, for example, that the LoF describes the Godhead as consisting of two individuals, not three. That was what Joseph and Sidney understood in Kirtland. Later, Joseph learned more. And while McConkie thought very highly of the LoF, it's very telling that he was on the committee that produced the 1981 edition of the D&C, and while they added several sections at that time--they did not propose the reintroduction of the LoF into the canon.

[skalenfehl]

Just_A_Guy, thank you for your reply. Again, I am not offended. There is no wide eyed disbelief. I welcome everyone's input regardless of how off I seem. Reading my previous post, having quoted your reference to my slithering, I can see why you think I may be reacting in a wide eyed disbelief. I thought I did defend my position, or rather, make it clear initially. I am all for discussing the issue that we may all be edified. As such, I am not attacking the Elders either. Again, my delivery is lacking polish and I can likewise see why it seems like they are being smeared by my choice of words. For this, again, I apologize. Therefore, please let me state that I sustain our leaders. I am grateful for them and pray for them. However, when the Holy Ghost teaches me things, I feel duty bound as an elder myself, to preach, teach, expound, exhort, etc (D&C 20) according as the Spirit guides. Let me see if I can address everyone better and if I may draw from Isaiah's words, "come now, and let us reason together." 

 

Anddenex, as apostles, what keys did they hold? My understanding of the keys passed down by Joseph Smith to his successors were ALL the keys of administration, as in keys of authority to administer in the saving ordinances, held by the presiding high priest, or rather, the president of the church. In this case in 1921, it was President Heber J. Grant. But if I may inject, Joseph Smith himself did not hold all the keys there are to hold. Jesus Christ holds all keys, especially and including the keys to salvation and resurrection for He is the keeper of the gate and none other, and by virtue of having conquered death by Himself, given these keys by His Father, He and no other on earth holds the keys to the resurrection and therefore has the power to call us forth from the dead to put this last enemy under our feet and be saved.

 

Having said that, please help me understand what keys  this 1921 committee comprising Elder George F. Richards, Anthony W. Ivins, Melvin J. Ballard, James E. Talmage, John A. Widstoe and Josph Fielding Smith possessed. I don't claim to hold any keys other than the keys pertaining to the Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthoods, officiating in the capacities of a Deacon, Teacher, Priest and Elder, which you and I both possess, one of which is the ministering of angels, for example. But as for the authority to make such a decision, who granted them this authority? In the 1921 edition of the D&C, it is stated that the Lectures on Faith were removed because they "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons." 

 

However, I have already cited from the Joseph Smith Papers that Joseph had presented them as "important doctrines of salvation." Furthermore, they were indeed accepted by the entire Church by vote of common consent by quorums and groups, male and female, all being present, making it binding to the church at that time, or at least until 1921. What keys were possessed by this committee of Elders to remove the LoF from scripture, and "unbinding" them from us? I sincerely desire to understand from someone else. 

 

FunkyTown, I agree now that "technically" they are not scripture. They are not found anywhere in our canon nor anywhere on lds.org, although lds.org does link to them in the Joseph Smith Papers now and are occasionally referred to by past general authorities. I contend, however, that although not in our canon of scripture, they are still scriptural and scripture. If we are to adhere to what general authorities have professed, whatever a prophet declares, becomes scripture. But perhaps we enter a gray area here. 

 

I am kinda disappointed....  There can be an argument made about the decanonization of the Lectures of Faith and why it should concern us.  That does not require any of the Leaders of the Church to have "Made a mistake/gotten it wrong/been in error."  In fact such an argument would presume both groups where one hundred percent correct in their action and reinforce what our leaders have always taught us while doing so.

 

Estradling75, I feel very dense at the moment. I don't understand what you're saying. What do you mean by "both groups?" Obviously I am passionate about the removal of the LoF and why it should concern us. I am also completely lost by what you mean in your last sentence. 

 

Just_A_guy, to address your point regarding the LoF stating Joseph's explanation about the Godhead consisting of two personages, I submit that Joseph was expounding God's nature as Abinadi taught King Noah and his priests.

 

 

Mosiah 15:1 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.

 

Furthermore, Abinadi asked, quoting Isaiah, "who shall declare His generation?" The answer is Jesus Christ. When He made an offering, He saw His seed. And who are his seed? I like what Jesus Christ told the brother of Jared.

 

 

Ether 3:

14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

 

Joseph spent a considerable amount of time and energy to teach the saints the nature of God and what Jesus Christ should do. Jesus Christ is our Father and having ascended to His Father, putting all enemies under His feet including death, He becomes a Father. This is the kind of "Godhead," that covenant relationship between a Father and a Son, which Jesus and His Father have. And which we will or can also have. Let's go a little deeper. 

 

 

3 Nephi 27:21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do

 

Lets go to the Bible.

 

 

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what heseeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

 

Or as Joseph Smith declared in his King Follet sermon in 1844:

 

I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it.

 

But what is the first principle of the gospel as taught by Joseph Smith prior to his death, not touching again on what he wrote in the Wentworth letter? Let's dig into Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith to find out.

 

 

 

These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the
Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him
as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible...

 

There is a reason why he accepted that Faith was the first principle of the gospel early on, but after years of feeding the saints milk, and unfortunately before he was martyred, he then began to teach them what the real first principles of the gospel are. So we come full circle to the Lectures on Faith and the nature of Godhead in the context of which I have laid out. Joseph always taught, however that the Holy Ghost was a personage. From his "Sermon in the grove," he stated:

 

 

 

...I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preach on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. I 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 the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.

 

But the Holy Ghost does not have the same Father-Son covenant relationship that Jesus Christ and His Father do. And this is the difference. And thus the context of the Lectures on Faith, which Joseph rightly presented to the membership for ratification by vote of common consent. Lastly, I will include a scripture from the D&C as we now have it:

 

 

D&C 93:1 Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and callethon my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am;

 

 2 And that I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world;

 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.

 5 I was in the world and received of my Father, and the worksof him were plainly manifest.

 6 And John saw and bore record of the fulness of my glory, and the fulness of John’s record is hereafter to be revealed.

 7 And he bore record, saying: I saw his glory, that he was in the beginning, before the world was;

 8 Therefore, in the beginning the Word was, for he was the Word, even the messenger of salvation—

 9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men.

 10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him.

 11 And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us.

 12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;

 13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;

 14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.

 15 And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son.

 16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father;

 17 And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.

 18 And it shall come to pass, that if you are faithful you shall receive the fulness of the record of John.

 19 I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness.

 

I leave these things with you to ponder. We will one day receive the same fulness. By understanding from the Lectures on Faith how we become perfect even as Jesus Christ is perfect, we can understand the kind of faith and sacrifice required of us to become one even as all in heaven are one. His hand is outstretched all the day long. He wants us to come unto Him today. He desires that we receive Him (The Second Comforter) today. He desires to make His abode with us today. These things are gifts to claim when we have made our calling and election sure. Joseph Smith urged the saints to call upon the Lord until their calling and election was made sure. These things are as important today as they were then and as they were when Adam walked the earth.

 

I apologize if my tone and delivery are offensive. No offense is intended. I also don't understand why the font kept changing on me. Whether or not one considers the Lectures on Faith are scripture, I testify they are true. They are important and they are powerful. With love.

 

 

 

 

[The Folk Prophet]

Holy freakin' long post batman! :)

[estradling75]

Estradling75, I feel very dense at the moment. I don't understand what you're saying. What do you mean by "both groups?" Obviously I am passionate about the removal of the LoF and why it should concern us. I am also completely lost by what you mean in your last sentence. 

 

 

I will attempt to clarify by presenting the argument that I think you should have made to avoid the misunderstanding about if you believe that we have modern Prophets as leaders of the church.

 

It appears to me that you are trying to make the claim that the LoF is Greater Light and Knowledge that was lost to us (at least in the sense that by de-canonization would cause it to drop off the radar for most LDS in their studies.)  I am a sucker for gaining Greater Light and Knowledge so this discussion has great interest to me.

 

I have no problem letting you, JAG and whomever else is interested discuss on if it is greater then we currently have.  The problem I have is one of the pillar you use to support your case is essentially that the Leaders of the Church made a major mistake in removing it.

 

Since "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority..." it doesn't matter what keys the committee held.  Either those that had the Keys call them to do it or they did not.  It seems safe to say that those that called them to do committee had all the authority they needed to make that calling.  And by so doing the committee was delegated the necessary authority to do what they were called to do.

 

Then there is the simple fact that whatever action the committee recommended would have to be approved by the first presidency and the prophet.  The idea that any one involved would do/approve such changes to the scriptures without seeking God's approval first is just absurd.  Because of this there is no way you can bring up what you think are irregualities in the process that removed the LoF from the D&C without also accusing the church leaders of not being (or being willing to be) lead God.  And there is no way such a statement will get a pass around here.

 

Basically any hint that the original addition of the LoF and then its later removal was done because anything less then the Will of God spikes this conversation in a directly you state that you did not wish it to go.

 

That leaves us with God adding it and then taking it away.  The question then becomes why would God take it away?  If you addressed this I missed it, because of the above.  I know those countering your argument propose that it was basically redundant and not needed.  I could see the Lord doing that and it would explain the lack of Common Consent vote...  After all they were not asking the members to agree to any new doctrine or convents

 

A different possibility (and the one you might have taken) is that the Lord Removed it because we collectively as a group were not living up to it.  The whole line upon line obey and the Lord gives more disobey and he takes away what he gave you. Its hard to prove if in the Lord's judgement we collectively as a group are advancing or falling.  But if we were falling and the Lord removed the Greater Light (of the LoF) from us, then it would also explain the the facts as we know them.  The Leaders of the Church didn't make a mistake they followed the commands of the Lord to our condemnation.  This would also fit nicely with the non vote.  The Lord is not going to allow us to vote away the penalty

 

If the above argument is true... the leaders would know it and they would be striving to remind us to follow the Lord in all things, to try to avoid further losses and maybe regain some.  If it not true then our leaders would still be striving to remind us to follow the Lord in all things to keep us from backsliding and hopefully gain more.

 

Thus this is a path you could have taken to make the case that LoF are still important that would have avoided the distraction of the whole leadership thing.

 

Of course there are holes in my idea as well...  But it might have been fun to see if it held up.

[skalenfehl]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. It really made a difference in understanding what you said in your previous post. I am also endeavoring to be more thoughtful in my posts and less accusatory and inflammatory. 

[Just_A_Guy]

My understanding of the keys passed down by Joseph Smith to his successors were ALL the keys of administration, as in keys of authority to administer in the saving ordinances, held by the presiding high priest, or rather, the president of the church. In this case in 1921, it was President Heber J. Grant. But if I may inject, Joseph Smith himself did not hold all the keys there are to hold. Jesus Christ holds all keys, especially and including the keys to salvation and resurrection for He is the keeper of the gate and none other, and by virtue of having conquered death by Himself, given these keys by His Father, He and no other on earth holds the keys to the resurrection and therefore has the power to call us forth from the dead to put this last enemy under our feet and be saved.

 

Having said that, please help me understand what keys  this 1921 committee comprising Elder George F. Richards, Anthony W. Ivins, Melvin J. Ballard, James E. Talmage, John A. Widstoe and Josph Fielding Smith possessed. I don't claim to hold any keys other than the keys pertaining to the Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthoods, officiating in the capacities of a Deacon, Teacher, Priest and Elder, which you and I both possess, one of which is the ministering of angels, for example. But as for the authority to make such a decision, who granted them this authority?

 

The committee's proposals were apparently solicited by, and definitely ratified by, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as then constituted.  The only way I see it as being a problem is if you suggest that Joseph Smith held prophetic keys that were not passed on to Brigham Young and his successors (aside from his unique keys as head of this dispensation).  The FLDS and some modern writers (Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, etc) are fond of making that argument, but it's hardly orthodox LDS teaching.  In fact, it got Snuffer excommunicated earlier this year.  (Well, Snuffer's grandstanding, accusing his stake president of being a mindless toady to the general authorities in Salt Lake, and walking out of his own disciplinary hearing probably didn't help him any.)

 

 In the 1921 edition of the D&C, it is stated that the Lectures on Faith were removed because they "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons."

 

However, I have already cited from the Joseph Smith Papers that Joseph had presented them as "important doctrines of salvation." Furthermore, they were indeed accepted by the entire Church by vote of common consent by quorums and groups, male and female, all being present, making it binding to the church at that time, or at least until 1921. What keys were possessed by this committee of Elders to remove the LoF from scripture, and "unbinding" them from us? I sincerely desire to understand from someone else. 

 

There's nuance here.  The statement is that they embraced important doctrines of salvation.  The lectures are not the doctrines--they are a man-made vehicle for attempting to relay those doctrines to an audience.  They (the lectures) are not infallible, and do not purport to be. 

 

Moreover, the Lectures on Faith were accepted by the Church as a part of the entire 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.  To state that the Lectures on Faith must never, ever be removed from the D&C, is to state that no part of the 1835 D&C can ever be removed from the D&C.  You ask, by what authority did the 1st Pres/Q12 remove the Lectures on Faith in 1921?  I reply:  By the same authority that the 1st Pres/Q12 removed the "Article on Marriage" (Section 101 of the 1835 D&C) in 1876.

 

 Just_A_guy, to address your point regarding the LoF stating Joseph's explanation about the Godhead consisting of two personages, I submit that Joseph was expounding God's nature as Abinadi taught King Noah and his priests. . . .

 

 So we come full circle to the Lectures on Faith and the nature of Godhead in the context of which I have laid out. Joseph always taught, however that the Holy Ghost was a personage. From his "Sermon in the grove," he stated . . .

 

Pardon, but I really don't understand this train of thought at all.  The LoF does not specifically refer to Abinadi's discourse.  What you call "providing context" basically seems to take things Smith taught in 1840 and 1843-44, and projecting them backwards to make assumptions about what Smith meant in 1835--even though the text of Lecture 5th states quite clearly that the Godhead consists of God the Father (personage of power/glory), God the Son (personage of tabernacle), and God the Mind (Holy Ghost, representing some sort of mystical union between the other two).  The plain text of Lecture 5th is simply not reconcilable with Smith's later statements--despite the LoF's other virtues with regard to faith, gaining communion with the divine, etc. 

 

Why is the idea of an ongoing restoration--that Smith knew things in 1844 and 1840 that he didn't know in 1835, and that in the interim he may have given undue deference to traditionally Protestant personalities like Sidney Rigdon; so troublesome? 

 

 And thus the context of the Lectures on Faith, which Joseph rightly presented to the membership for ratification by vote of common consent.

 

Skalenfehl, I really wish you'd word these assertions a bit more carefully.  You make it sound as though the LoF were independently presented to the Church for ratification.  They weren't.  It was the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants that was so presented and ratified, of which the LoF were merely a part.  You can't make the LoF immune from further editing--or even redaction--unless you give the rest of the 1835 D&C--including the Article on Marriage--the same degree of immunity.  In which case, you set up a fundamental conflict in the LDS canon between that now-reinstated article and D&C 132.

 

I leave these things with you to ponder. We will one day receive the same fulness. By understanding from the Lectures on Faith how we become perfect even as Jesus Christ is perfect, we can understand the kind of faith and sacrifice required of us to become one even as all in heaven are one. His hand is outstretched all the day long. He wants us to come unto Him today. He desires that we receive Him (The Second Comforter) today. He desires to make His abode with us today. These things are gifts to claim when we have made our calling and election sure. Joseph Smith urged the saints to call upon the Lord until their calling and election was made sure. These things are as important today as they were then and as they were when Adam walked the earth.

 

 

 

I agree with you about the Second Comforter generally; but what specific idea is in the Lectures on Faith that isn't taught elsewhere in our scripture?  Obedience?  Spiritual gifts?  Abrahamic sacrifice?  The more sure word of prophecy/Second comforter?  No; all those concepts are in the scriptures at least as clearly as the LoF presents them (and the Second Comforter isn't even mentioned in the LoF, except (possibly) for one reference to John 15:26).

Edited December 11, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Windseeker]

Why not just have a thread saying you really like the Lectures on Faith and the reasons why?

[skalenfehl]

The committee's proposals were apparently solicited by, and definitely ratified by, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as then constituted.  The only way I see it as being a problem is if you suggest that Joseph Smith held prophetic keys that were not passed on to Brigham Young and his successors (aside from his unique keys as head of this dispensation).  The FLDS and some modern writers (Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, etc) are fond of making that argument, but it's hardly orthodox LDS teaching.  In fact, it got Snuffer excommunicated earlier this year.  (Well, Snuffer's grandstanding, accusing his stake president of being a mindless toady to the general authorities in Salt Lake, and walking out of his own disciplinary hearing probably didn't help him any.)

 

I have no issue whatsoever regarding who held what keys. The only reason I even mentioned keys was in reply to Anddenex. I wanted to understand the context of his use of the words keys and authority relating to the matter. Had he not brought up the subject of keys, it would not have occurred to me to mention them. I do agree that the committee of apostles were commissioned by the first presidency as you suggest.

 

Regarding Denver Snuffer's excommunication, grandstanding, etc, I'll just have to take your word for it. I do know who he is and am familiar with some of his writings, but I do not follow him, nor do I follow Rock Waterman or any FLDS writers or any man. I only follow Jesus Christ as only He is the way, the truth, the light, etc. If there is anything in my posts that relate to anything that he has said or written, it is coincidental. What I have written, I have learned on my own, through my own prayerful studies of the scriptures, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Church History and other church publications such as the Joseph Smith Papers, and also what I have learned from whisperings of the Spirit. Obviously, I am flawed and fallible and am still striving not to mingle my own philosophies. I am also working on being more careful in the kinds of assertions I make. 

 

Ok, I apologize for this. I cannot figure out how to do multiple quotes and this formatting is confusing. 

 

 

There's nuance here.  The statement is that they embraced important doctrines of salvation.  The lectures are not the doctrines--they are a man-made vehicle for attempting to relay those doctrines to an audience.  They (the lectures) are not infallible, and do not purport to be. 

 

Moreover, the Lectures on Faith were accepted by the Church as a part of the entire 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.  To state that the Lectures on Faith must never, ever be removed from the D&C, is to state that no partof the 1835 D&C can ever be removed from the D&C.  You ask, by what authority did the 1st Pres/Q12 remove the Lectures on Faith in 1921?  I reply:  By the same authority that the 1st Pres/Q12 removed the "Article on Marriage" (Section 101 of the 1835 D&C) in 1876.

 

Ok, figured it out, I think. I can agree with your point. But aren't all scriptures man made vehicles used to relay doctrines? An excellent point in the second paragraph, which I had not considered. It does make me wonder why so many books were not included in the Bible and why some were left in it, a perfect example being the Songs of Solomon. I am simply left to shrug and hope that the modification of the D&C was done according to the will of the Lord and not just because they had authority to do so in order to prevent more confusion, which apparently resulted from leaving them in. 

 

 

 

Pardon, but I really don't understand this train of thought at all.  The LoF does not specifically refer to Abinadi's discourse.  What you call "providing context" basically seems to take things Smith taught in 1840 and 1843-44, and projecting them backwards to make assumptions about what Smith meant in 1835--even though the text of Lecture 5th states quite clearly that the Godhead consists of God the Father (personage of power/glory), God the Son (personage of tabernacle), and God the Mind (Holy Ghost, representing some sort of mystical union between the other two).  The plain text of Lecture 5th is simply not reconcilable with Smith's later statements--despite the LoF's other virtues with regard to faith, gaining communion with the divine, etc. 

 

Ok, I've spent all day at work today prayerfully thinking of how to explain this. I have a difficult time extracting what the Spirit has taught me and putting it into words. And I often fail at this. You are correct, the LoF does not refer to Abinadi's discourse. That was my feeble attempt at explaining who Jesus Christ is. But Abinadi, Zeezrom and Amulek knew perfectly well that Jesus Christ is the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth (Alma 11:38-39) and the God of whom the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Lectures discuss. Then we get into the 5th and the fun begins. The Holy Ghost is not a "mystical union" as you put it. But let me see if I can put some building blocks together and I apologize for any tangents, but I have to lay some groundwork here. 

 

 

Lecture 5.1:

 

1 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.

 

So now that we understand who Jesus Christ is, we begin to discuss the Godhead, which consists of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. 

 

 

Lecture 5.2:

2 There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things-

 

This is where we need to make a distinction. Let's go to the sermon on the mount.

 

 

 

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

 

Here, Jesus Christ is teaching the multitude how to become like His Father in Heaven. Now let's go to the temple at Bountiful when Christ taught the multitude there.

 

 

 

48 Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.

 

There is a difference here. At Jerusalem, Jesus Christ had not yet become "perfect." By the time He visited the people at Bountiful, He had become perfect. In this context, or at least as we have the Greek translation from the New Testament, to be perfect, or tevleioß,--means brought to its end, finished, wanting nothing necessary to completeness. Jesus Christ had become complete. He had attained the fulness of His Father. He had become glorified, having put all enemies including death under His feet. 

 

The Holy Ghost, being the third member of the Godhead as we read in LoF, is not yet perfect, or rather complete. Unlike Jesus Christ and His Father, both of whom have laid down their lives and taken them up again (see my previous post from yesterday quoting Joseph Smith/King Follet sermon), One having attained exaltation, the Other a higher exaltation, the Holy Ghost has not obtained power over all things. The Holy Ghost has yet to take a physical body. The Holy Ghost along with the rest of us must fulfill our measure of creation, die, resurrect and obtain the fulness of God. The Holy Ghost does not possess the same fullness as the other two "personages" described in the fifth Lecture and therefore is not numbered with them as such. Yes, the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit and I believe that it should have been mentioned, but that does not mean that the Holy Ghost does not represent the Mind of God. 

 

In my post yesterday, I quoted D&C 93 because how we worship matters. At least this is what I believe. We are given the testimony of John so that we may come unto the Father and in due time receive of His fulness. (v.19). And we do this by following Jesus Christ who taught us that NO man comes unto the Father but by Him. (John 14:6). Jesus Christ commanded us to be like Him. So how did Jesus Christ worship His Father? By subjecting Himself, or rather "the flesh" to His Father's will. To be like Him, you must subject your will to the will of the Father. Christ defined Himself this way to the Nephites (3 Nephi 11:11).

 

By having subjected the flesh to the spirit, or rather, by having subjected Himself completely to the will of His Father, He became in very thought and deed, the Father. The Holy Spirit is represented in this context as the mind. His own will was swallowed up in the will of the Father. And so He modeled what He prayed that His disciples would do and that is that they would all become one as He and His Father are one (John 17). In Zion, all are one heart and one mind, all dwell in righteousness and there are no poor among them. Christ did not pray that they would all become one mass of flesh and bones. And as such, the Holy Ghost is not a mystical union, but simply represents that perfection. The Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit (D&C 130:22), which dwells in each of us. It needs to be a personage of spirit to be able to dwell in all of us simultaneously. As such, we can become one with the Son and the Father. Thus we gain access to the Comforter and all that it entails: The mind of God, as explained in the 5th Lecture, the record of Heaven, the truth of all things, that which quickeneth all things, etc (Moses 6:61).

 

Had Moses gained access to ALL the record of heaven and all of God's works and His glory, he would not have been allowed to remain in the flesh on earth, or so we read (Moses 1:5). And when we begin to connect with God, when we receive the Holy Ghost, having been baptized with fire, the Holy Ghost will tell us what we need to do (2 Nephi 32) to come unto Christ, just as Nephi did. The Holy Ghost brings us to Christ and Christ brings us to the Father. Nephi had access to all three Comforters (2 Nephi 31:12-15), having subjected his own will to the Lord (1 Nephi 3:7). This brings us to the sixth lecture: The Law of Sacrifice, which Nephi exemplified in the wilderness time and time again.

 

Why is the idea of an ongoing restoration--that Smith knew things in 1844 and 1840 that he didn't know in 1835, and that in the interim he may have given undue deference to traditionally Protestant personalities like Sidney Rigdon; so troublesome? 

 

I'm not sure I understand. I cannot ascertain what Joseph knew in 1835 and what he knew in 1844. I am still studying his life and his discourses. By the way, I highly recommend Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling. I do know that like Joseph, Sidney gazed into heaven in 1832 (D&C 76) and wrote some of which they were allowed to see, but not all as we read toward the end. Philo Dibble, was apparently present and said:

 

One witness, Philo Dibble, present in the room recalled that the two men sat motionless for about an hour. One would say, "What do I see," and describe it, and the other would say, "I see the same" (Juvenile Instructor 27 [May 15, 1892]:303-304).

-----

It is apparent that the Prophet Joseph Smith did not impart all that he saw in vision, for he later said, "I could explain a hundred fold more than I ever have of the glories of the kingdoms manifested to me in the vision, were I permitted, and were the people prepared to receive them" (TPJS, p. 305).

-----

 

"Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject." - Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p 324

 

 

Joseph and Sidney's vision lasted a LOT more than five minutes, at least according to Philo Dibble. Does this make them all knowing? No. But it says a lot to me about what they knew in 1832.

 

QUOTE:

 

Skalenfehl, I really wish you'd word these assertions a bit more carefully.  You make it sound as though the LoF were independently presented to the Church for ratification.  They weren't.  It was the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants that was so presented and ratified, of which the LoF were merely a part.  You can't make the LoF immune from further editing--or even redaction--unless you give the rest of the 1835 D&C--including the Article on Marriage--the same degree of immunity.  In which case, you set up a fundamental conflict in the LDS canon between that now-reinstated article and D&C 132.

 

 

I agree and I apologize. I am trying to do better.

 

 

QUOTE:

 

I agree with you about the Second Comforter generally; but what specific idea is in the Lectures on Faith that isn't taught elsewhere in our scripture?  Obedience?  Spiritual gifts?  Abrahamic sacrifice?  The more sure word of prophecy/Second comforter?  No; all those concepts are in the scriptures at least as clearly as the LoF presents them (and the Second Comforter isn't even mentioned in the LoF, except (possibly) for one reference to John 15:26).

 

 

Again, you are correct and I concede, if at least because I've been at this now for almost four hours dealing with the formatting of this message board, on top of putting together the quotes, scriptures and citations. But the LoF gives us a more concise guide in explaining the nature and attributes of deity and the kind of faith required to come to the Father and receive of His fulness, all of which is found throughout the Book of Mormon, which is also why the Lord declared that it contains the fulness of the gospel and why Joseph Said that we can get closer to God by abiding by its precepts that any other book. I just wish I had known about the Lectures on Faith much earlier in my life. And so, it is my testimony that it is scripture and it is precious to me. 

[skalenfehl]

Why not just have a thread saying you really like the Lectures on Faith and the reasons why?

 

An excellent hindsight question.  :)

[Windseeker]

An excellent hindsight question.  :)

 

They say it's 20/20 

 

But I got your message and I think it's something I will look into. I see my man Dallin H. Oaks quoted them in General Conference.

[skalenfehl]

They say it's 20/20 

 

But I got your message and I think it's something I will look into. I see my man Dallin H. Oaks quoted them in General Conference.

 

I was a bit perplexed when I read this, but after a little searching, I found it. Is this it from 1994?

 

The payment of tithing also brings the individual tithe payer unique spiritual blessings. Tithe paying is evidence that we accept the law of sacrifice. It also prepares us for the law of consecration and the other higher laws of the celestial kingdom. The Lectures on Faith, prepared by the early leaders of the restored Church, part the curtain on that subject when they say:

“Let us here observe that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for, from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things” (Lectures on Faith,6:7).

 

 

Anyway, it warms my heart to read that you will be looking into them. I have a physical copy, which I found on amazon.com. I'm old school and while I find ebooks and online files beneficial, there's nothing like holding a good old fashion book in your hands, where you can underline meaningful lines, mark up, notate, etc. But I do love a good online resource with a searchable function, too. And if you missed it, here's a link to a good online copy of the LoF:

 

http://lecturesonfaith.com/

 

I probably will take your advice and do a more thorough write-up of what I have learned in my personal study of this work. But I'm still plowing through slowly. There is a lot to digest, but I love feasting on such things, especially the Book of Mormon. Instead of starting a new thread on why I love the LoF though, I'll post it on my blog some time. I appreciate your input. :)

[onethatislazy]

All I can say is wow from reading all this.

 

It reminds me of the saying, Catholics say the pope is in-fallible but don't believe it, Mormons say the 15 are fallible but don't believe it. 

 

Come Quickly Lord. Come Quickly. We are nothing like Him. 

 

Thanks Skal for trying to stand for truth. I certainly don't know why they removed nor does it concern me but I can say with certainty they are eternally true. They teach of His true nature and the nature we must become if we wish to be like Him.

[skalenfehl]

You're welcome. Anyway, don't take my word for any of it. Do your own homework and let the Spirit guide you. Speaking of the Spirit, for anyone interested in this subject, it is worth your time to read Orson Pratt's discourse on the Holy Spirit and the Godhead:

 

http://journalofdiscourses.com/2/50

Edited December 19, 2014 by Just_A_Guy
Fixed link