LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

[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?

[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