LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

[diligently seeking]

So yes you believe Sidney knew God had a body at the time he wrote the lectures?

I don't know, let's assume he did.

Why would he or Joseph or anyone who helped with the lectures be it writing, compiling, or editing include something to allude that God was a spirit when they knew this was not true?

The challenge comes from new members being confused, or anti mormons using it for propaganda. I think the latter being the main reason for removal.

I think some, thinking JS wrote it, found adventure in figuring out the puzzle spending months and years.

I know some people have twisted off on L6 trying to find their great sacrifice.

I don’t see a gem to hang a hat on. I do see gems in the Book of Mormon.

Arenera, you speak of the worry of confusion...
I tell you with a high degree of certainty that confusion levels about a great deal of many important truths are at an alarming rate among church members.

Example: at my part time job I am working with four prospective missionaries. All these 17 year olds are wide-eyed excited about being a "missionary" all of them are confused by what it means to be born of God / converted. The more I teach them (I tell you in humility) the more the spirit envelops them and their countenances shine with joy... These Seminary attending church attending kids on their own have asked me why these truths are not clearly taught...

Those are tough heart hurting questions. Questions that I don't fully answer for them. The answer to their questions and the queestions on why the removal / diminishment of the lectures on faith have similar root cause and affect explanations.

[Arenera]

I think I understand your position now. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


You believe that the LOF were good for learning at the time given, but have served their purpose. That the things written there cause more problems than they solve to our modern sensibilities. That the doctrine in the LOF is more clear and simple in the Book of Mormon and so the BOM should be our source of study.

Do you consider it to be a general principle to study the Standard Works, especially the BOM, which contain the fullness of the Gospel instead of trying to find the same truths in these more dated and/or confusing documents?

The scriptures are dated, so it’s not that. What is the gems or gem that the LoF give? I’ve explained 2 items of confusion, L5 godhead and L6 sacrifice.

[Arenera]

I don't know, let's assume he did.

Why would he or Joseph or anyone who helped with the lectures be it writing, compiling, or editing include something to allude that God was a spirit when they knew this was not true?

The challenge comes from new members being confused, or anti mormons using it for propaganda. I think the latter being the main reason for removal.

I think some, thinking JS wrote it, found adventure in figuring out the puzzle spending months and years.

I know some people have twisted off on L6 trying to find their great sacrifice.

I don’t see a gem to hang a hat on. I do see gems in the Book of Mormon.

Arenera, you speak of the worry of confusion...
I tell you with a high degree of certainty that confusion levels about a great deal of many important truths are at an alarming rate among church members.

Example: at my part time job I am working with four prospective missionaries. All these 17 year olds are wide-eyed excited about being a "missionary" all of them are confused by what it means to be born of God / converted. The more I teach them (I tell you in humility) the more the spirit envelops them and their countenances shine with joy... These Seminary attending church attending kids on their own have asked me why these truths are not clearly taught...

Those are tough heart hurting questions. Questions that I don't fully answer for them. The answer to their questions and the queestions on why the removal / diminishment of the lectures on faith have similar root cause and affect explanations.

What is in the LoF that helps vs the Book of Mormon?

[diligently seeking]

LoF gives illuminating clarity on how to more fully understand D&C 84 / lifting the condemnation for taking lightly the gem of all books the BofM!

[Arenera]

LoF gives illuminating clarity on how to more fully understand D&C 84 / lifting the condemnation for taking lightly the gem of all books the BofM!

Which parts of LoF?

[diligently seeking]

LoF gives illuminating clarity on how to more fully understand D&C 84 / lifting the condemnation for taking lightly the gem of all books the BofM!

Which parts of LoF?

Alright sister Aranera---you are a sister? Just now getting off said part time job. Let's see how do I answer this ---I think to understand where in the lectures on faith you can be so " illuminated"--- we need to first understand the purpose of the Book of Mormon. It is to bring us to Christ. As you read the lectures on faith you're given a pretty clear understanding how to proceed forward in faith to receive and be received by Jesus Christ / second comforter.

To be born of God receive one's calling and election and be received by Jesus in the flesh this is the Book of Mormon message. I have the four fellas I'm working with on the "KB7 challenge." It is vitally important that we're healed and converted through Jesus Christ. This is the opportunity to transcend membership status become actual Saints through the atonement of Jesus Christ. I got the boys reading King Benjamin sermon seven consecutive days. The challenge I offered them is to move forward with real intent to understand and see and desire and pray for the conversion that is shown so beautifully in KB's sermon. How blessed we are to have the Book of Mormon that shows us so clearly what conversion looks like and how to move forward to receive a greater portion of God's word to part the veil and be received by Jesus Christ how very lucky and blessed we are to have the lectures on faith that drills down a little more succinctly on achieving this objective. Condemnation get the hence is our goal and aim...

[Arenera]

LoF gives illuminating clarity on how to more fully understand D&C 84 / lifting the condemnation for taking lightly the gem of all books the BofM!

Which parts of LoF?

Alright sister Aranera---you are a sister? Just now getting off said part time job. Let's see how do I answer this ---I think to understand where in the lectures on faith you can be so " illuminated"--- we need to first understand the purpose of the Book of Mormon. It is to bring us to Christ. As you read the lectures on faith you're given a pretty clear understanding how to proceed forward in faith to receive and be received by Jesus Christ / second comforter.

To be born of God receive one's calling and election and be received by Jesus in the flesh this is the Book of Mormon message. I have the four fellas I'm working with on the "KB7 challenge." It is vitally important that we're healed and converted through Jesus Christ. This is the opportunity to transcend membership status become actual Saints through the atonement of Jesus Christ. I got the boys reading King Benjamin sermon seven consecutive days. The challenge I offered them is to move forward with real intent to understand and see and desire and pray for the conversion that is shown so beautifully in KB's sermon. How blessed we are to have the Book of Mormon that shows us so clearly what conversion looks like and how to move forward to receive a greater portion of God's word to part the veil and be received by Jesus Christ how very lucky and blessed we are to have the lectures on faith that drills down a little more succinctly on achieving this objective. Condemnation get the hence is our goal and aim...

I like your fulness point from the BOM. Where is this supported in the LoF.

The BOM is loaded with fulness, that is one of my points. I’m trying to understand where that is at in the LoF.

[diligently seeking]

LoF gives illuminating clarity on how to more fully understand D&C 84 / lifting the condemnation for taking lightly the gem of all books the BofM!

Which parts of LoF?

Alright sister Aranera---you are a sister? Just now getting off said part time job. Let's see how do I answer this ---I think to understand where in the lectures on faith you can be so " illuminated"--- we need to first understand the purpose of the Book of Mormon. It is to bring us to Christ. As you read the lectures on faith you're given a pretty clear understanding how to proceed forward in faith to receive and be received by Jesus Christ / second comforter.

To be born of God receive one's calling and election and be received by Jesus in the flesh this is the Book of Mormon message. I have the four fellas I'm working with on the "KB7 challenge." It is vitally important that we're healed and converted through Jesus Christ. This is the opportunity to transcend membership status become actual Saints through the atonement of Jesus Christ. I got the boys reading King Benjamin sermon seven consecutive days. The challenge I offered them is to move forward with real intent to understand and see and desire and pray for the conversion that is shown so beautifully in KB's sermon. How blessed we are to have the Book of Mormon that shows us so clearly what conversion looks like and how to move forward to receive a greater portion of God's word to part the veil and be received by Jesus Christ how very lucky and blessed we are to have the lectures on faith that drills down a little more succinctly on achieving this objective. Condemnation get the hence is our goal and aim...

I like your fulness point from the BOM. Where is this supported in the LoF.

The BOM is loaded with fulness, that is one of my points. I’m trying to understand where that is at in the LoF.

Give it a read a couple 2 or 3 times-- let your efforts and the holy spirit "show you the way"

[Arenera]

Which parts of LoF?

Alright sister Aranera---you are a sister? Just now getting off said part time job. Let's see how do I answer this ---I think to understand where in the lectures on faith you can be so " illuminated"--- we need to first understand the purpose of the Book of Mormon. It is to bring us to Christ. As you read the lectures on faith you're given a pretty clear understanding how to proceed forward in faith to receive and be received by Jesus Christ / second comforter.

To be born of God receive one's calling and election and be received by Jesus in the flesh this is the Book of Mormon message. I have the four fellas I'm working with on the "KB7 challenge." It is vitally important that we're healed and converted through Jesus Christ. This is the opportunity to transcend membership status become actual Saints through the atonement of Jesus Christ. I got the boys reading King Benjamin sermon seven consecutive days. The challenge I offered them is to move forward with real intent to understand and see and desire and pray for the conversion that is shown so beautifully in KB's sermon. How blessed we are to have the Book of Mormon that shows us so clearly what conversion looks like and how to move forward to receive a greater portion of God's word to part the veil and be received by Jesus Christ how very lucky and blessed we are to have the lectures on faith that drills down a little more succinctly on achieving this objective. Condemnation get the hence is our goal and aim...

I like your fulness point from the BOM. Where is this supported in the LoF.

The BOM is loaded with fulness, that is one of my points. I’m trying to understand where that is at in the LoF.

Give it a read a couple 2 or 3 times-- let your efforts and the holy spirit "show you the way"

You guys are not helpful. Ill stick with the BOM.

[diligently seeking]

Alright sister Aranera---you are a sister? Just now getting off said part time job. Let's see how do I answer this ---I think to understand where in the lectures on faith you can be so " illuminated"--- we need to first understand the purpose of the Book of Mormon. It is to bring us to Christ. As you read the lectures on faith you're given a pretty clear understanding how to proceed forward in faith to receive and be received by Jesus Christ / second comforter.

To be born of God receive one's calling and election and be received by Jesus in the flesh this is the Book of Mormon message. I have the four fellas I'm working with on the "KB7 challenge." It is vitally important that we're healed and converted through Jesus Christ. This is the opportunity to transcend membership status become actual Saints through the atonement of Jesus Christ. I got the boys reading King Benjamin sermon seven consecutive days. The challenge I offered them is to move forward with real intent to understand and see and desire and pray for the conversion that is shown so beautifully in KB's sermon. How blessed we are to have the Book of Mormon that shows us so clearly what conversion looks like and how to move forward to receive a greater portion of God's word to part the veil and be received by Jesus Christ how very lucky and blessed we are to have the lectures on faith that drills down a little more succinctly on achieving this objective. Condemnation get the hence is our goal and aim...

I like your fulness point from the BOM. Where is this supported in the LoF.

The BOM is loaded with fulness, that is one of my points. I’m trying to understand where that is at in the LoF.

Give it a read a couple 2 or 3 times-- let your efforts and the holy spirit "show you the way"

You guys are not helpful. Ill stick with the BOM.

Excellent! BofM is more than a sufficient aid in accomplishing objective---- second estate, successfully.

[oneClimbs]

The primary value of the Lectures on Faith is the subject they were created to illuminate: faith. Namely "what it is: Secondly, The object on which it rests; and Thirdly, The effects which flow from it." 1:3-5 A fantastic definition of faith is given: "faith was the principle of action and of power in all intelligent beings, both in heaven and on earth" 7:2

The lectures contain a vast array of scriptures arranged in a manner to illuminate the subject of faith and how it plays a part in one's salvation. Lecture 3 and 4 detail 6 characteristics and 6 attributes of God that are essential to know in order to have faith in him; all this from scripture.

The Godhead issues are not problematic when you consider that the lectures deal with characteristics and attributes and not the corporeal nature of God which D&C 130 specifically addresses. Many people get hung up on the word "personage" as it appears in the Lectures and in D&C 130. We know that the word "cleave" has dual and opposing meanings; it means to cut and also to bind together. Kind of confusing. The word "personage" has three meanings though (via 1828 Webster's Dictionary):

1. Exterior appearance (D&C 130)
2. Character assumed. (Lecture 5)
3. Character represented. (Lecture 5)

The Lectures talk about the Father being a personage of Spirit. Take a look at the following excerpts and notice how the word Spirit and Mind (capitalized even) are used synonymously. Verse 1 starts off saying "The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power..." but then read the following:

"...the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father" (Lecture 5:2) and we see this language being repeated again shortly thereafter: "being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father"

We see at first those same words repeated "spirit, glory, and power" followed by "Mind, glory, and power" which is then stated again as "Spirit, glory, and power." The words Mind and Spirit and then juxtaposed once more.

Since the words are synonymous, what could it mean by the Father being a personage of Mind just as a personage of Spirit. If we are not talking about exterior appearance here and character represented instead, then this seems to make more sense and open up some new understanding about the nature of God. God is a personage of spirit, in the context of the Lectures.

If we understand the Holy Spirit character as representing the Mind of God and even go so far as to use that as a synonymous title, some really interesting things happen. Take a look at this definition for repentance in the Bible dictionary:

"The Greek word of which this is the translation denotes a change of mind, a fresh view about God, about oneself, and about the world."

Now this definition for prayer in the Bible dictionary:

"We pray in Christ’s name when our mind is the mind of Christ, and our wishes the wishes of Christ—when His words abide in us (John 15:7). We then ask for things it is possible for God to grant. Many prayers remain unanswered because they are not in Christ’s name at all; they in no way represent His mind but spring out of the selfishness of man’s heart."

In Philippians 2:5, Paul stated “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:”

Now think of the confirmation ordinance and let's title swap in one key spot: "...and say unto you, receive the Mind of God..."

Without the Lectures, I wouldn't have been able to piece those things together.

Lecture 6 teaches the law of sacrifice perhaps better than anywhere else in scripture. Reading it has brought humility to my mind and a soberness to my approach to Deity. It pulls no punches and speaks truth to the modern reader. Lecture 7 is a fantastic discourse on the effects of faith which goes right alongside Hebrews 11 and Ether 12.

I love any collection of words that are full of light. I don't care what the title of the work is or if it is called scripture or not, truth is truth. The Lectures testify of the scriptures and show how they all speak with one voice on the subject of faith in God. I don't care who wrote them, whoever did was inspired and their work was good enough to influence the school of the prophets. It was considered scripture for nearly a century and while I think we would benefit more from having it the doctrine back in the D&C, it's still available. Deseret Book offers it as one of their nine free books you get with their app. They still publish physical copies and you can read it for free online. I'm a bit biased but I still think the best site is mine: http://lecturesonfaith.com.

Some people don't find value in the lectures. That's fine. Personally, the Book of Mormon is my favorite go-to read, my second is the Lectures, third is the Book of Isaiah, fourth the New Testament, D&C, and Old Testament as a whole. The ordering can change from time to time but that represents fairly typically the last decade of my life.

The Lectures do a fantastic job at detailing the doctrine behind the first principle of the gospel. That is their primary purpose. The Book of Mormon is a far more complex text and stands in a category all its own. It's like having a chainsaw and a screwdriver in your toolbox. One is certainly more powerful of a tool, but they both have their uses and they both work well in what they were designed for.

The Lectures are not confusing, our minds are just littered with premises and assumptions that we seek to force into everything we encounter. It's one reason why people struggle with Isaiah so much. Why not let each work fulfill its purpose and appreciate it for what it is instead of pitting one up against another?

[diligently seeking]

Well said brother. It is true that if something written etc is God's word-- layers of truth found within his Word will help point the direction to the desired for culminating blessing(s). In other words--- If a person wants to through the illumination of the spirit better desire how to part the veil-- and be received by Jesus-- these beautiful unfolding aspects that spring forth from a better understanding and applacation of faith in the LoF will prove to at some point--- help deliver desired for blessings along the way.

[marc]

5tev3, that was beautifully put. I appreciate that you can see more than a singular of the integrated attributes of the Father (as well as the Son), whereas others myopically miss the others only seeing the one. Your site is one I frequently visit to read and to which I refer frequently. Thank you for taking the time to publish it freely. If I may add to what the LoF provides that the BoM doesn't is it's conciseness. If the BoM is packed with dense nutrition worthy of feasting upon the words of Lord, I consider the LoF to be super concentrated void of any dilution. I have read the BoM well over 100 times, though it has taken me as many to learn what I know today whereas with the LoF, I have read it less than a dozen to glean the same. The LoF "excites" my mind as much as the Spirit "quickens" my body to come unto Jesus and to rend the veil and to know the Lord.

The LoF explicitly teaches what the BoM generally implies, with Ether 4 being the closest to explicitly declare it (though not explicitly how).

LoF 2:55 Let us here observe, that after any portion of the human family are made acquainted with the important fact that there is a God who has created and does uphold all things, the extent of their knowledge, respecting his character and glory, will depend upon their diligence and faithfulness in seeking after him, until like Enoch, the brother of Jared, and Moses, they shall obtain faith in God, and power with him to behold him face to face.

Question 146: How do men obtain a knowledge of the glory of God, his perfections and attributes?

Answer: By devoting themselves to his service, through prayer and supplication incessantly, strengthening their faith in him, until like Enoch, the brother of Jared, and Moses, they obtain a manifestation of God to themselves.

Ether 4 simply declares one must have the faith as the brother of Jared while the Lectures on Faith describes extensively the Faith exhibited by the brother of Jared to gain said knowledge.

[oneClimbs]

If I may add to what the LoF provides that the BoM doesn't is it's conciseness. If the BoM is packed with dense nutrition worthy of feasting upon the words of Lord, I consider the LoF to be super concentrated void of any dilution.

Well said, marc, especially in terms of the principle of faith as it pertains to salvation. If there is value in a conference talk or even a great sacrament meeting talk on a particular subject, then there is value in a course that Joseph Smith asked to be created, then used, then published originally as "The doctrine of the church" and to which Joseph Smith signed his name to the words: "The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work." Furthermore, this:

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."

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... N03_73.pdf

We demand a "canon" a fixed, closed, collection of what God has said, while out of the other side of our mouths we preach continuing revelation. The Nephites loved scripture but they loved the word of God more and were not obsessed about canonizing and de-canonizing and such. Note what Jacob had to say:

"And if there were preaching which was sacred, or revelation which was great, or prophesying, that I should engraven the heads of them upon these plates, and touch upon them as much as it were possible, for Christ’s sake, and for the sake of our people." Jacob 1:4

They valued everything that came from God. I think it is fine that we have "Standard works" and that our community decides together through common consent which words we deem binding as scripture upon the church. Perhaps one of the reasons the Lectures were removed is that they would end up condemning many people on account of their clarity on particular topics. It still puzzles many that they were approved by Joseph, accepted by common consent but then removed without that same consent. Personally, I trust Joseph more than others on this.

[Arenera]

If I may add to what the LoF provides that the BoM doesn't is it's conciseness. If the BoM is packed with dense nutrition worthy of feasting upon the words of Lord, I consider the LoF to be super concentrated void of any dilution.

Well said, marc, especially in terms of the principle of faith as it pertains to salvation. If there is value in a conference talk or even a great sacrament meeting talk on a particular subject, then there is value in a course that Joseph Smith asked to be created, then used, then published originally as "The doctrine of the church" and to which Joseph Smith signed his name to the words: "The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work." Furthermore, this:

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."

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... N03_73.pdf

We demand a "canon" a fixed, closed, collection of what God has said, while out of the other side of our mouths we preach continuing revelation. The Nephites loved scripture but they loved the word of God more and were not obsessed about canonizing and de-canonizing and such. Note what Jacob had to say:

"And if there were preaching which was sacred, or revelation which was great, or prophesying, that I should engraven the heads of them upon these plates, and touch upon them as much as it were possible, for Christ’s sake, and for the sake of our people." Jacob 1:4

They valued everything that came from God. I think it is fine that we have "Standard works" and that our community decides together through common consent which words we deem binding as scripture upon the church. Perhaps one of the reasons the Lectures were removed is that they would end up condemning many people on account of their clarity on particular topics. It still puzzles many that they were approved by Joseph, accepted by common consent but then removed without that same consent. Personally, I trust Joseph more than others on this.

The quotes you are using as if from JS were not written by JS. Noel Reynold's research shows that. Trying to tie Joseph to the LoF is just trying to give credence to them. Elder Talmage and the other apostles didn't remove them because LoF would condemn people. People can't understand them, or they over react on them. In the 1920's a group of people decided that their Abrahamic Sacrifice was sharing their wives with other men. In our day, some remnant people decided their Abrahamic Sacrifice was to resign from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The remnants also mistakenly think Joseph wrote the LoF, so they have included the LoF in their version of scriptures. I haven't seen any positive results from their practices.

Our Prophet today didn't say "Read the LoF", but said to read the Book of Mormon.

[oneClimbs]

The quotes you are using as if from JS were not written by JS. Noel Reynold's research shows that. Trying to tie Joseph to the LoF is just trying to give credence to them. Elder Talmage and the other apostles didn't remove them because LoF would condemn people. People can't understand them, or they over react on them. In the 1920's a group of people decided that their Abrahamic Sacrifice was sharing their wives with other men. In our day, some remnant people decided their Abrahamic Sacrifice was to resign from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The remnants also mistakenly think Joseph wrote the LoF, so they have included the LoF in their version of scriptures. I haven't seen any positive results from their practices.

Our Prophet today didn't say "Read the LoF", but said to read the Book of Mormon.

Nobody is arguing that we shouldn't read the Book of Mormon but by that same argument, we shouldn't read anything else at all then. I think many people are simply pointing out here that the lectures have value. The lectures were used in the school of the prophets and were accepted by the church as a part of the doctrine and covenants and existed there for over 80 years without any president of the church taking issue with them including Joseph Smith. You are correct in noting that members wresting the scriptures prompted their removal but I find that problematic.

There are a number of scriptures that people take out of context and wrest for their own wicked purposes. The Nephites did the same with the scriptures about David and Solomon but did Jacob remove those books of scripture from the brass plates? Look at the problems D&C 132 has and does cause by perpetuating the value of taking many wives. Why haven't we discarded that section or at least removed it from the D&C since it no longer applies? In comparing the lectures to D&C 132, which one is more relevant to the members of the church today?

If we removed any words that people wrested into a corrupt practice we wouldn't have any scriptures left. The principle of sacrifice is true, we still covenant to live it in the temple today and there is nothing in the lectures that suggest that one should take extra wives as their Abrahamic sacrifice.

Many remnant people don't resign because it is a sacrifice, they resign because of D&C 124 and many other reasons that they suppose confirms that Joseph's church drifted into apostasy and they feel that their movements are a restoration of that. To pin the lectures as a key influence of this is not accurate.

[Arenera]

Preach My Gospel - The nature of God the Father and Jesus Christ

God Is Our Loving Heavenly Father
God is our Heavenly Father. We are His children. He has a body of flesh and bone that is glorified and perfected. He loves us. He weeps with us when we suffer and rejoices when we do what is right. He wants to communicate with us, and we can communicate with Him through sincere prayer.

1 Nephi 17:36 Behold, the Lord hath created the earth that it should be inhabited; and he hath created his children that they should possess it.

2 Nephi 9:6 For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord.

Mosiah 4:9 Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.

3 Nephi 12:48 Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.

3 Nephi 14:9 Or what man is there of you, who, if his son ask bread, will give him a stone?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

3 Nephi 27:13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.
14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—
15 And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.
16 And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.
17 And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father.
18 And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.
19 And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.
20 Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.
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;
22 Therefore, if ye do these things blessed are ye, for ye shall be lifted up at the last day.

D&C 38:1 Thus saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I Am, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the same which looked upon the wide expanse of eternity, and all the seraphic hosts of heaven, before the world was made;
2 The same which knoweth all things, for all things are present before mine eyes;
3 I am the same which spake, and the world was made, and all things came by me.

D&C 130:22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

Moses 1:39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

John 3:16 ¶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Acts 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Hebrews 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

[marc]

Those are beautiful passages, Arenera. Whatever scriptures/revelations excite your mind to inquire after the Lord and to humbly approach Him and rend that "veil of unbelief" (Ether 4) are all worthwhile. Our journeys are as individual as we are. The desired result is what matters:

Moroini 7:3 Wherefore, I would speak unto you that are of the church, that are the peaceable followers of Christ, and that have obtained a sufficient hope by which ye can enter into the rest of the Lord, from this time henceforth until ye shall rest with him in heaven.

This "rest" is the fullness of the gospel.

[Jesef]

Whatever Joseph Smith said, and D&C 130:22-23 comes from this Willard Richard's JS Journal entry, not a revelation, i.e. it is a single, isolated, reported note that later became codified and expanded by BY into D&C 130 - there's a really good BYU Studies published article on the history of D&C 130:22 here, https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/text ... holy-ghost - here's the Joseph Smith Papers Project quote of the original journal entry:

2 April 1843 • Sunday
again revertd to Elders Hyde mistake. &c the Father has a body of flesh & bones as tangible as mans the Son also, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit.— and a person cannot have the personage <of the H G. [Holy Ghost]> in his heart he may recive the gift of the holy Ghost. it may descend upon him but not to tarry with him.—
the Son also, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit.— and a person cannot have the personage <of the H G. [Holy Ghost]> in his heart he may recive the gift of the holy Ghost. it may descend upon him but not to tarry with him.—

Anyway, whatever may have been originally said or intended, can we really claim to understand the multi-dimensional nature of such a "resurrected" body? A body that, on the physical dimension/plane/reality could stand in the center of a superstar or in a black hole. And can move and/or coexist in several other higher realities/dimensions/planes - at least 7 or 8 according to other long-standing religious traditions, and 11 or 12 if you believe what mathematics predicts (11 or 12 dimensions). My point is: why argue over such rudimentary understanding which amounts to theoretical semantics? "Body", "spirit", "flesh and bone" - so many possibilities really if you use your imagination. This one statement (in bold) is not the end-all, be-all of doctrinal understanding about the nature and locality of a being's existence, etc.

[oneClimbs]

Whatever Joseph Smith said, and D&C 130:22-23 comes from this Willard Richard's JS Journal entry, not a revelation, i.e. it is a single, isolated, reported note that later became codified and expanded by BY into D&C 130 - there's a really good BYU Studies published article on the history of D&C 130:22 here, https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/text ... holy-ghost - here's the Joseph Smith Papers Project quote of the original journal entry:

2 April 1843 • Sunday
again revertd to Elders Hyde mistake. &c the Father has a body of flesh & bones as tangible as mans the Son also, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit.— and a person cannot have the personage <of the H G. [Holy Ghost]> in his heart he may recive the gift of the holy Ghost. it may descend upon him but not to tarry with him.—
the Son also, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit.— and a person cannot have the personage <of the H G. [Holy Ghost]> in his heart he may recive the gift of the holy Ghost. it may descend upon him but not to tarry with him.—

Anyway, whatever may have been originally said or intended, can we really claim to understand the multi-dimensional nature of such a "resurrected" body? A body that, on the physical dimension/plane/reality could stand in the center of a superstar or in a black hole. And can move and/or coexist in several other higher realities/dimensions/planes - at least 7 or 8 according to other long-standing religious traditions, and 11 or 12 if you believe what mathematics predicts (11 or 12 dimensions). My point is: why argue over such rudimentary understanding which amounts to theoretical semantics? "Body", "spirit", "flesh and bone" - so many possibilities really if you use your imagination. This one statement (in bold) is not the end-all, be-all of doctrinal understanding about the nature and locality of a being's existence, etc.

Again, the word "personage" can describe both "physical appearance" as well as "character represented" and I think it is clear that the word "personage" as it appears in the lectures speak to the character of God instead of addressing the corporeal nature of the Godhead like D&C 130 does, I don't think it needs discrediting because the two are talking about the Godhead in different contexts.

I think the key piece of evidence here is not only the text of lecture 5 in that context but lectures 3 and 4 that specifically address the character and attributes of God specifically before moving on to then describe the characteristics of the Godhead. Nowhere in the lectures is the corporeal nature of the Godhead addressed even in saying that the Son is a personage of "tabernacle" which means "tent or temporary habitation" since he is the only one that has indeed temporarily lived on this earth and was formed after the "likeness of man" but is also in the "express image and likeness of the personage of the Father" personage referring to the same "spirit, glory, and power" as the Father.

Personage doesn't have to describe physical appearance like I've said before. Personage can also mean "being" and if you swap out the word "being" in the lectures for "personage" it clarifies things. For example:

"There are two BEINGS who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things..."

"The Father being a BEING of spirit, glory and power..."

"The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a BEING of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, ... he is also the express image and likeness of the BEING of the Father:" (The word "image" can mean physical but it can also mean "A representation or similitude of any person or thing")

The catechism at the end of the lecture provides some more clues. Question 5 asks the question of who the Father is and the answer says this:

Question 5: What is the Father?
He is a personage of glory and of power.

Note that the word "spirit" is missing here. Question 6 addresses his glory and power but never mentions anything about his physical nature. Instead, it speaks about what he does.

Question 7 asks who the Son is and the answer mentions tabernacle again:

Question 7: What is the Son?
First, he is a personage of tabernacle. (5:2)

The answer goes on to explain "Secondly, and being a personage of tabernacle, was made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man."

Finally, it explains that "Thirdly, he is also in the likeness of the personage of the Father." but is this a reference to his corporeal nature? Questions 13-16 talk about how they are one and have this likeness because they possess the same MIND, not because they look alike and have the same body. No, the implications are much, much deeper here and too many miss this. Question 13 succinctly puts it: "Do the Father and the Son possess the same mind? They do."

Again, like I've mentioned before, originally the Father is said to be a personage of "spirit, glory and power" but then this is clarified later on when it says "the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father..."

Spirit and Mind are interchangeable in the context of this lecture and the questions confirm that Christ is the likeness of the personage of the Father on the account of them both possessing the same Mind which we can as well through the ministration of the Holy Ghost.

Thus lecture 5 is NOT saying that God has a spirit body only, that is not said anywhere. If you examine the whole thing in context you will see what it is actually saying. Yes, the mortality of Christ is addressed as part of his mortal mission, but this lecture seeks to examine their character to the degree that one may have faith in them and what the benefits are.

D&C 130 offers a response that is specifically answering a question about the physical nature of the members of the Godhead. That is a completely different purpose than what the lectures have in mind. All the questions at the end of this very short lecture are peppered with scripture quotes and references that demonstrate the character of God without any attempt to prove what their bodies are made of.

Many people come to lecture 5 with D&C 130:22 fixed in their minds because they memorized it in seminary and approach the text from that context. It's simply the wrong context and assumes an incorrect premise which is why people don't understand what it is saying and think they see a contradiction. Look, it took me a long time to figure this out and wrap my mind around it. If I had been raised with the lectures and understood what they were saying, I may not have struggled with it so much, but as soon as I let go of the D&C 130:22 premise, it all started making sense.

[AI2.0]

There have been some very insightful comments on this thread, thanks.

The Lectures on Faith were written for a purpose and while it was most likely a corroborative effort and very early on in the beginnings of the Church, they were used and approved at the time by Joseph Smith jr. If the part about God being a 'personage of spirit' was meant to say that God did not have a glorified resurrected body of flesh and bone, wouldn't we expect Joseph to have fixed the mistake before publishing? Also, the absence of mentioning the Holy Ghost--if that meant that the Holy Ghost is not a member of the Godhead--wouldn't Joseph (who read and taught from the LonF) have fixed the mistake? Because the fact that we, as a church, teach that God has a body and the Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead, is because that is what Joseph Smith taught.

Therefore, since Joseph never took those things out of the LonF before publishing, the answer is that they should be interpreted within the framework of LDS doctrine, which Joseph Smith taught, because he never would have left them in if they were wrong--if they were Sidney Rigdon's false beliefs creeping in to the writings--as some have tried to claim. So, I don't think that we can blame this on Sidney Rigdon.

I think taking the Lectures on Faith out of the bound Standard works was a wise decision (and if it was done in 1921, that would have been Pres. Heber J. Grant, not Jos. F. Smith who died in 1918)--personally, I think that the Lectures on Faith (the very nature of how they came to be makes this clear) were never supposed to be considered on the same level as the D&C, BofM and PofGP, but because they were bound with the others, they were given the same status by some members. I think we would be wise to consider them as we do the Apochrypha. They are well worth reading, and valuable truths can be found if read with the Spirit to teach and inspire, but they are not part of the canon.

We've been urged and counseled to study and ponder the Book of Mormon, but we have NEVER been counseled to ignore all other scripture--it would be a poor decision to not read any other scripture, we miss out on more opportunity to be taught by the spirit and to help others as well. We are also counseled by the Lord to seek out of the 'best books'--I'm certain that this would include the Lectures on Faith, so telling others not to read it is poor advice.

Also, it's not the book's fault if some people misunderstand the teachings and think they should give up their church membership in order to sacrifice what is most precious. A person who thinks that is, IMO, not in their right mind. This same kind of person could believe that they have to sacrifice their children or their husband/wife as well--and that goes against everything else that matters in life (as per our Heavenly Father) and shows an unstable clouded mind.

[Arenera]

There have been some very insightful comments on this thread, thanks.

The Lectures on Faith were written for a purpose and while it was most likely a corroborative effort and very early on in the beginnings of the Church, they were used and approved at the time by Joseph Smith jr. If the part about God being a 'personage of spirit' was meant to say that God did not have a glorified resurrected body of flesh and bone, wouldn't we expect Joseph to have fixed the mistake before publishing? Also, the absence of mentioning the Holy Ghost--if that meant that the Holy Ghost is not a member of the Godhead--wouldn't Joseph (who read and taught from the LonF) have fixed the mistake? Because the fact that we, as a church, teach that God has a body and the Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead, is because that is what Joseph Smith taught.

Therefore, since Joseph never took those things out of the LonF before publishing, the answer is that they should be interpreted within the framework of LDS doctrine, which Joseph Smith taught, because he never would have left them in if they were wrong--if they were Sidney Rigdon's false beliefs creeping in to the writings--as some have tried to claim. So, I don't think that we can blame this on Sidney Rigdon.

I think taking the Lectures on Faith out of the bound Standard works was a wise decision (and if it was done in 1921, that would have been Pres. Heber J. Grant, not Jos. F. Smith who died in 1918)--personally, I think that the Lectures on Faith (the very nature of how they came to be makes this clear) were never supposed to be considered on the same level as the D&C, BofM and PofGP, but because they were bound with the others, they were given the same status by some members. I think we would be wise to consider them as we do the Apochrypha. They are well worth reading, and valuable truths can be found if read with the Spirit to teach and inspire, but they are not part of the canon.

We've been urged and counseled to study and ponder the Book of Mormon, but we have NEVER been counseled to ignore all other scripture--it would be a poor decision to not read any other scripture, we miss out on more opportunity to be taught by the spirit and to help others as well. We are also counseled by the Lord to seek out of the 'best books'--I'm certain that this would include the Lectures on Faith, so telling others not to read it is poor advice.

Also, it's not the book's fault if some people misunderstand the teachings and think they should give up their church membership in order to sacrifice what is most precious. A person who thinks that is, IMO, not in their right mind. This same kind of person could believe that they have to sacrifice their children or their husband/wife as well--and that goes against everything else that matters in life (as per our Heavenly Father) and shows an unstable clouded mind.

People can write what they like as the meaning of the LoF. The LoF were study guides/helps, much like our Teachings of the Presidents manuals.

Beware, however, some people do extreme misguided devotion. We have seen that of recent times with some remnants.

The following story, which unfolded from April 1920 and was still ongoing during the committee’s work, suggests an additional factor that might have influenced this decision.

On 17 April 1920, Elder Talmage took a train to Eureka, Utah, with the intent of investigating alleged activities by a group of “separatists.” The next day, he wrote in his journal:

I had occasion to investigate the alleged organization of a body of people who are said to have claimed that the time had arrived for the establishment of the United Order and that they were the ones to start the movement. I found that the rumors and reports that have reached the First Presidency concerning this matter have been greatly exaggerated. The so-called “movement” is confined to the people belonging to the West Tintic branch, not more than forty families in all, under the supervision of Brother Moses Gudmundsen as presiding Elder. It appears that before the organization of the branch Brother Gudmundsen and a few relatives, together with some other interested people took up a tract of land and tried to establish a system of cooperative farming. Their motives appear to have been good; but others have come in who claim to have received divine manifestations that this marked the beginning of the re-establishment of the United Order and that they were commanded to enter it. Since the organization of the branch, Church rules have been observed so far as I could learn.

Less than two months later, Talmage returned to West Tintic and, along with stake president E. Franklin Birch, interviewed some brethren involved in the movement. Following the interviews, Talmage’s attitude toward the group had reversed: “I am convinced that the evil one is acting upon the minds of certain men and women in this locality, thereby seeking to undermine their faith and confidence in the leadership of the Church.” That July, Talmage returned once again and visited the colony settlement where he found

The rumors afloat, representing this undertaking as the initial step in the establishment of the United Order, appear to have this foundation of fact—that the members claim to be preparing themselves for the United Order, and, in consequence, they live a semi-community life. . . . With-out doubt there are fanatics among them; but in general the people are good at heart, though I believe they have undertaken more than they can carry through.

At this time, Talmage and Elder Charles H. Hart of the First Council of the Seventy decided it would be best to release Moses Gudmundsen as branch president. Talmage said that Gudmundsen, after hearing that this was what they had determined, “very promptly requested his release, which was granted.”

Talmage recorded no more about the West Tintic Branch until 10 February 1921 when he had various consultations regarding “the evil conditions prevailing in the West Tintic branch.” On 20 February, he returned to West Tintic with Elder Rudger Clawson, then acting president of the Quorum of the Twelve, where they were invited to take part in a high council proceeding in which “complaints of wicked and dangerous teachings and practices” by Gudmundsen and others were heard. Talmage writes:

The testimony adduced proved conclusively that these men and other residents of the West Tintic branch had been so far misled as to disregard the sanctity of the marriage obligation, as administered in the Temples, and had adopted a system of “wife-sacrifice,” whereby men were required to give up their wives to other men, and this under a diabolical misinterpretation of Scripture as to the law of sacrifice requiring one to give up all he has, even wife and children.

The trial continued the next day ending with twelve men being excommunicated or disfellowshipped. Additionally, “By further action taken on unanimous vote of the High Council the branch hitherto known as the West Tintic branch of the Tintic Stake of Zion was disorganized. Thus all semblance of Church supervision in the affairs of that unfortunate little group of people has been taken away.”

Reflecting on the trial in his journal, Talmage concludes:

The best I can say of the people is that they have become fanatical through the power of evil. They have made sacrifice their hobby. The eating of meat, the taking of animal life even to provide food, and many other practices common with other people have been forbidden there; while long fasts and particularly the sacrificing of comforts and wholesome desires have been held up as ideals. Now they have reached the abominable status of men sacrificing their wives to other men; and by this means they have put themselves under the laws of Church discipline and have made themselves subject to the punishment provided for by the law of the land. The present state is one of abominable immorality. Some of the women, notably the wife of Moses Gudmundsen . . . withdrew promptly from the colony rather than countenance in any degree these ungodly practices. I believe that the judgment of the High Council in these cases is just; and that others than those already tried are involved.

To my knowledge, the only academic exploration into the West Tintic affair was made by Carlton Culmsee, resulting in his article, “A Modern Moses at West Tintic” published in 1967 by Utah State University Press. Culmsee reviewed the newspaper literature and was able to interview some of those involved in the movement. He writes that “Gudmundsen could argue for hours proving from the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church that revelation was the foundation of religion.” As a result of this emphasis “they felt that they had progressed far beyond the LDS Church and authoritative interpretation of sacred literature.”

Sacrifice became a keynote. Gudmundsen admonished them that they must sacrifice everything—home, family, all. Day in, day out he stressed that they must ‘lay everything on the altar.’ Until they were ready to do this they were not in a condition to receive the promptings of the Spirit. He built much upon the discussion of sacrifice in the Sixth Lecture [on Faith] of the Doctrine and Covenants. Love your fellowmen and sacrifice all.

Culmsee is referencing lecture six, paragraph seven, the origins of an oft-cited passage that reads in part:

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. It is through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life.

Did Talmage’s year-long awareness of these extreme forms of misguided devotion to sections of the Lectures on Faith taking place in West Tintic contribute to his committee’s recommendation that they be removed them from the D&C? It is difficult to draw a direct correlation, but I find it likely. In a 1975 BYU Studies article titled “What of the Lectures on Faith?” Leland H. Gentry suggests something that matches the spirit of this possibility:

Some have wondered why the Lectures on Faith were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants. The answer is not difficult to find. Their inclusion in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants had gained for the lectures a position of honor not likely intended by those who first placed them there. They were study helps, not revelations. When it became apparent that some in the Church were according these doctrinal aids dignity equal to, and sometimes surpassing, that of the revelations themselves, the lectures were removed.

Sunstone, Sep 6, 2013

[diligently seeking]

There have been some very insightful comments on this thread, thanks.

The Lectures on Faith were written for a purpose and while it was most likely a corroborative effort and very early on in the beginnings of the Church, they were used and approved at the time by Joseph Smith jr. If the part about God being a 'personage of spirit' was meant to say that God did not have a glorified resurrected body of flesh and bone, wouldn't we expect Joseph to have fixed the mistake before publishing? Also, the absence of mentioning the Holy Ghost--if that meant that the Holy Ghost is not a member of the Godhead--wouldn't Joseph (who read and taught from the LonF) have fixed the mistake? Because the fact that we, as a church, teach that God has a body and the Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead, is because that is what Joseph Smith taught.

Therefore, since Joseph never took those things out of the LonF before publishing, the answer is that they should be interpreted within the framework of LDS doctrine, which Joseph Smith taught, because he never would have left them in if they were wrong--if they were Sidney Rigdon's false beliefs creeping in to the writings--as some have tried to claim. So, I don't think that we can blame this on Sidney Rigdon.

I think taking the Lectures on Faith out of the bound Standard works was a wise decision (and if it was done in 1921, that would have been Pres. Heber J. Grant, not Jos. F. Smith who died in 1918)--personally, I think that the Lectures on Faith (the very nature of how they came to be makes this clear) were never supposed to be considered on the same level as the D&C, BofM and PofGP, but because they were bound with the others, they were given the same status by some members. I think we would be wise to consider them as we do the Apochrypha. They are well worth reading, and valuable truths can be found if read with the Spirit to teach and inspire, but they are not part of the canon.

We've been urged and counseled to study and ponder the Book of Mormon, but we have NEVER been counseled to ignore all other scripture--it would be a poor decision to not read any other scripture, we miss out on more opportunity to be taught by the spirit and to help others as well. We are also counseled by the Lord to seek out of the 'best books'--I'm certain that this would include the Lectures on Faith, so telling others not to read it is poor advice.

Also, it's not the book's fault if some people misunderstand the teachings and think they should give up their church membership in order to sacrifice what is most precious. A person who thinks that is, IMO, not in their right mind. This same kind of person could believe that they have to sacrifice their children or their husband/wife as well--and that goes against everything else that matters in life (as per our Heavenly Father) and shows an unstable clouded mind.

People can write what they like as the meaning of the LoF. The LoF were study guides/helps, much like our Teachings of the Presidents manuals.

Beware, however, some people do extreme misguided devotion. We have seen that of recent times with some remnants.

The following story, which unfolded from April 1920 and was still ongoing during the committee’s work, suggests an additional factor that might have influenced this decision.

On 17 April 1920, Elder Talmage took a train to Eureka, Utah, with the intent of investigating alleged activities by a group of “separatists.” The next day, he wrote in his journal:

I had occasion to investigate the alleged organization of a body of people who are said to have claimed that the time had arrived for the establishment of the United Order and that they were the ones to start the movement. I found that the rumors and reports that have reached the First Presidency concerning this matter have been greatly exaggerated. The so-called “movement” is confined to the people belonging to the West Tintic branch, not more than forty families in all, under the supervision of Brother Moses Gudmundsen as presiding Elder. It appears that before the organization of the branch Brother Gudmundsen and a few relatives, together with some other interested people took up a tract of land and tried to establish a system of cooperative farming. Their motives appear to have been good; but others have come in who claim to have received divine manifestations that this marked the beginning of the re-establishment of the United Order and that they were commanded to enter it. Since the organization of the branch, Church rules have been observed so far as I could learn.

Less than two months later, Talmage returned to West Tintic and, along with stake president E. Franklin Birch, interviewed some brethren involved in the movement. Following the interviews, Talmage’s attitude toward the group had reversed: “I am convinced that the evil one is acting upon the minds of certain men and women in this locality, thereby seeking to undermine their faith and confidence in the leadership of the Church.” That July, Talmage returned once again and visited the colony settlement where he found

The rumors afloat, representing this undertaking as the initial step in the establishment of the United Order, appear to have this foundation of fact—that the members claim to be preparing themselves for the United Order, and, in consequence, they live a semi-community life. . . . With-out doubt there are fanatics among them; but in general the people are good at heart, though I believe they have undertaken more than they can carry through.

At this time, Talmage and Elder Charles H. Hart of the First Council of the Seventy decided it would be best to release Moses Gudmundsen as branch president. Talmage said that Gudmundsen, after hearing that this was what they had determined, “very promptly requested his release, which was granted.”

Talmage recorded no more about the West Tintic Branch until 10 February 1921 when he had various consultations regarding “the evil conditions prevailing in the West Tintic branch.” On 20 February, he returned to West Tintic with Elder Rudger Clawson, then acting president of the Quorum of the Twelve, where they were invited to take part in a high council proceeding in which “complaints of wicked and dangerous teachings and practices” by Gudmundsen and others were heard. Talmage writes:

The testimony adduced proved conclusively that these men and other residents of the West Tintic branch had been so far misled as to disregard the sanctity of the marriage obligation, as administered in the Temples, and had adopted a system of “wife-sacrifice,” whereby men were required to give up their wives to other men, and this under a diabolical misinterpretation of Scripture as to the law of sacrifice requiring one to give up all he has, even wife and children.

The trial continued the next day ending with twelve men being excommunicated or disfellowshipped. Additionally, “By further action taken on unanimous vote of the High Council the branch hitherto known as the West Tintic branch of the Tintic Stake of Zion was disorganized. Thus all semblance of Church supervision in the affairs of that unfortunate little group of people has been taken away.”

Reflecting on the trial in his journal, Talmage concludes:

The best I can say of the people is that they have become fanatical through the power of evil. They have made sacrifice their hobby. The eating of meat, the taking of animal life even to provide food, and many other practices common with other people have been forbidden there; while long fasts and particularly the sacrificing of comforts and wholesome desires have been held up as ideals. Now they have reached the abominable status of men sacrificing their wives to other men; and by this means they have put themselves under the laws of Church discipline and have made themselves subject to the punishment provided for by the law of the land. The present state is one of abominable immorality. Some of the women, notably the wife of Moses Gudmundsen . . . withdrew promptly from the colony rather than countenance in any degree these ungodly practices. I believe that the judgment of the High Council in these cases is just; and that others than those already tried are involved.

To my knowledge, the only academic exploration into the West Tintic affair was made by Carlton Culmsee, resulting in his article, “A Modern Moses at West Tintic” published in 1967 by Utah State University Press. Culmsee reviewed the newspaper literature and was able to interview some of those involved in the movement. He writes that “Gudmundsen could argue for hours proving from the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church that revelation was the foundation of religion.” As a result of this emphasis “they felt that they had progressed far beyond the LDS Church and authoritative interpretation of sacred literature.”

Sacrifice became a keynote. Gudmundsen admonished them that they must sacrifice everything—home, family, all. Day in, day out he stressed that they must ‘lay everything on the altar.’ Until they were ready to do this they were not in a condition to receive the promptings of the Spirit. He built much upon the discussion of sacrifice in the Sixth Lecture [on Faith] of the Doctrine and Covenants. Love your fellowmen and sacrifice all.

Culmsee is referencing lecture six, paragraph seven, the origins of an oft-cited passage that reads in part:

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. It is through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life.

Did Talmage’s year-long awareness of these extreme forms of misguided devotion to sections of the Lectures on Faith taking place in West Tintic contribute to his committee’s recommendation that they be removed them from the D&C? It is difficult to draw a direct correlation, but I find it likely. In a 1975 BYU Studies article titled “What of the Lectures on Faith?” Leland H. Gentry suggests something that matches the spirit of this possibility:

Some have wondered why the Lectures on Faith were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants. The answer is not difficult to find. Their inclusion in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants had gained for the lectures a position of honor not likely intended by those who first placed them there. They were study helps, not revelations. When it became apparent that some in the Church were according these doctrinal aids dignity equal to, and sometimes surpassing, that of the revelations themselves, the lectures were removed.

Sunstone, Sep 6, 2013

Surely, I ask in all sincerity, back in the day there were luminaries to add / show calm and clear perspective regarding misinterpretations and misapplication of gospel truths found in the lectures on faith like I've seen demonstrated in the here and now from dialed in folks on this forum?

[diligently seeking]

I won't attempt sharing specifics on the hurried unorthodox way in which the lectures on faith were taken from our Canon of scriptures--- I would ask someone on this form who can do a better job at that than me to share those specifics. It is very instructive on many levels to have explained this occurance of when the lectures on faith were taken out in such a haste / unpracticed way...

[Arenera]

There have been some very insightful comments on this thread, thanks.

The Lectures on Faith were written for a purpose and while it was most likely a corroborative effort and very early on in the beginnings of the Church, they were used and approved at the time by Joseph Smith jr. If the part about God being a 'personage of spirit' was meant to say that God did not have a glorified resurrected body of flesh and bone, wouldn't we expect Joseph to have fixed the mistake before publishing? Also, the absence of mentioning the Holy Ghost--if that meant that the Holy Ghost is not a member of the Godhead--wouldn't Joseph (who read and taught from the LonF) have fixed the mistake? Because the fact that we, as a church, teach that God has a body and the Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead, is because that is what Joseph Smith taught.

Therefore, since Joseph never took those things out of the LonF before publishing, the answer is that they should be interpreted within the framework of LDS doctrine, which Joseph Smith taught, because he never would have left them in if they were wrong--if they were Sidney Rigdon's false beliefs creeping in to the writings--as some have tried to claim. So, I don't think that we can blame this on Sidney Rigdon.

I think taking the Lectures on Faith out of the bound Standard works was a wise decision (and if it was done in 1921, that would have been Pres. Heber J. Grant, not Jos. F. Smith who died in 1918)--personally, I think that the Lectures on Faith (the very nature of how they came to be makes this clear) were never supposed to be considered on the same level as the D&C, BofM and PofGP, but because they were bound with the others, they were given the same status by some members. I think we would be wise to consider them as we do the Apochrypha. They are well worth reading, and valuable truths can be found if read with the Spirit to teach and inspire, but they are not part of the canon.

We've been urged and counseled to study and ponder the Book of Mormon, but we have NEVER been counseled to ignore all other scripture--it would be a poor decision to not read any other scripture, we miss out on more opportunity to be taught by the spirit and to help others as well. We are also counseled by the Lord to seek out of the 'best books'--I'm certain that this would include the Lectures on Faith, so telling others not to read it is poor advice.

Also, it's not the book's fault if some people misunderstand the teachings and think they should give up their church membership in order to sacrifice what is most precious. A person who thinks that is, IMO, not in their right mind. This same kind of person could believe that they have to sacrifice their children or their husband/wife as well--and that goes against everything else that matters in life (as per our Heavenly Father) and shows an unstable clouded mind.

People can write what they like as the meaning of the LoF. The LoF were study guides/helps, much like our Teachings of the Presidents manuals.

Beware, however, some people do extreme misguided devotion. We have seen that of recent times with some remnants.

The following story, which unfolded from April 1920 and was still ongoing during the committee’s work, suggests an additional factor that might have influenced this decision.

On 17 April 1920, Elder Talmage took a train to Eureka, Utah, with the intent of investigating alleged activities by a group of “separatists.” The next day, he wrote in his journal:

I had occasion to investigate the alleged organization of a body of people who are said to have claimed that the time had arrived for the establishment of the United Order and that they were the ones to start the movement. I found that the rumors and reports that have reached the First Presidency concerning this matter have been greatly exaggerated. The so-called “movement” is confined to the people belonging to the West Tintic branch, not more than forty families in all, under the supervision of Brother Moses Gudmundsen as presiding Elder. It appears that before the organization of the branch Brother Gudmundsen and a few relatives, together with some other interested people took up a tract of land and tried to establish a system of cooperative farming. Their motives appear to have been good; but others have come in who claim to have received divine manifestations that this marked the beginning of the re-establishment of the United Order and that they were commanded to enter it. Since the organization of the branch, Church rules have been observed so far as I could learn.

Less than two months later, Talmage returned to West Tintic and, along with stake president E. Franklin Birch, interviewed some brethren involved in the movement. Following the interviews, Talmage’s attitude toward the group had reversed: “I am convinced that the evil one is acting upon the minds of certain men and women in this locality, thereby seeking to undermine their faith and confidence in the leadership of the Church.” That July, Talmage returned once again and visited the colony settlement where he found

The rumors afloat, representing this undertaking as the initial step in the establishment of the United Order, appear to have this foundation of fact—that the members claim to be preparing themselves for the United Order, and, in consequence, they live a semi-community life. . . . With-out doubt there are fanatics among them; but in general the people are good at heart, though I believe they have undertaken more than they can carry through.

At this time, Talmage and Elder Charles H. Hart of the First Council of the Seventy decided it would be best to release Moses Gudmundsen as branch president. Talmage said that Gudmundsen, after hearing that this was what they had determined, “very promptly requested his release, which was granted.”

Talmage recorded no more about the West Tintic Branch until 10 February 1921 when he had various consultations regarding “the evil conditions prevailing in the West Tintic branch.” On 20 February, he returned to West Tintic with Elder Rudger Clawson, then acting president of the Quorum of the Twelve, where they were invited to take part in a high council proceeding in which “complaints of wicked and dangerous teachings and practices” by Gudmundsen and others were heard. Talmage writes:

The testimony adduced proved conclusively that these men and other residents of the West Tintic branch had been so far misled as to disregard the sanctity of the marriage obligation, as administered in the Temples, and had adopted a system of “wife-sacrifice,” whereby men were required to give up their wives to other men, and this under a diabolical misinterpretation of Scripture as to the law of sacrifice requiring one to give up all he has, even wife and children.

The trial continued the next day ending with twelve men being excommunicated or disfellowshipped. Additionally, “By further action taken on unanimous vote of the High Council the branch hitherto known as the West Tintic branch of the Tintic Stake of Zion was disorganized. Thus all semblance of Church supervision in the affairs of that unfortunate little group of people has been taken away.”

Reflecting on the trial in his journal, Talmage concludes:

The best I can say of the people is that they have become fanatical through the power of evil. They have made sacrifice their hobby. The eating of meat, the taking of animal life even to provide food, and many other practices common with other people have been forbidden there; while long fasts and particularly the sacrificing of comforts and wholesome desires have been held up as ideals. Now they have reached the abominable status of men sacrificing their wives to other men; and by this means they have put themselves under the laws of Church discipline and have made themselves subject to the punishment provided for by the law of the land. The present state is one of abominable immorality. Some of the women, notably the wife of Moses Gudmundsen . . . withdrew promptly from the colony rather than countenance in any degree these ungodly practices. I believe that the judgment of the High Council in these cases is just; and that others than those already tried are involved.

To my knowledge, the only academic exploration into the West Tintic affair was made by Carlton Culmsee, resulting in his article, “A Modern Moses at West Tintic” published in 1967 by Utah State University Press. Culmsee reviewed the newspaper literature and was able to interview some of those involved in the movement. He writes that “Gudmundsen could argue for hours proving from the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church that revelation was the foundation of religion.” As a result of this emphasis “they felt that they had progressed far beyond the LDS Church and authoritative interpretation of sacred literature.”

Sacrifice became a keynote. Gudmundsen admonished them that they must sacrifice everything—home, family, all. Day in, day out he stressed that they must ‘lay everything on the altar.’ Until they were ready to do this they were not in a condition to receive the promptings of the Spirit. He built much upon the discussion of sacrifice in the Sixth Lecture [on Faith] of the Doctrine and Covenants. Love your fellowmen and sacrifice all.

Culmsee is referencing lecture six, paragraph seven, the origins of an oft-cited passage that reads in part:

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. It is through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life.

Did Talmage’s year-long awareness of these extreme forms of misguided devotion to sections of the Lectures on Faith taking place in West Tintic contribute to his committee’s recommendation that they be removed them from the D&C? It is difficult to draw a direct correlation, but I find it likely. In a 1975 BYU Studies article titled “What of the Lectures on Faith?” Leland H. Gentry suggests something that matches the spirit of this possibility:

Some have wondered why the Lectures on Faith were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants. The answer is not difficult to find. Their inclusion in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants had gained for the lectures a position of honor not likely intended by those who first placed them there. They were study helps, not revelations. When it became apparent that some in the Church were according these doctrinal aids dignity equal to, and sometimes surpassing, that of the revelations themselves, the lectures were removed.

Sunstone, Sep 6, 2013

Surely, I ask in all sincerity, back in the day there were luminaries to add / show calm and clear perspective regarding misinterpretations and misapplication of gospel truths found in the lectures on faith like I've seen demonstrated in the here and now from dialed in folks on this forum?

I won't attempt sharing specifics on the hurried unorthodox way in which the lectures on faith were taken from our Canon of scriptures--- I would ask someone on this form who can do a better job at that than me to share those specifics. It is very instructive on many levels to learn why the lectures on faith were taken out in such a haste / unpracticed way...

First, let me say that I appreciate your saying KB7, and marc bringing up Ether 4. They are symbols to me, just in saying either delivers a great sermon to consider.

Let me answer your last statement on the removal:

In a 1940 interview by John W. Fitzgerald for his BYU master’s thesis, Elder Joseph Fielding Smith gave four reasons for the Lectures’ removal:

1 They were not received as revelations by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

2 They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but are not doctrine.

3 They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. . . .

4 It was thought by . . . members of the committee . . . 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.

Let me add:
a Their inclusion in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants had gained for the lectures a position of honor not likely intended by those who first placed them there.

b They were study helps, not revelations.

c When it became apparent that some in the Church were according these doctrinal aids dignity equal to, and sometimes surpassing, that of the revelations themselves, the lectures were removed.

And for me personally:
1 The Church of Denver Snuffer, also called Remnants, use the removal of the LoF to show the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints went into apostasy.

2 Not using Book of Mormon scriptures.

KB7 and Ether 4 are much better, of course being from scripture. Do you have others?