Real Author of the Lectures on Faith

[drtanner]

Who really was the author of the lectures on faith? Sidney or Jospeh?

Interesting podcast discussion here

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2017/07 ... l-reynolds

If Sidney was the author does that change its credibility in in any way in your opinion? I know what those on the fringe, who have left, or that try and discredit the church and continued authority say about the removal, but has anyone researched the decision by the church to remove it and has any information or thoughts on why it may have been a good decision?

I do really enjoy the lectures btw. There is a beautiful bound edition I purchased a few months that has a lot of good info on the history.

[Original_Intent]

This is an excellent podcat. I have always been a huge fan of the Lectures on Faith, and I will admit that I have been a little butthurt about the Lectures being removed from the D&C in 1921. This podcast I felt was an excellent counterpoint to my position and in many ways I am much more reconciled to their removal. I still love the Lectures, I think they contain beautiful truths, but I don't have any problem with their removal, if what is represented in the podcast is correct.

Whether you love the LoF or not, I think this podcast is worth a listen.

[Finrock]

First, without question the Lectures on Faith are scripture. The final author is the Holy Spirit, just like any other scripture, regardless of who penned it down.

The question of authorship is ultimately academic. Whatever Joseph Smith's original position, he noted his involvement in preparing the Lectures for publication: "During the month of January [1835]," his official journal records, "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" (HC 2:180). He underscored his personal support of the Lectures by noting in the introduction to the 1835 edition that he accepted responsibility for "every principle advanced." Furthermore, the First Presidency's introduction makes no distinction between the inspirational quality of the Lectures and the second part of the book which contained the Covenants and Commandments. (https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... N03_73.pdf)

They were approved and accepted by the whole body of the Church in conference as binding scripture upon the members of the Church. During the conference in which it was accepted, each quorum, from Presidency of the Church down to the Deacon's quorum individually voted and approved of the Lectures on Faith.

In, I believe 1921, when they were removed, one reason for their removal that was stated was that they were never accepted as doctrine by the Church and that is why they were being removed, however, this claim is/was demonstrably false. It is one of those "strange" things that have occurred in the history of the Church because those who were making the claims at the time knew that they were revising history after the fact and that their claim didn't match recorded historical documents.

Below is a link to the record of the "General Assembly" of the Church in 1835 where the Lectures were unanimously voted as scripture: http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... s-1835/263

Notice also how representatives from each quorum of the Church affirmed and confirmed that the scriptures being presented to them (the 1835 edition of D&C which included the Lectures) were true and from God: http://www.centerplace.org/hs/dc/rdcintro.htm

In summary, Joseph Smith said that they were from God and that they were doctrine along with those who also were involved in the work. The General Assembly of the Church approved by unanimous vote that they were doctrine. Not only that, but representatives from each individual quorum, unanimously approved that they were doctrine. Then, in 1921, a committee of four individuals erroneously declare that they were never accepted as doctrine by the Church.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

I think it is helpful to read the testimonies of those present when they accepted the Lectures as printed in the D&C. It is impressive that so many individual voices affirmed that they were/are from God. I included the link to this in my original post but for those who may not click on the link, here are the testimonies of all quorum presidencies, backed by their quorums, as to the truthfulness and divine authorship of the 1835 D&C which now included the newly revealed Lectures.

Afternoon-After a hymn was sung, President Cowdery arose and introduced the "Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints," in behalf of the committee.

D&C 108A:4b He was followed by President Rigdon, who explained the manner by which they intended to obtain the voice of the assembly for or against said book; the other two committee [members named above were absent.

D&C 108A:4c According to said arrangement, W. W. Phelps bore record that the book presented to the assembly was true. President John Whitmer also arose and testified that it was true.

D&C 108A:4d Elder John Smith, taking the lead of the high council in Kirtland, bore record that the revelations in said book were true and that the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled and were profitable for doctrine;

D&C 108A:4e whereupon the high council of Kirtland accepted them and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith by a unanimous vote.

D&C 108A:4f Elder Levi Jackman, taking the lead of the high council of the church in Missouri, bore testimony that the revelations in said book were true and the said high council of Missouri accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith by a unanimous vote.

D&C 108A:5a President W. W. Phelps then read the written testimony of the Twelve, as follows: "The testimony of the witnesses to the book of the Lord's commandments, which he gave to his church through Joseph Smith, Jr., who was appointed by the voice of the church for this purpose:

D&C 108A:5b "We therefore feel willing to bear testimony to all the world of mankind, to every creature upon the face of all the earth and upon the islands of the sea, that the Lord has borne record to our souls, through the Holy Ghost shed forth upon us, that these commandments were given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for all men, and are verily true.

D&C 108A:5c "We give this testimony unto the world, the Lord being our helper; and it is through the grace of God, the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ that we are permitted to have this privilege of bearing this testimony unto the world, in the which we rejoice exceedingly, praying the Lord always that the children of men may be profited thereby."

D&C 108A:5d Elder Leonard Rich bore record of the truth of the book and the council of the Seventy accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith by a unanimous vote.

D&C 108A:6 Bishop N. K. Whitney bore record of the truth of the book and with his counselors accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith by a unanimous vote.

D&C 108A:7 Acting Bishop John Corrill bore record of the truth of the book and with his counselors accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith by a unanimous vote.

D&C 108A:8 Acting President John Gould gave his testimony in favor of the book and with the traveling elders accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith by a unanimous vote.

D&C 108A:9 Ira Ames, acting president of the priests, gave his testimony in favor of the book and with the priests accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith by a unanimous vote.

D&C 108A:10 Erastus Babbit, acting president of the teachers, gave his testimony in favor of the book, and they accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith by a unanimous vote.

D&C 108A:11 William Burgess, acting president of the deacons, bore record of the truth of the book, and they accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith by a unanimous vote.

D&C 108A:12 The venerable President Thomas Gates then bore record of the truth of the book and with his five silver-headed assistants and the whole congregation accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith by a unanimous vote. The several authorities and the general assembly by a unanimous vote accepted of the labors of the committee.

-Finrock

[Arenera]

Sidney Rigdon wrote the Lectures on Faith. Weak evidence that Joseph reviewed them. Joseph never quoted from them.

I think they also said that Joseph, Hyrum and the 12 apostles were not present when the people voted on them.

Read the Book of Mormon instead.

[oneClimbs]

It would seem that most people that are familiar with them know that we don't quite know who the author was. Sidney Rigdon was said to be the author, but he taught the school of the prophets so I'd imagine he was well qualified to put together these lectures. They draw from the scriptures and the truths taught in them. This comment from the podcast page is a bit weird:

"Especially telling is the reference to a binary Godhead in the fifth lecture. Joseph Smith explicitly declared in Nauvoo that his concept of the Godhead had never changed, and he had always taught the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were separate entities."

"Binary Godhead"? This is from verse 1 of that lecture: "We shall, in this lecture speak of the Godhead: we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Now, I'm no mathematician but 1) Father, 2) Son, 3) Holy Spirit.

It's the next verse that I think trips people up: "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..."

It doesn't say that the Godhead is binary anywhere, but it starts out saying that two of the three in the Godhead are personages that constitute the supreme power over all things. Note that we only ever see the Father and Son speaking in scripture, commanding things and exercising authority. The Holy Spirit is there as a testator. Yet later on in that verse it says this:

"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"

Again, I'm no mathematician, but I did see the word "three" mentioned, well, "three" times there. The Lectures do not contradict D&C 130. The word personage can be defined in three ways according to the Webster's 1828 dictionary:

1. Exterior appearance; stature; air; as a tall personage; a stately personage
2. Character assumed.
3. Character represented.

What is interesting is that D&C 130 addresses the corporeal nature of the members of the Godhead whereas the Lectures are focused more on character and attributes. I haven't found anything in the Lectures that contradicts the scriptures, ancient or modern. If something is true, the source doesn't matter, but in this case the source was Sidney, a man called of God and appointed to teach the future leaders of the church. He may not have remained faithful, but neither did David and we still read from Psalms.

[diligently seeking]

#:-s

Sidney Rigdon wrote the Lectures on Faith. Weak evidence that Joseph reviewed them. Joseph never quoted from them.

I think they also said that Joseph, Hyrum and the 12 apostles were not present when the people voted on them.

Read the Book of Mormon instead.

"...for 86 years, the Lectures were the “Doctrine” part of the Doctrine and Covenants and were important enough that Joseph Smith had them precede all of the other content that currently makes up the D&C today.

The first part of the book [The Doctrine and Covenants] will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work. (Preface to the 1835 Doctrine & Covenants)

The above statement was signed by Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon and Frederick Williams.

Bruce R. McConkie once stated:

“In my judgment, [The Lectures on Faith] 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.” (Bruce R. McConkie, lecture at Brigham Young University).

I had often heard of the Lectures growing up, but figured that if they were really that important we would hear more about them. It’s only been in the last several years that I have come to appreciate the profoundly simple and powerful teachings they contain. Nowhere else is faith so richly and plainly explained; they are truly one of the greatest things to come out of the restoration.

Because of my familiarity with the text, I have become aware of how often their content is quoted in General Conference and in various books, most recently in Elder Bednar’s Power to Become..."

[Finrock]

It would seem that most people that are familiar with them know that we don't quite know who the author was. Sidney Rigdon was said to be the author, but he taught the school of the prophets so I'd imagine he was well qualified to put together these lectures. They draw from the scriptures and the truths taught in them. This comment from the podcast page is a bit weird:

"Especially telling is the reference to a binary Godhead in the fifth lecture. Joseph Smith explicitly declared in Nauvoo that his concept of the Godhead had never changed, and he had always taught the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were separate entities."

"Binary Godhead"? This is from verse 1 of that lecture: "We shall, in this lecture speak of the Godhead: we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Now, I'm no mathematician but 1) Father, 2) Son, 3) Holy Spirit.

It's the next verse that I think trips people up: "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..."

It doesn't say that the Godhead is binary anywhere, but it starts out saying that two of the three in the Godhead are personages that constitute the supreme power over all things. Note that we only ever see the Father and Son speaking in scripture, commanding things and exercising authority. The Holy Spirit is there as a testator. Yet later on in that verse it says this:

"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"

Again, I'm no mathematician, but I did see the word "three" mentioned, well, "three" times there. The Lectures do not contradict D&C 130. The word personage can be defined in three ways according to the Webster's 1828 dictionary:

1. Exterior appearance; stature; air; as a tall personage; a stately personage
2. Character assumed.
3. Character represented.

What is interesting is that D&C 130 addresses the corporeal nature of the members of the Godhead whereas the Lectures are focused more on character and attributes. I haven't found anything in the Lectures that contradicts the scriptures, ancient or modern. If something is true, the source doesn't matter, but in this case the source was Sidney, a man called of God and appointed to teach the future leaders of the church. He may not have remained faithful, but neither did David and we still read from Psalms.

The Lectures on Faith are sometimes presented as some sort of a "stepping stone" doctrine to the full understanding of the restored gospel and that it somehow represents an incomplete understanding of God and the Godhead. However, this is not the case. A careful reading of the Lectures and with inspiration from the Holy Ghost one will see that the Lectures contain the most accurate, most complete, and the most inspired understanding of God and the Godhead known to man and there is nothing in it that contradicts what Joseph Smith taught later or what is found in other scriptures.

Speaking specifically of Lecture 5, Elder McConkie wrote:

Using the holy scriptures as the recorded source of the knowledge of God, knowing what the Lord has revealed to them of old in visions and by the power of the Spirit, and writing as guided by that same Spirit, Joseph Smith and the early brethren of this dispensation prepared a creedal statement on the Godhead. It is without question the most excellent summary of revealed and eternal truth relative to the Godhead that is now extant in mortal language. In it is set forth the mystery of Godliness; that is, it sets forth the personalities, missions, and ministries of those holy beings who comprise the supreme presidency of the universe. To spiritually illiterate persons, it may seem hard and confusing; to those whose souls are aflame with heavenly light, it is a nearly perfect summary of those things which must be believed to gain salvation (A New Witness, 72).

In reference to the whole Lecture, Elder McConkie said:

In my judgment, [the Lectures on Faith] 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."

-Finrock

[Finrock]

Sidney Rigdon wrote the Lectures on Faith. Weak evidence that Joseph reviewed them. Joseph never quoted from them.

I think they also said that Joseph, Hyrum and the 12 apostles were not present when the people voted on them.

Read the Book of Mormon instead.

The testimony of the 12 Apostles concerning the 1835 version of D&C, inclusive of the Lectures on Faith:

President W. W. Phelps then read the written testimony of the Twelve, as follows: "The testimony of the witnesses to the book of the Lord's commandments, which he gave to his church through Joseph Smith, Jr., who was appointed by the voice of the church for this purpose:

"We therefore feel willing to bear testimony to all the world of mankind, to every creature upon the face of all the earth and upon the islands of the sea, that the Lord has borne record to our souls, through the Holy Ghost shed forth upon us, that these commandments were given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for all men, and are verily true.

"We give this testimony unto the world, the Lord being our helper; and it is through the grace of God, the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ that we are permitted to have this privilege of bearing this testimony unto the world, in the which we rejoice exceedingly, praying the Lord always that the children of men may be profited thereby."

-Finrock

[Arenera]

Sidney Rigdon wrote the Lectures on Faith. Weak evidence that Joseph reviewed them. Joseph never quoted from them.

I think they also said that Joseph, Hyrum and the 12 apostles were not present when the people voted on them.

Read the Book of Mormon instead.

The testimony of the 12 Apostles concerning the 1835 version of D&C, inclusive of the Lectures on Faith:

President W. W. Phelps then read the written testimony of the Twelve, as follows: "The testimony of the witnesses to the book of the Lord's commandments, which he gave to his church through Joseph Smith, Jr., who was appointed by the voice of the church for this purpose:

"We therefore feel willing to bear testimony to all the world of mankind, to every creature upon the face of all the earth and upon the islands of the sea, that the Lord has borne record to our souls, through the Holy Ghost shed forth upon us, that these commandments were given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for all men, and are verily true.

"We give this testimony unto the world, the Lord being our helper; and it is through the grace of God, the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ that we are permitted to have this privilege of bearing this testimony unto the world, in the which we rejoice exceedingly, praying the Lord always that the children of men may be profited thereby."

-Finrock

I did like your comment on members not just relying on Joseph Smith's coat tails. I think you are onto something there.

Interestingly on the comment above, "that these commandments" were given by inspiration of God. I agree with that. I don't think that includes "the doctrine" from the Lectures on Faith", written by Sidney Rigdon.

[diligently seeking]

Drtanner-- followers of Jesus through the Restoration should benefit from the decrees of God that are unalterable. meaning-- no matter when they were given they apply in all generations of time. Interesting and sad to me that a unity of faith and understanding of doctrine --there's a struggle for consensus on many levels within the church---to commities of 4 to "fair Mormon" to past Prophets to current Prophets to people's individual opinions to patterns of expression and emphasis from leaders over the past 3 decades. Why have we evolved from the emphasis of what the Prophet Joseph Smith taught in regards to seeking the mysteries of God to what the lectures of Faith expound upon and from what the Marion G Romney and many other Apostles of his time expounded upon to what we have today??

[Matchmaker]

First, without question the Lectures on Faith are scripture. The final author is the Holy Spirit, just like any other scripture, regardless of who penned it down.

The question of authorship is ultimately academic. Whatever Joseph Smith's original position, he noted his involvement in preparing the Lectures for publication: "During the month of January [1835]," his official journal records, "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" (HC 2:180). He underscored his personal support of the Lectures by noting in the introduction to the 1835 edition that he accepted responsibility for "every principle advanced." Furthermore, the First Presidency's introduction makes no distinction between the inspirational quality of the Lectures and the second part of the book which contained the Covenants and Commandments. (https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... N03_73.pdf)

They were approved and accepted by the whole body of the Church in conference as binding scripture upon the members of the Church. During the conference in which it was accepted, each quorum, from Presidency of the Church down to the Deacon's quorum individually voted and approved of the Lectures on Faith.

In, I believe 1921, when they were removed, one reason for their removal that was stated was that they were never accepted as doctrine by the Church and that is why they were being removed, however, this claim is/was demonstrably false. It is one of those "strange" things that have occurred in the history of the Church because those who were making the claims at the time knew that they were revising history after the fact and that their claim didn't match recorded historical documents.

Below is a link to the record of the "General Assembly" of the Church in 1835 where the Lectures were unanimously voted as scripture: http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... s-1835/263

Notice also how representatives from each quorum of the Church affirmed and confirmed that the scriptures being presented to them (the 1835 edition of D&C which included the Lectures) were true and from God: http://www.centerplace.org/hs/dc/rdcintro.htm

In summary, Joseph Smith said that they were from God and that they were doctrine along with those who also were involved in the work. The General Assembly of the Church approved by unanimous vote that they were doctrine. Not only that, but representatives from each individual quorum, unanimously approved that they were doctrine. Then, in 1921, a committee of four individuals erroneously declare that they were never accepted as doctrine by the Church.

-Finrock

That's interesting information you have posted. Thank you for your side of the story.

[Jesef]

BRM was wrong about a lot of things. My observation is that the LoF have led a lot of people into spiritual fanaticism - unhealthily and detrimentally "seeking with all their might" to sacrifice "all" to become "the chosen." And they've ended up destroying their marriages and families and offering to sacrifice their children (to be like Abraham) and following unverified disembodied voices that they believe are the Lord's. Lots of crazy stuff. LoF: Guide to Spiritual Fanatical Mormonism/Restorationism. No wonder guys like Denver Snuffer tout them so heavily. You should give up your membership as the ultimate "sacrifice" to prove your worthiness. I know that's not your point, Finrock, but I'm just saying, it's a real observation. There's some good nuggets in the LoF, too - just like the scriptures. Just my opinion.

[Finrock]

My observation is that the LoF have led a lot of people into spiritual fanaticism - unhealthily and detrimentally "seeking with all their might" to sacrifice "all" to become "the chosen."

The very same can be said of any book of scripture. That tells me the issue isn't scripture, but people and their beliefs.

-Finrock

[Jesef]

True to some extent, but my point is that the LoF focuses heavily on this "sacrifice of all" to become "chosen" and to "know" you're saved concept, more than any other "scripture". It is used by all the LDS/Mormon/Restoration spinoff groups as a guidebook and a justification for their fanaticism and elitism. And it's easy to see how/why.

[diligently seeking]

Heeding truth through listening to the Holy Spirit is not without discomfort sometimes... Being pacified always has comfort to it... one liberates the other damns.

[oneClimbs]

True to some extent, but my point is that the LoF focuses heavily on this "sacrifice of all" to become "chosen" and to "know" you're saved concept, more than any other "scripture". It is used by all the LDS/Mormon/Restoration spinoff groups as a guidebook and a justification for their fanaticism and elitism. And it's easy to see how/why.

That is a bit of a misrepresentation of what the Lectures state, particularly #6 which talks about the law of sacrifice. It says that if you do not know that the course you are pursuing in life is agreeable to the Lord's will then you will never have faith sufficient for salvation, which is true. If you are wandering aimlessly in life not really knowing where you are headed, then do you have salvation? How can a man serve a master he does not know?

If someone wants to take that and become a fanatic that is their prerogative. There are plenty of fanatics that use the New Testament as well, keep in mind.

[Finrock]

True to some extent, but my point is that the LoF focuses heavily on this "sacrifice of all" to become "chosen" and to "know" you're saved concept, more than any other "scripture". It is used by all the LDS/Mormon/Restoration spinoff groups as a guidebook and a justification for their fanaticism and elitism. And it's easy to see how/why.

It is indisputable that all scriptures, in general, have been used through-out the ages to support people's fanatical beliefs and "crazy" actions. I don't think the Lectures on Faith have a special status here if they are being used for the same ends. The points you mention are addressed in the Lectures but I disagree that it focuses "heavily" on those points. I think it focuses appropriately on the points that matter.

I will take your word for it that the Lectures are used by all the "spinoff" groups to justify their fanaticism and elitism.

If your point is to demonstrate that the Lectures are not true, then none of your points call in to question the truthfulness of the Lectures.

-Finrock

[Jesef]

It wasn't a misrepresentation (in my view - feel free to disagree, of course), it was a partial representation, which is what summaries usually are - and that summary was germane to the very specific point I was making, which is a demonstrable fact: that fanatical groups (like Snuffer's) are always appealing to the LoF's as justification for their fanaticism and elitism. Only the elite/chosen "few" who are willing to kill their firstborn sons or practice polygamy or leave their families or resign from the Church or climb up a mountain and fast for 40 days are truly worthy of knowing God and being ultimately saved by Him - only the truly dedicated (fanatics) are worthy of salvation/exaltation. I think it's ridiculous. Sure one can read the lectures and glean all kinds of other neat stuff out of them, too - but Lectures 6 & 7 focus heavily on this concept and it's very easy to see how it's encouraged these extremes. I don't think the LoF's are the holy grail of how to live or be accepted by God. And they may also be just plain untrue (as a whole), yes - just more opinion by more fallible guys.

I also might be guilty of some hyperbole like "all splinter groups" - I don't take myself that seriously. But Harmston and TLC, for sure, and Denver Snuffer, for sure - to name two recent examples.

[oneClimbs]

The Lectures on Faith are sometimes presented as some sort of a "stepping stone" doctrine to the full understanding of the restored gospel and that it somehow represents an incomplete understanding of God and the Godhead. However, this is not the case. A careful reading of the Lectures and with inspiration from the Holy Ghost one will see that the Lectures contain the most accurate, most complete, and the most inspired understanding of God and the Godhead known to man and there is nothing in it that contradicts what Joseph Smith taught later or what is found in other scriptures.

Yeah, I agree, the Lectures don't pull any punches and lay out some very clear principles and doctrines straight from scripture and explain how they relate to faith and salvation. That doesn't mean that other scripture is of no value, a man can get nearer to God by abiding by the precepts (moral commandments) than any other book, that is still true.

The lectures seek to identify God's characteristics and attributes, and help one know how to have faith in him which is just one of many things that God has revealed. We believe all that God has revealed, and seek to live by every word that proceeds forth out of his mouth. People get upset that it is no longer part of the "standard works" but not all scripture is in the standard works. The thing is that we have them and that those who wish to study and find value in them can. Can you learn most of the same things from just reading the scriptures? Sure.

I don't think a person's salvation is in jeopardy if they never read them, but do I think they are of value? Well, I wouldn't have purchased www.lecturesonfaith.com and built the website if I didn't think so.

[Arenera]

True to some extent, but my point is that the LoF focuses heavily on this "sacrifice of all" to become "chosen" and to "know" you're saved concept, more than any other "scripture". It is used by all the LDS/Mormon/Restoration spinoff groups as a guidebook and a justification for their fanaticism and elitism. And it's easy to see how/why.

That is a bit of a misrepresentation of what the Lectures state, particularly #6 which talks about the law of sacrifice. It says that if you do not know that the course you are pursuing in life is agreeable to the Lord's will then you will never have faith sufficient for salvation, which is true. If you are wandering aimlessly in life not really knowing where you are headed, then do you have salvation? How can a man serve a master he does not know?

If someone wants to take that and become a fanatic that is their prerogative. There are plenty of fanatics that use the New Testament as well, keep in mind.

I agree with Jesef, I know some people who resigned from the church as their symbol of sacrifice.

[oneClimbs]

It wasn't a misrepresentation (in my view - feel free to disagree, of course), it was a partial representation, which is what summaries usually are - and that summary was germane to the very specific point I was making, which is a demonstrable fact: that fanatical groups (like Snuffer's) are always appealing to the LoF's as justification for their fanaticism and elitism. Only the elite/chosen "few" who are willing to kill their firstborn sons or practice polygamy or leave their families or resign from the Church or climb up a mountain and fast for 40 days are truly worthy of knowing God and being ultimately saved by Him - only the truly dedicated (fanatics) are worthy of salvation/exaltation. I think it's ridiculous. Sure one can read the lectures and glean all kinds of other neat stuff out of them, too - but Lectures 6 & 7 focus heavily on this concept and it's very easy to see how it's encourage these extremes. I don't think the LoF's are the holy grail of how to live or be accepted by God. And they may also be just plain untrue (as a whole), yes - just more opinion by more fallible guys.

I also might be guilty of some hyperbole like "all splinter groups" - I don't take myself that seriously. But Harmston and TLC, for sure, and Denver Snuffer, for sure - to name two recent examples.

Just because a fanatical person uses a particular tool doesn't make the tool bad. Lectures 6 and 7 focus on the law of sacrifice and the effects of faith. Can you name any teachings in those two lectures that are untrue or are not in step with the scriptures. I'm just a regular 'ol member of the church too, and my firstborn is still alive and well. I don't think the lectures are the holy grail and I don't know that any reasonable people that read them think that either. People do like them though, and I can see why, they teach beautiful things and are a treasure in their own right, part of the restoration's heritage. Deseret Book even offers them as one of the 9 free books they provide when you download their app.

If there is fear of untruth in them, please identify any suspected untruths. They quote heavily from the Bible as the basis of each premise provided though so keep that in mind.

[oneClimbs]

True to some extent, but my point is that the LoF focuses heavily on this "sacrifice of all" to become "chosen" and to "know" you're saved concept, more than any other "scripture". It is used by all the LDS/Mormon/Restoration spinoff groups as a guidebook and a justification for their fanaticism and elitism. And it's easy to see how/why.

That is a bit of a misrepresentation of what the Lectures state, particularly #6 which talks about the law of sacrifice. It says that if you do not know that the course you are pursuing in life is agreeable to the Lord's will then you will never have faith sufficient for salvation, which is true. If you are wandering aimlessly in life not really knowing where you are headed, then do you have salvation? How can a man serve a master he does not know?

If someone wants to take that and become a fanatic that is their prerogative. There are plenty of fanatics that use the New Testament as well, keep in mind.

I agree with Jesef, I know some people who resigned from the church as their symbol of sacrifice.

A bishop in my stake got a group of people together and they used seer stones and wore their endowment attire to form their own little cult within the ward. Many people were excommunicated. This happens with all religions, just think of Islam. A particular group takes up a set of teachings and builds their own ideological superstructure around them. It's those ideologies, those philosophies of men mingled with scripture that are to blame. Denver Snuffer bases much of his movement on D&C 124 and the idea that the Nauvoo Temple wasn't finished, the church received curses (which it did) and they were rejected as a people. So should we neglect the Doctrine and Covenants? This is the same line of thinking being pursued here. The Lectures did not create the splinter groups, they created themselves and are using not only the Lectures but the Book of Mormon, D&C, Bible, etc. to their own ends.

[oneClimbs]

Another point, our modern apostles still quote from the lectures in their General Conference addresses and in the books they write. I think most members of the church would be acquainted with this quote:

"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;"

That is Lecture 6 verse 7 and it's quoted all the time: https://www.lds.org/search?domains=gene ... +things%22. That's from the section on the law of sacrifice that is apparently causing so many apostates. I think that many members would be very familiar with the lectures because they are quoted often by modern leaders.

[Finrock]

It wasn't a misrepresentation (in my view - feel free to disagree, of course), it was a partial representation, which is what summaries usually are - and that summary was germane to the very specific point I was making, which is a demonstrable fact: that fanatical groups (like Snuffer's) are always appealing to the LoF's as justification for their fanaticism and elitism. Only the elite/chosen "few" who are willing to kill their firstborn sons or practice polygamy or leave their families or resign from the Church or climb up a mountain and fast for 40 days are truly worthy of knowing God and being ultimately saved by Him - only the truly dedicated (fanatics) are worthy of salvation/exaltation. I think it's ridiculous. Sure one can read the lectures and glean all kinds of other neat stuff out of them, too - but Lectures 6 & 7 focus heavily on this concept and it's very easy to see how it's encouraged these extremes. I don't think the LoF's are the holy grail of how to live or be accepted by God. And they may also be just plain untrue (as a whole), yes - just more opinion by more fallible guys.

I also might be guilty of some hyperbole like "all splinter groups" - I don't take myself that seriously. But Harmston and TLC, for sure, and Denver Snuffer, for sure - to name two recent examples.

I can agree that people have read the Lectures and have made such conclusions as what you are saying. If your point was to just point out this fact, then, OK. I think you can establish that some people use the Lectures to support fanatical beliefs and actions. But, none of that speaks to the Lectures themselves.

The scriptures have been used to justify, among other things: self-mutilation, murder, abuse of children, abuse of spouse, slavery, genocide, animal abuse, and extreme behavior and beliefs of all sorts. That people belief and do ridiculous things using scripture as their excuse does not mean that the scriptures themselves are not true or that they support such ideas.

I disagree with your understanding of Lecture 6 and 7. I also disagree that the Lectures encourage "extreme" behavior any more than other scriptures encourage "extreme" behavior. Not to mention that extreme is relative.

-Finrock