LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

[oneClimbs]

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...

In case it hasn't already been posted, this article addresses some of the history and background concerning their removal.

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

Joseph Fielding Smith was on the committee to have them removed and offered four specific reasons as to why they removed them, but they are each problematic.

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

There are many other sections in the D&C that are not revelations. The article says, " the Doctrine and Covenants shows that a sizeable portion of it includes documents described in the book itself as "declarations of belief," "reports of visions," "historical narratives," "admonishments," "answers to questions," "explanations
of scripture," "minutes of instruction meetings," "prayers," "letters," and "items of instruction."

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

The 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants specifically titles the Lectures, "the Doctrine of the Church of the Latter Day Saints."

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

Is any verse of scripture complete as to its teachings regarding the Godhead? How about D&C 130:22, is that complete? Was the purpose of lecture 5 to give a "complete" teaching regarding the Godhead or like lectures 3 and 4 was it to illustrate the character and attributes of the Godhead? This third example is a pretty poor one since the scriptures don't contain anywhere a complete set of teachings regarding anything at all. Show me any chapter of scripture that contains everything you ever needed to know about any teaching.

(4) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief [i.e., on the Godhead], 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.

How about instead of removing things that confuse people, simply explaining them better. Thank goodness this committee didn't remove Isaiah from the Book of Mormon and the Old Testament! I find D&C 132 extremely confusing in the way it contradicts the Book of Mormon, the Old Testament accounts, and the role of women. I wonder why that wasn't removed either since people are still to this day confused and troubled by some of those teachings.

So any debate about this subject can be viewed through the lens of one of the committee members here and the four reasons that he gives. What do you think? Do any of these reasons sound valid to you? If so, why? If not, why not?

[Arenera]

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...

In case it hasn't already been posted, this article addresses some of the history and background concerning their removal.

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

Joseph Fielding Smith was on the committee to have them removed and offered four specific reasons as to why they removed them, but they are each problematic.

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

There are many other sections in the D&C that are not revelations. The article says, " the Doctrine and Covenants shows that a sizeable portion of it includes documents described in the book itself as "declarations of belief," "reports of visions," "historical narratives," "admonishments," "answers to questions," "explanations
of scripture," "minutes of instruction meetings," "prayers," "letters," and "items of instruction."

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

The 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants specifically titles the Lectures, "the Doctrine of the Church of the Latter Day Saints."

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

Is any verse of scripture complete as to its teachings regarding the Godhead? How about D&C 130:22, is that complete? Was the purpose of lecture 5 to give a "complete" teaching regarding the Godhead or like lectures 3 and 4 was it to illustrate the character and attributes of the Godhead? This third example is a pretty poor one since the scriptures don't contain anywhere a complete set of teachings regarding anything at all. Show me any chapter of scripture that contains everything you ever needed to know about any teaching.

(4) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief [i.e., on the Godhead], 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.

How about instead of removing things that confuse people, simply explaining them better. Thank goodness this committee didn't remove Isaiah from the Book of Mormon and the Old Testament! I find D&C 132 extremely confusing in the way it contradicts the Book of Mormon, the Old Testament accounts, and the role of women. I wonder why that wasn't removed either since people are still to this day confused and troubled by some of those teachings.

So any debate about this subject can be viewed through the lens of one of the committee members here and the four reasons that he gives. What do you think? Do any of these reasons sound valid to you? If so, why? If not, why not?

Joseph Smith, for example, apparently does not mention the lectures anywhere. (Noel Reynolds)

Of the four members of the First Presidency (who also constituted this committee), only Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon were present for the August 17, 1835, assembly. The minutes record the absence of the other two members of the First Presidency—Joseph
Smith and Frederick G. Williams. None of the twelve apostles was present either. (Noel Reynolds)

Don't you find it problematic that Joseph Smith and the twelve apostles were not present to vote????

[oneClimbs]

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.

They were never claimed to be revelations and the D&C doesn't ONLY have revelations, it contains many documents that are not revelations. The 1835 edition D&C specifically titled them, "the Doctrine of the Church of the Latter Day Saints." These were not mere "study helps" as is suggested. They were reprinted in the 1844, 1845, 1876, and 1879 editions of the D&C and were there up until 1921. They were significant enough that they were originally used to teach the first apostles and missionaries in the school of the prophets and "in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation" Joseph Smith had them included in the D&C. To call them "study helps" misunderstands their value both thematically and historically.

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.

They were called "the Doctrine of the Church of the Latter Day Saints" why wouldn't people treat them as such? They were the doctrine portion of the Doctrine & Covenants originally approved of by Joseph Smith. The lectures are based existing scripture, they HEAVILY quote from the Bible and a little from the Book of Mormon. There are not any false teachings in them that I am aware of, just portions misunderstood just like people misunderstand other parts of scripture that stand uncorrected.

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.

That's not nearly as big of an issue as D&C 124 and what happened in Nauvoo. I've read Passing the Heavenly Gift and a vast amount of what Snuffer has written. The removal of the lectures is not as big of a deal as you indicate here.

2 Not using Book of Mormon scriptures.

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

Many key sections of the Doctrine and Covenants don't reference the Book of Mormon either, but they still have value? The Lectures deal with defining faith and they do so by showing how faith in God originated by knowledge being passed down. Lecture 2 is like Numbers it's mostly a genealogy. Lecture 3, 4, and 5 deal with the character and attributes of God and the Biblical examples used are sufficient to illustrate the points. Section 6 and 7 examine how sacrifice and the effects of faith work. It would be great to incorporate all of the Book of Mormon scriptures into the lectures but that wasn't done and I'm sure they had their reasons.

One possible reason is that the lectures were prepared for missionaries and it equipped them to demonstrate using the Bible alone these doctrines related to faith. Personally, I think the lectures are a great tract in and of themselves to share with non-members. For such a simple and powerful missionary tool illustrating our doctrine to precede the covenants and order of the church would, I think, be compelling to people new to our faith as a primer and foundation of what we teach.

But here we are, things happened and while they aren't in the D&C any longer, they are still quoted in General Conference and still quoted in books by General Authorities like Elder Bednar who quotes from them repeatedly in his three-volume series, one page even quoting three times from them. They are still used and still influence the teachings of the church. They are accessible to those who care to study them.

I'm sure that one can live a fully-productive life without them since the doctrines in them still permeate the collective consciousness of the Saints anyway. I just resent the unwarranted prejudice that many have against them. They contain beautiful ideas that influenced members of the church for nearly a century. Personally, I think their contributions are very worthwhile, if not for how brilliantly they describe what faith is, but what they teach regarding the power of ideas and the Mind of God and how important it is to have an actual knowledge that you are led by God.

Don't get me wrong, if you are looking for a fan of the Book of Mormon, look no further. I study it far more than anything else and the majority of the almost 500 posts on my blog are about the Book of Mormon in some way. I just happen to love what the Lectures bring to the mix and disagree with the flippant attitude which they are treated for reasons that I don't think are justified.

[oneClimbs]

Of the four members of the First Presidency (who also constituted this committee), only Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon were present for the August 17, 1835, assembly. The minutes record the absence of the other two members of the First Presidency—Joseph
Smith and Frederick G. Williams. None of the twelve apostles was present either. (Noel Reynolds)[/color]

Don't you find it problematic that Joseph Smith and the twelve apostles were not present to vote????

Nope. He authorized them for the school of the prophets, he worked on the D&C and is responsible for the form it took and he made absolutely no objections to how it was finally published and the second edition he worked on included them as well. This church works on the divine investiture of authority. Joseph doesn't have to do every little thing himself and be present for every event otherwise he would have been there.

Or else the claim here is that the lectures were added without his approval and this vote was taken while he was gone in order to hoodwink him and he was deceived again for the second edition. Is there any evidence to this claim? If there is not then it is just a theory. The facts are that they were published and Joseph never said anything against it and he was not a man afraid to correct people publically and even brutally when they were in error.

[Arenera]

I just resent the unwarranted prejudice that many have against them... and disagree with the flippant attitude which they are treated for reasons that I don't think are justified.

That's strong language don't you think? I haven't read Passing of the Heavenly Gift, though.

Apostles of God removed the LoF from the D&C. That's a good reason for me.

I don't read the Journal of Discourses, but I know Hugh Nibley quoted Brigham Young extensively.

Don't take this personally, Robert Millet studied the LoF for years before he understood. Wait, that might mean something.

I don't think BYU has classes for the LoF any longer, since the research of Noel Reynolds came out.

[Arenera]

Of the four members of the First Presidency (who also constituted this committee), only Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon were present for the August 17, 1835, assembly. The minutes record the absence of the other two members of the First Presidency—Joseph
Smith and Frederick G. Williams. None of the twelve apostles was present either. (Noel Reynolds)[/color]

Don't you find it problematic that Joseph Smith and the twelve apostles were not present to vote????

Nope. He authorized them for the school of the prophets, he worked on the D&C and is responsible for the form it took and he made absolutely no objections to how it was finally published and the second edition he worked on included them as well. This church works on the divine investiture of authority. Joseph doesn't have to do every little thing himself and be present for every event otherwise he would have been there.

Or else the claim here is that the lectures were added without his approval and this vote was taken while he was gone in order to hoodwink him and he was deceived again for the second edition. Is there any evidence to this claim? If there is not then it is just a theory. The facts are that they were published and Joseph never said anything against it and he was not a man afraid to correct people publically and even brutally when they were in error.

I know you believe this, but there is no evidence as was shown by Noel Reynold's research. And it wasn't the school of the prophets, it was Elders. So the LoF were never meant for women.

[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 learn why the lectures on faith were taken out in such a haste / unpracticed way...

In case it hasn't already been posted, this article addresses some of the history and background concerning their removal.

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

Joseph Fielding Smith was on the committee to have them removed and offered four specific reasons as to why they removed them, but they are each problematic.

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

There are many other sections in the D&C that are not revelations. The article says, " the Doctrine and Covenants shows that a sizeable portion of it includes documents described in the book itself as "declarations of belief," "reports of visions," "historical narratives," "admonishments," "answers to questions," "explanations
of scripture," "minutes of instruction meetings," "prayers," "letters," and "items of instruction."

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

The 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants specifically titles the Lectures, "the Doctrine of the Church of the Latter Day Saints."

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

Is any verse of scripture complete as to its teachings regarding the Godhead? How about D&C 130:22, is that complete? Was the purpose of lecture 5 to give a "complete" teaching regarding the Godhead or like lectures 3 and 4 was it to illustrate the character and attributes of the Godhead? This third example is a pretty poor one since the scriptures don't contain anywhere a complete set of teachings regarding anything at all. Show me any chapter of scripture that contains everything you ever needed to know about any teaching.

(4) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief [i.e., on the Godhead], 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.

How about instead of removing things that confuse people, simply explaining them better. Thank goodness this committee didn't remove Isaiah from the Book of Mormon and the Old Testament! I find D&C 132 extremely confusing in the way it contradicts the Book of Mormon, the Old Testament accounts, and the role of women. I wonder why that wasn't removed either since people are still to this day confused and troubled by some of those teachings.

So any debate about this subject can be viewed through the lens of one of the committee members here and the four reasons that he gives. What do you think? Do any of these reasons sound valid to you? If so, why? If not, why not?

Joseph Smith, for example, apparently does not mention the lectures anywhere. (Noel Reynolds)

Of the four members of the First Presidency (who also constituted this committee), only Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon were present for the August 17, 1835, assembly. The minutes record the absence of the other two members of the First Presidency—Joseph
Smith and Frederick G. Williams. None of the twelve apostles was present either. (Noel Reynolds)

Don't you find it problematic that Joseph Smith and the twelve apostles were not present to vote????

I don't.

what ever the remaining untold story of all those years ago does not explain to your or others liking--- these facts remain---documented history shows Joseph having not so much as a single problem on how it went down---quite the contrary, yes? it seems clear as the Seer left us--- as much as the church desired to continue to advance the path and programs set forth by Christ through Joseph and other inspired leaders at the time---the baton was not quite passed as should have been. that is super sensitive stuff to suggest and ask to be understood, but...

[oneClimbs]

I just resent the unwarranted prejudice that many have against them... and disagree with the flippant attitude which they are treated for reasons that I don't think are justified.

That's strong language don't you think? I haven't read Passing of the Heavenly Gift, though.

Apostles of God removed the LoF from the D&C. That's a good reason for me.

I don't read the Journal of Discourses, but I know Hugh Nibley quoted Brigham Young extensively.

Don't take this personally, Robert Millet studied the LoF for years before he understood. Wait, that might mean something.

I don't think BYU has classes for the LoF any longer, since the research of Noel Reynolds came out.

I suppose it can be perceived as strong. Apostles of God also put them there to begin with so who was in error the ones who put them in or took them out? It is an interesting question for sure. It's also important to note that the content of the lectures isn't so much the issue, people point to lecture 5 and 6 but I don't find conflicts with doctrine and Joseph Smith didn't seem to either. I don't buy the comment about them not being for women either. The lectures were created as an instructional course and deemed important enough because they contain information regarding salvation and were instructed to be placed in a volume that WAS intended for everyone, including women. Whatever their original intent, they were placed at a position of prominence by Joseph Smith and called "doctrine" because he valued them and thought the church would benefit from them.

I don't read the JofD either but I have perused them, there's a LOT there and that would be difficult. The lectures were considered doctrine of the church and placed alongside scripture for almost 100 years so they are in a different class I would argue. As for what BYU does, they change their curriculum over time so I'm not sure that's applicable.

As for the content of the lectures themselves, that is, I think where the real value is. We debate about whether they are in the standard works or not but I'm more concerned with what they actually say per the OP which I've tried to contribute to here in this thread, specifically regarding God, personages, and the Spirit. I've presented a lot of information here but I don't think that has been addressed. Instead we are spending all this time talking about their value or not when that isn't even the intent of this thread, but oh well, I got sucked in and it's fun to explore these things anyway so I can't complain too much.

[Arenera]

what ever the remaining untold story of all those years ago does not explain to your or others liking--- these facts remain---documented history shows Joseph having not so much as a single problem on how it went down---quite the contrary, yes? it seems clear as the Seer left us--- as much as the church desired to continue to advance the path and programs set forth by Christ through Joseph and other inspired leaders at the time---the baton was not quite passed as should have been. that is super sensitive stuff to suggest and ask to be understood, but...

Yes I disagree with you on what you are saying. Sidney Rigdon, who wrote the LoF, fell flat on his face didn't even make it to the baton.

Brigham Young grabbed the baton firmly and the Church went forward, tens of thousands of believers! See Section 136, unless you are using the Remnant Scriptures.

[diligently seeking]

what ever the remaining untold story of all those years ago does not explain to your or others liking--- these facts remain---documented history shows Joseph having not so much as a single problem on how it went down---quite the contrary, yes? it seems clear as the Seer left us--- as much as the church desired to continue to advance the path and programs set forth by Christ through Joseph and other inspired leaders at the time---the baton was not quite passed as should have been. that is super sensitive stuff to suggest and ask to be understood, but...

Yes I disagree with you on what you are saying. Sidney Rigdon, who wrote the LoF, fell flat on his face didn't even make it to the baton.

Brigham Young grabbed the baton firmly and the Church went forward, tens of thousands of believers! See Section 136, unless you are using the Remnant Scriptures.

the cleansing will begin first in his house... I am guessing you don't believe it was always meant to be set up that way? blessings and cursings always have a cause and affect explanation, yes?

[Arenera]

what ever the remaining untold story of all those years ago does not explain to your or others liking--- these facts remain---documented history shows Joseph having not so much as a single problem on how it went down---quite the contrary, yes? it seems clear as the Seer left us--- as much as the church desired to continue to advance the path and programs set forth by Christ through Joseph and other inspired leaders at the time---the baton was not quite passed as should have been. that is super sensitive stuff to suggest and ask to be understood, but...

Yes I disagree with you on what you are saying. Sidney Rigdon, who wrote the LoF, fell flat on his face didn't even make it to the baton.

Brigham Young grabbed the baton firmly and the Church went forward, tens of thousands of believers! See Section 136, unless you are using the Remnant Scriptures.

the cleansing will begin first in his house... I am guessing you don't believe it was always meant to be set up that way? blessings and cursings always have a cause and affect explanation, yes?

I suppose those who think the other side is going to be cleansed, but find out it is themselves, might have an interesting moment.

[diligently seeking]

what ever the remaining untold story of all those years ago does not explain to your or others liking--- these facts remain---documented history shows Joseph having not so much as a single problem on how it went down---quite the contrary, yes? it seems clear as the Seer left us--- as much as the church desired to continue to advance the path and programs set forth by Christ through Joseph and other inspired leaders at the time---the baton was not quite passed as should have been. that is super sensitive stuff to suggest and ask to be understood, but...

Yes I disagree with you on what you are saying. Sidney Rigdon, who wrote the LoF, fell flat on his face didn't even make it to the baton.

Brigham Young grabbed the baton firmly and the Church went forward, tens of thousands of believers! See Section 136, unless you are using the Remnant Scriptures.

the cleansing will begin first in his house... I am guessing you don't believe it was always meant to be set up that way? blessings and cursings always have a cause and affect explanation, yes?

I suppose those who think the other side is going to be cleansed, but find out it is themselves, might have an interesting moment.

we all connect the dots how we will... in the end-- fidelity to Christ is the only way. AS we are yoked to Christ many of our cherished beliefs will be validated. Many won't. this is ok. Because angst only comes from being founded on the rock of man. When we are founded on the Rock of Christ it is ok for us personaly to discover that the fallibility of man showed itself more often than we would have wished to have occurred from the top to the bottom in the church...

[brlenox]

we all connect the dots how we will... in the end-- fidelity to Christ is the only way. AS we are yoked to Christ many of our cherished beliefs will be validated. Many won't. this is ok. Because angst only comes from being founded on the rock of man. When we are founded on the Rock of Christ it is ok for us personaly to discover that the fallibility of man showed itself more often than we would have wished to have occurred from the top to the bottom in the church...

How often we build paradoxes in the statements we make that protest the Gospel standard. I read a story I will provide hereafter, that for me at the time was life changing. It speaks to the incongruence of your overly pious declarations of your fidelity to Christ made overly pious for the spiritual conflict of tanking on his servants and undermining their roles in his church. When I read how Brigham analyzed his own natural behaviors and capped immediately the one that applies to so many in their treatment of the Apostles and Prophets I knew instantly that if I desired to be protected from the wiles of the Evil one this tendency of man was one that I must cap as instantly as Brigham did. The spirit manifest to myself as clearly as it did to him that if I failed to do so my path of seeking deep understanding and studying all aspects of the lives of our leaders and their doctrines would lead me out of the church on this principle.

Try if you will to grasp the wisdom of the myriad truths that are manifest in this simple telling of a moment in time in the day of a life of a man destined to become a Prophet of God - Brigham Young.

It is folly in the extreme for persons to say that they love God, when they do not love their brethren; and it is of no use for them to say that they have confidence in God, when they have none in righteous men, for they do not know anything about God. It is reasonable for the Elders of Israel to be very sanguine and strenuous on this point. And were I to be asked whether I have any experience in this matter, I can tell the people that once in my life I felt a want of confidence in brother Joseph Smith, soon after I became acquainted with him. It was not concerning religious matters—it was not about his revelations—but it was in relation to his financiering—to his managing the temporal affairs which he undertook. A feeling came ever me that Joseph was not right in his financial management, though I presume the feeling did not last sixty seconds, and perhaps not thirty. But that feeling came on me once and once only, from the time I first knew him to the day of his death. It gave me sorrow of heart, and I clearly saw and understood, by the spirit of revelation manifested to me, that if I was to harbor a thought in my heart that Joseph could be wrong in anything, I would begin to lose confidence in him, and that feeling would grow from step to step, and from one degree to another, until at last I would have the same lack of confidence in his being the mouthpiece for the Almighty, and I would be left, as brother Hooper observed,upon the brink of the precipice, ready to plunge into what we may call the gulf of infidelity, ready to believe neither in God nor His servants, and to say that there is no God, or, if there is, we do not know anything about Him; that we are here, and by and by shall go from here, and that is all we shall know. Such persons are like those whom the Apostle calls “As natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed.” Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults.

I repented of my unbelief, and that too, very suddenly; I repented about as quickly as I committed the error. It was not for me to question whether Joseph was dictated by the Lord at all times and under all circumstances or not. I never had the feeling for one moment, to believe that any man or set of men or beings upon the face of the whole earth had anything to do with him, for he was superior to them all, and held the keys of salvation over them. Had I not thoroughly understood this and believed it, I much doubt whether I should ever have embraced what is called “Mormonism.” He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. And it was not for me to question it, if the Lord was disposed to let Joseph lead the people astray, for He had called him and instructed him to gather Israel and restore the Priesthood and kingdom to them.

It was not my prerogative to call him in question with regard to any act of his life. He was God's servant, and not mine. He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still.

If we have any lack of confidence in those whom the Lord has appointed to lead the people, how can we have confidence in a being whom we know nothing about? It is nonsense to talk about it. It will weaken a person quicker to lose confidence in those who dictate the affairs of God's kingdom on the earth, than to say “I do not know whether there is a God or not, and I care nothing about Him.” A man or woman will not be prepared to be taken by the enemy, and led captive by the devil so quickly for disbelieving in a being they do not know about, as for disbelieving in those whom they do know. (Young, Brigham - He that Loveth Not His Brother Loveth Not God—If We Have Not Confidence in Our Leaders We Shall Not Have It in a Higher Power—The Church Holds the Keys of Salvation—The Providences of God to the Saints. JOD vol. 4, pp. 295-302)

The scriptural precedent to which Elder Young is speaking is manifest in 1 John 4:20:

1 John 4:20

20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

Compare this verse to Brigham Young's final paragraph above and he is going to imbue your words with the meaning you would feign decry as false claiming it is too severe a charge. Still, please consider upon these words and see if there is not a note of uncomfortable familiarity with the nature of the beast Elder Young is warning about.

[Finrock]

Here is some historical context showing that Joseph Smith was involved in the committee that was to prepare the LoF. The following took place 1834:

Traveling together in mid-April, not long before the expedition departed, JS, Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and early church member Zebedee Coltrin paused to give one another blessings for their individual responsibilities. JS was blessed to lead the upcoming expedition, while Rigdon and Cowdery were blessed with divine assistance “in arranging the church covenants which are to be soon published.”8

Joseph Smith blessed Rigdon and Cowdery with divine assistance in getting the LoF and the 1835 edition of D&C prepared. This is proof that Joseph Smith was involved, gave the calling, and literally gave his blessing to what Rigdon and Cowdery were tasked to do.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

This proves that this wasn't a "rogue" operation done by Rigdon and Cowdery, but they were duly set apart and tasked by a legitimate quorum of the Church to prepare the LoF and other published scriptures. This also proves that Joseph Smith was a part of the committee responsible for the LoF and the 1835 D&C. This wasn't done behind JS back and without JS blessing or without his knowledge:

In September the Kirtland high council appointed a committee consisting of JS, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams to publish a work “arrange[d from] the items of the doctrine of Jesus Christ.” This committee was assigned to draw “from the bible, book of mormon, and the revelations which have been given to the church up to this date.”10

While a single volume containing excerpts from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and revelation texts was the original intention, the concept was later modified. As the bipartite title “Doctrine and Covenants” suggests, the new book was made up of two parts. The first part, on “the doctrine of the church,”11comprised a series of seven doctrinal lectures on the subject of faith, first prepared as a course of instruction for the School of the Elders held in the second Kirtland printing office in the winter of 1834–1835.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

It has been contended that the Apostles were not present during the General Assembly that approved the LoF as doctrine and scripture, suggesting that this duly formed General Assembly was therefore illegitimate. However, although the Apostles were not present, they provided a written testimony that was read during the General Assembly that approved the 1835 edition of D&C with the LoF included and in this testimony they testified that the book of scriptures to be approved by the Church at that time (including the LoF) was true:

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]

It has been contended that the Apostles were not present during the General Assembly that approved the LoF as doctrine and scripture, suggesting that this duly formed General Assembly was therefore illegitimate. However, although the Apostles were not present, they provided a written testimony that was read during the General Assembly that approved the 1835 edition of D&C with the LoF included and in this testimony they testified that the book of scriptures to be approved by the Church at that time (including the LoF) was true:

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

Yah, that wasn’t the LoF.

[diligently seeking]

we all connect the dots how we will... in the end-- fidelity to Christ is the only way. AS we are yoked to Christ many of our cherished beliefs will be validated. Many won't. this is ok. Because angst only comes from being founded on the rock of man. When we are founded on the Rock of Christ it is ok for us personaly to discover that the fallibility of man showed itself more often than we would have wished to have occurred from the top to the bottom in the church...

How often we build paradoxes in the statements we make that protest the Gospel standard. I read a story I will provide hereafter, that for me at the time was life changing. It speaks to the incongruence of your overly pious declarations of your fidelity to Christ made overly pious for the spiritual conflict of tanking on his servants and undermining their roles in his church. When I read how Brigham analyzed his own natural behaviors and capped immediately the one that applies to so many in their treatment of the Apostles and Prophets I knew instantly that if I desired to be protected from the wiles of the Evil one this tendency of man was one that I must cap as instantly as Brigham did. The spirit manifest to myself as clearly as it did to him that if I failed to do so my path of seeking deep understanding and studying all aspects of the lives of our leaders and their doctrines would lead me out of the church on this principle.

Try if you will to grasp the wisdom of the myriad truths that are manifest in this simple telling of a moment in time in the day of a life of a man destined to become a Prophet of God - Brigham Young.

It is folly in the extreme for persons to say that they love God, when they do not love their brethren; and it is of no use for them to say that they have confidence in God, when they have none in righteous men, for they do not know anything about God. It is reasonable for the Elders of Israel to be very sanguine and strenuous on this point. And were I to be asked whether I have any experience in this matter, I can tell the people that once in my life I felt a want of confidence in brother Joseph Smith, soon after I became acquainted with him. It was not concerning religious matters—it was not about his revelations—but it was in relation to his financiering—to his managing the temporal affairs which he undertook. A feeling came ever me that Joseph was not right in his financial management, though I presume the feeling did not last sixty seconds, and perhaps not thirty. But that feeling came on me once and once only, from the time I first knew him to the day of his death. It gave me sorrow of heart, and I clearly saw and understood, by the spirit of revelation manifested to me, that if I was to harbor a thought in my heart that Joseph could be wrong in anything, I would begin to lose confidence in him, and that feeling would grow from step to step, and from one degree to another, until at last I would have the same lack of confidence in his being the mouthpiece for the Almighty, and I would be left, as brother Hooper observed,upon the brink of the precipice, ready to plunge into what we may call the gulf of infidelity, ready to believe neither in God nor His servants, and to say that there is no God, or, if there is, we do not know anything about Him; that we are here, and by and by shall go from here, and that is all we shall know. Such persons are like those whom the Apostle calls “As natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed.” Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults.

I repented of my unbelief, and that too, very suddenly; I repented about as quickly as I committed the error. It was not for me to question whether Joseph was dictated by the Lord at all times and under all circumstances or not. I never had the feeling for one moment, to believe that any man or set of men or beings upon the face of the whole earth had anything to do with him, for he was superior to them all, and held the keys of salvation over them. Had I not thoroughly understood this and believed it, I much doubt whether I should ever have embraced what is called “Mormonism.” He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. And it was not for me to question it, if the Lord was disposed to let Joseph lead the people astray, for He had called him and instructed him to gather Israel and restore the Priesthood and kingdom to them.

It was not my prerogative to call him in question with regard to any act of his life. He was God's servant, and not mine. He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still.

If we have any lack of confidence in those whom the Lord has appointed to lead the people, how can we have confidence in a being whom we know nothing about? It is nonsense to talk about it. It will weaken a person quicker to lose confidence in those who dictate the affairs of God's kingdom on the earth, than to say “I do not know whether there is a God or not, and I care nothing about Him.” A man or woman will not be prepared to be taken by the enemy, and led captive by the devil so quickly for disbelieving in a being they do not know about, as for disbelieving in those whom they do know. (Young, Brigham - He that Loveth Not His Brother Loveth Not God—If We Have Not Confidence in Our Leaders We Shall Not Have It in a Higher Power—The Church Holds the Keys of Salvation—The Providences of God to the Saints. JOD vol. 4, pp. 295-302)

The scriptural precedent to which Elder Young is speaking is manifest in 1 John 4:20:

1 John 4:20

20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

Compare this verse to Brigham Young's final paragraph above and he is going to imbue your words with the meaning you would feign decry as false claiming it is too severe a charge. Still, please consider upon these words and see if there is not a note of uncomfortable familiarity with the nature of the beast Elder Young is warning about.

I stand by what I said, and tell you with confidence that you miss apply your argument with me.

[Finrock]

It has been contended that the Apostles were not present during the General Assembly that approved the LoF as doctrine and scripture, suggesting that this duly formed General Assembly was therefore illegitimate. However, although the Apostles were not present, they provided a written testimony that was read during the General Assembly that approved the 1835 edition of D&C with the LoF included and in this testimony they testified that the book of scriptures to be approved by the Church at that time (including the LoF) was true:

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

Yah, that wasn’t the LoF.

JS, Rigdon, Cowdery, and Williams were appointed by a legitimate high council of the Church to create a set of doctrines and commandments that were to be binding upon the whole Church. This high council (the Apostles) had full confidence in all the people involved. The apostles were aware, they approved, they gave these four the task. It is said that all callings in the Church come from God and that when duly and legitimately set apart, a person or a group of persons are bestowed all the rights, privileges, and blessings needed to accomplish their calling. JS, Rigdon, Cowdery, and Williams were set apart to put together binding scripture for the whole Church and this included the LoF. They had every right, privilege, and blessing from the Church and from God to do what they did. Afterwards, the General Assembly of the Church which was approved by JS and the high council and all of the leaders of the Church at that time, convened and each quorum unanimously approved of the doctrine and commandments presented, including the LoF, after each quorum president testified in all soberness of the truthfulness of the work produced by this committee called by God, in God's Church, and set apart by a legitimate body of the Church.

-Finrock

[diligently seeking]

we all connect the dots how we will... in the end-- fidelity to Christ is the only way. AS we are yoked to Christ many of our cherished beliefs will be validated. Many won't. this is ok. Because angst only comes from being founded on the rock of man. When we are founded on the Rock of Christ it is ok for us personaly to discover that the fallibility of man showed itself more often than we would have wished to have occurred from the top to the bottom in the church...

How often we build paradoxes in the statements we make that protest the Gospel standard. I read a story I will provide hereafter, that for me at the time was life changing. It speaks to the incongruence of your overly pious declarations of your fidelity to Christ made overly pious for the spiritual conflict of tanking on his servants and undermining their roles in his church. When I read how Brigham analyzed his own natural behaviors and capped immediately the one that applies to so many in their treatment of the Apostles and Prophets I knew instantly that if I desired to be protected from the wiles of the Evil one this tendency of man was one that I must cap as instantly as Brigham did. The spirit manifest to myself as clearly as it did to him that if I failed to do so my path of seeking deep understanding and studying all aspects of the lives of our leaders and their doctrines would lead me out of the church on this principle.

Try if you will to grasp the wisdom of the myriad truths that are manifest in this simple telling of a moment in time in the day of a life of a man destined to become a Prophet of God - Brigham Young.

It is folly in the extreme for persons to say that they love God, when they do not love their brethren; and it is of no use for them to say that they have confidence in God, when they have none in righteous men, for they do not know anything about God. It is reasonable for the Elders of Israel to be very sanguine and strenuous on this point. And were I to be asked whether I have any experience in this matter, I can tell the people that once in my life I felt a want of confidence in brother Joseph Smith, soon after I became acquainted with him. It was not concerning religious matters—it was not about his revelations—but it was in relation to his financiering—to his managing the temporal affairs which he undertook. A feeling came ever me that Joseph was not right in his financial management, though I presume the feeling did not last sixty seconds, and perhaps not thirty. But that feeling came on me once and once only, from the time I first knew him to the day of his death. It gave me sorrow of heart, and I clearly saw and understood, by the spirit of revelation manifested to me, that if I was to harbor a thought in my heart that Joseph could be wrong in anything, I would begin to lose confidence in him, and that feeling would grow from step to step, and from one degree to another, until at last I would have the same lack of confidence in his being the mouthpiece for the Almighty, and I would be left, as brother Hooper observed,upon the brink of the precipice, ready to plunge into what we may call the gulf of infidelity, ready to believe neither in God nor His servants, and to say that there is no God, or, if there is, we do not know anything about Him; that we are here, and by and by shall go from here, and that is all we shall know. Such persons are like those whom the Apostle calls “As natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed.” Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults.

I repented of my unbelief, and that too, very suddenly; I repented about as quickly as I committed the error. It was not for me to question whether Joseph was dictated by the Lord at all times and under all circumstances or not. I never had the feeling for one moment, to believe that any man or set of men or beings upon the face of the whole earth had anything to do with him, for he was superior to them all, and held the keys of salvation over them. Had I not thoroughly understood this and believed it, I much doubt whether I should ever have embraced what is called “Mormonism.” He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. And it was not for me to question it, if the Lord was disposed to let Joseph lead the people astray, for He had called him and instructed him to gather Israel and restore the Priesthood and kingdom to them.

It was not my prerogative to call him in question with regard to any act of his life. He was God's servant, and not mine. He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still.

If we have any lack of confidence in those whom the Lord has appointed to lead the people, how can we have confidence in a being whom we know nothing about? It is nonsense to talk about it. It will weaken a person quicker to lose confidence in those who dictate the affairs of God's kingdom on the earth, than to say “I do not know whether there is a God or not, and I care nothing about Him.” A man or woman will not be prepared to be taken by the enemy, and led captive by the devil so quickly for disbelieving in a being they do not know about, as for disbelieving in those whom they do know. (Young, Brigham - He that Loveth Not His Brother Loveth Not God—If We Have Not Confidence in Our Leaders We Shall Not Have It in a Higher Power—The Church Holds the Keys of Salvation—The Providences of God to the Saints. JOD vol. 4, pp. 295-302)

The scriptural precedent to which Elder Young is speaking is manifest in 1 John 4:20:

1 John 4:20

20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

Compare this verse to Brigham Young's final paragraph above and he is going to imbue your words with the meaning you would feign decry as false claiming it is too severe a charge. Still, please consider upon these words and see if there is not a note of uncomfortable familiarity with the nature of the beast Elder Young is warning about.

I stand by what I said, and tell you with confidence that you miss apply your argument with me.

My life has been wonderfully blessed by inspired leaders.

That I said, I have found great peace from knowing that no matter how seemingly wonderful traditions of our fathers are--- I will not follow blindly. Nephi's advocacy is the only route for me:
2nephi 28
31 Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.

This should be our measuring stick I think in regards to our fidelity to Jesus: If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints were to be severely cleansed right now, and we lived to witness this. Would our hearts fail us or would Helaman 5 apply to us:

12 And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall.

I'm strongly of the advocacy of living up to the highest standards and meaning and purpose on which we understand the Book of Mormon represents so that condemnation can be lifted from us individually and from our families from our wards and stakes and from the church.

[Arenera]

It has been contended that the Apostles were not present during the General Assembly that approved the LoF as doctrine and scripture, suggesting that this duly formed General Assembly was therefore illegitimate. However, although the Apostles were not present, they provided a written testimony that was read during the General Assembly that approved the 1835 edition of D&C with the LoF included and in this testimony they testified that the book of scriptures to be approved by the Church at that time (including the LoF) was true:

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

Yah, that wasn’t the LoF.

JS, Rigdon, Cowdery, and Williams were appointed by a legitimate high council of the Church to create a set of doctrines and commandments that were to be binding upon the whole Church. This high council (the Apostles) had full confidence in all the people involved. The apostles were aware, they approved, they gave these four the task. It is said that all callings in the Church come from God and that when duly and legitimately set apart, a person or a group of persons are bestowed all the rights, privileges, and blessings needed to accomplish their calling. JS, Rigdon, Cowdery, and Williams were set apart to put together binding scripture for the whole Church and this included the LoF. They had every right, privilege, and blessing from the Church and from God to do what they did. Afterwards, the General Assembly of the Church which was approved by JS and the high council and all of the leaders of the Church at that time, convened and each quorum unanimously approved of the doctrine and commandments presented, including the LoF, after each quorum president testified in all soberness of the truthfulness of the work produced by this committee called by God, in God's Church, and set apart by a legitimate body of the Church.

-Finrock

“The testimony of the witnesses to the book of the Lord’s commandments, which he gave to his church through Joseph Smith, jr.” is not the LoF.

[brlenox]

I stand by what I said, and tell you with confidence that you miss apply your argument with me.

I hope is true.

[diligently seeking]

quote=brlenox post_id=818383 time=1509685619 user_id=2631]

I stand by what I said, and tell you with confidence that you miss apply your argument with me.

I hope is true.
[/quote]

[Finrock]

It has been contended that the Apostles were not present during the General Assembly that approved the LoF as doctrine and scripture, suggesting that this duly formed General Assembly was therefore illegitimate. However, although the Apostles were not present, they provided a written testimony that was read during the General Assembly that approved the 1835 edition of D&C with the LoF included and in this testimony they testified that the book of scriptures to be approved by the Church at that time (including the LoF) was true:



-Finrock

Yah, that wasn’t the LoF.

JS, Rigdon, Cowdery, and Williams were appointed by a legitimate high council of the Church to create a set of doctrines and commandments that were to be binding upon the whole Church. This high council (the Apostles) had full confidence in all the people involved. The apostles were aware, they approved, they gave these four the task. It is said that all callings in the Church come from God and that when duly and legitimately set apart, a person or a group of persons are bestowed all the rights, privileges, and blessings needed to accomplish their calling. JS, Rigdon, Cowdery, and Williams were set apart to put together binding scripture for the whole Church and this included the LoF. They had every right, privilege, and blessing from the Church and from God to do what they did. Afterwards, the General Assembly of the Church which was approved by JS and the high council and all of the leaders of the Church at that time, convened and each quorum unanimously approved of the doctrine and commandments presented, including the LoF, after each quorum president testified in all soberness of the truthfulness of the work produced by this committee called by God, in God's Church, and set apart by a legitimate body of the Church.

-Finrock

“The testimony of the witnesses to the book of the Lord’s commandments, which he gave to his church through Joseph Smith, jr.” is not the LoF.

You are free to believe what you wish. The LoF were produced in legitimacy and added to the canon of scripture by a legitimate process of the Church. The individuals in the committee, which included JS, were called and set apart and blessed with all rights and privileges to do what they did and they had God's help in accomplishing their goals. Joseph Smith was involved, he knew what was going on. The Twelve apostles were involved, they gave the call, and knew what was going on. The committee responsible were blessed by Joseph Smith. The General Assembly of the Church was approved and supported by all leaders of the Church at that time. The LoF were added to our canon of scripture by a legitimate, righteous, and planned manner and their approval was sustained unanimously by all quorums of the Church at that time. You clearly don't believe that God was with his Church back then, or that apostles had authority, or that Joseph Smith was inspired by God. But, I believe that the committee had all of the authority they needed to produce the work that they did. They were called by God, approved by the leaders, and their work was inspired. Only if you believe that the Church was in apostasy and did not have legitimate authority at that time to commission the committee responsible for the LoF can you contend that this was some sort of rogue operations. As I've said before, your reliance on a single, flawed essay by Noel Reynolds is misplaced. Noel Reynolds is wrong and trusting in his work, which was not approved by the Church, not commissioned by a high council of the Church, not blessed by the Prophet, and not called by God as opposed to what the Church of Jesus Christ did in the 1830's is called being in a state of cognitive dissonance.

-Finrock

[Arenera]

You are free to believe what you wish. The LoF were produced in legitimacy and added to the canon of scripture by a legitimate process of the Church. The individuals in the committee, which included JS, were called and set apart and blessed with all rights and privileges to do what they did and they had God's help in accomplishing their goals. Joseph Smith was involved, he knew what was going on. The Twelve apostles were involved, they gave the call, and knew what was going on. The committee responsible were blessed by Joseph Smith. The General Assembly of the Church was approved and supported by all leaders of the Church at that time. The LoF were added to our canon of scripture by a legitimate, righteous, and planned manner and their approval was sustained unanimously by all quorums of the Church at that time. You clearly don't believe that God was with his Church back then, or that apostles had authority, or that Joseph Smith was inspired by God. But, I believe that the committee had all of the authority they needed to produce the work that they did. They were called by God, approved by the leaders, and their work was inspired. Only if you believe that the Church was in apostasy and did not have legitimate authority at that time to commission the committee responsible for the LoF can you contend that this was some sort of rogue operations. As I've said before, your reliance on a single, flawed essay by Noel Reynolds is misplaced. Noel Reynolds is wrong and trusting in his work, which was not approved by the Church, not commissioned by a high council of the Church, not blessed by the Prophet, and not called by God as opposed to what the Church of Jesus Christ did in the 1830's is called being in a state of cognitive dissonance.

-Finrock

You are so biased you aren’t making sense. If you want to evaluate something to make a reliable decision, you need to put your bias aside. The statement from the Apostles pertain to the Sections, not the LoF.

Some other things to consider:

The rhetoric and the formatting of the Lectures were borrowed from contemporary Protestant discourse and that they also include some doctrinal assumptions that are most easily recognized in a Protestant context.

Nor is there consensus on the standard claim that the Lectures as such have never been officially canonized.
- Joseph Smith was not present.
- The 12 Apostles were not present.

Several writers have found much in the Lectures and in the Church's eventual separation of them from the scriptural canon with which to embarrass Latter-day Saints.

Dan Vogel uses Lecture 5 as his principal evidence for an evolving Mormon concept of God that in 1835 reflected "Sidney Rigdon's Primitivistic background and not the [later] orthodox LDS view of three distinct personages in the godhead."

The committee to review the D&C, included senior apostles George F. Richards, Anthony W. Ivins, Melvin J. Ballard, James E. Talmage, John A. Widtsoe, and Joseph Fielding Smith. They made the recommendation to remove the LoF and the presiding quorums of the Church approved that action soon thereafter.

Our ability to penetrate and understand the proceedings of the December 1834 Kirtland School is severely hampered by the scarcity of clarifying contemporary statements about the lectures or their authors.

McLellin describes a school that was already devoted to "the sciences of penmanship, arithmetic, English grammar and geography,"

The History of the Church appears to have a few helpful entries. But since they were interpolated by later secretaries, not drawn from original records like the Prophet's journals, they cannot be used to establish the Prophet's authorship of the Lectures.

But the statement itself may not reflect Joseph Smith's own words at all. His original diaries and journals, which for some periods provided most of the source material from which the History of the Church was later compiled, have a fifteen-month gap which spans the period in which the lectures were delivered and prepared for publication.

Lecture 5 is incomplete doctrine and does not stand on its own.

My belief is based on information, not bias. I can do that because I haven’t spent months and years trying to make the LoF something that it isn’t.