Lectures On Faith-decanonization (I did my own homework)

[marc]

So, I decided to go hunting. I just spent the last couple hours researching this and have included citations. Here is how I break it down (so far in my own studies) and of course it is subject to change if I should discover more information/written history and/or further light and knowledge. I will be citing the Joseph Smith Papers and possible Church History series by BH Roberts, the 1835 edition of the Doctrine & Covenants, which has been scanned and presented here.

Doctrine and Covenants, 1835

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

We deem it to be unnecessary to entertain you with lengthy preface to the following volume, but merely to say that it contains in short the leading items of the religion which we have professed to believe. The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of lectures as delivered before a theological class in this place. And in consequence of their embracing the important doctrines of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work...

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

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

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

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

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

And so they did:

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

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

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

According to the lds.org article:

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

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

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

It is obvious that the committee in 1921 erred. I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they erred honestly and that they did not intend to maliciously remove them. But it makes no sense otherwise for them to declare that the Lectures on Faith were never presented to nor accepted by the church when we have documentations that proves otherwise and establishes the Lectures On Faith as canonized scripture.

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

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

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

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

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

[ajax]

Had they remained canonized, every officer of the church, even all members from the greatest to the least would have at the very least been aware of their existence.

This.

So far, 0 for 3. Of the three members I've brought this up with recently, none knew about the Lectures.

I was fortunate enough to know about them at an early age. My dad had a copy. I always thought them to be important, more as a historical item, but never enough to give them much thought or study, because you know, they aren't in the scriptures.

[marc]

One more morsel:

The Lectures on Theology.

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

One thing that I didn't realize was that this 7 volume series is not the same as my 6 volume series of "A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." I kept pulling my hair out trying to find references to one, while looking in the other. Little did I realize that the 7 volume HC series was originally entitled "History of Joseph Smith." Naturally, the above quote is by Joseph Smith. So the statement in my OP about HC being by BH Roberts is mixed up! I won't bother editing it. Well, that's it for me for now. I've been at this now for about four hours.

~X(

Now I know better!

[swiftbrook]

Nice work, coach!

[SpeedRacer]

Coachmarc, I echo your findings. Doing my own study I came to the same conclusion. I also add my testimony to the truthfulness of those lectures.

This research did also lend to the succession issue. According to D&C 107 and the law of common consent, BY was correct in getting the church to consent to the 12 leading the church, as they were in equal power and authority to the then dissolved first presidency. He later had the church consent to Him being sustained to president of the first presidency and the chruch. While the issue of Preisthood power may still be in question, power and authority in the church I see to be his, and sanctioned by the Lord. They still would be under the 1832 condemnation, but the Lord doesn't stop loving and directing even the church abiding by the law of carnal commandments.

[SkyBird]

Isn't it ironic that in our current D&C it says this about the Lectures on Faith: "Although profitable for doctrine and instruction, these lectures have been omitted from the D&C..." It seems the committee that removed them "knew" about the history and canonized LonF but it is obvious to me the "brethren" were in disagreement on certain aspects of the Lectures, so they wanted them out.

Who will answer for this?... "the rebellious."

Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 56:4)

These words are given unto you, and they are pure before me; wherefore, beware how you hold them, for they are to be answered upon your souls in the day of judgment. Even so. Amen.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 41:12)

I like what the committee said as they were trying to sweep the crumbs under the carpet and not get caught...and so justified themselves by saying: "Although profitable for doctrine"... the reality is they knew they were the "doctrine" of our Church... shame on them for taking them out!

[SpeedRacer]

Isn't it ironic that in our current D&C it says this about the Lectures on Faith: "Although profitable for doctrine and instruction, these lectures have been omitted from the D&C..." It seems the committee that removed them "knew" about the history and canonized LonF but it is obvious to me the "brethren" were in disagreement on certain aspects of the Lectures, so they wanted them out.

Who will answer for this?... "the rebellious."

Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 56:4)

These words are given unto you, and they are pure before me; wherefore, beware how you hold them, for they are to be answered upon your souls in the day of judgment. Even so. Amen.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 41:12)

I like what the committee said as they were trying to sweep the crumbs under the carpet and not get caught...and so justified themselves by saying: "Although profitable for doctrine"... the reality is they knew they were the "doctrine" of our Church... shame on them for taking them out!

I made some comment on another thread about this. The committe was careful in its wording. Read it really close. Do not add your interpretation of what is said, but imagine all interpretations of what could be construed by the writer.

1. They were not received as revelations by the Prophet Joseph Smith
2. They are only instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are an explanation of this principle but not doctrine.
3. They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead.
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 Convenants

http://downloadpdfz.com/pdf/the-lecture ... 09642.html

1. cannot be refuted off hand. While they are certified, their manner of delivery is not the same as a section that says, Thus Saith the Alpha and Omega.
2.They were instructions in the school of the prophets. There is a big difference between doctrine and principle. They never said they do not contain true principles.
3. This is true, there is much more to know about the Godhead that what is contained therein.
4. For the sole sake of avoiding contention, which is of the devil, we will remove these. It is a valid point, it is each person's opinion as to whether or not it was worth removing them. Those men did. They made sure to include the heavy hitter names so as to ensure you knew who you were disagreeing with.

I already added my testimony that the principles are sound, just as Joseph attests. Oh, and my 1835 D&C replica is pretty cool.

[ajax]

1- There are other "non-revelation" sections still in the D&C
2- "...the doctrine of salvation" per preface
3- I personally think it is the best exposition on the Godhead we currently have.
4- Sad really. Think of the great "fleshing out" discussions this would have engendered and encouraged.

[boo]

So based on its articulated criteria shouldn't the committee have eliminated other parts of the 1835 volume including say D&C 135 ? However the reality is that they have been widely available. I bought my first copy as a teenager 50 years ago and have read them and used then in talks regularly ever since. While I think it was a shame to remove them and I think that the effect has been to diminish members acquaintance with them and with a concomitant weaking of the spiritual interests of members those who want to know such things will be lead to them.

[SkyBird]

To be honest about the whole issue, the committee that got them removed should have removed the wording for the title of the book. Since they took out the "Doctrine" (Lectures on Faith) they should have removed the word "Doctrine" and left it as "The Covenants and Commandments of the Lord" to the Church... this would have been more "honest." Shame on them for being deceitful in there whole approach. Oh well, to me the Lectures on Faith is still the "Doctrine" of our Church... because I did not vote on having them removed!

[stillwater]

To be honest about the whole issue, the committee that got them removed should have removed the wording for the title of the book. Since they took out the "Doctrine" (Lectures on Faith) they should have removed the word "Doctrine" and left it as "The Covenants and Commandments of the Lord" to the Church... this would have been more "honest." Shame on them for being deceitful in there whole approach. Oh well, to me the Lectures on Faith is still the "Doctrine" of our Church... because I did not vote on having them removed!

A few years ago, an institute teacher explained to me that Section 20 was the "covenants" and the rest of the sections were the "doctrine". I had no reason to disbelieve him. It's amazing how 90 years after the omission, the narrative can re-write itself so easily.

The logic is so clear:
The book is called Doctrine and Covenants > therefore there must be Doctrine AND Covenants here > Section 20 was known as the "articles and covenants" of the church > therefore that section must be the "covenants" > therefore everything else must be the doctrine

When the end result is assumed, we will create any narrative necessary to justify it.

[oneClimbs]

There are sections of the existing D&C that are not revelations at all, but statements significant enough to deserve canonization. To the untrained eye, the theology of the LoF might contradict what is found in the D&C.

You know, I read on a blog recently where a guy who was supposedly doing a course on the LoF stated that they were "removed soon after the publication of the D&C". The LoF were in the D&C for almost 100 years, LOL!

That said, I can understand why the brethren would want to maintain an streamlined canon of scripture and they probably had the best of intentions. On the other hand, I don't know that we need to get so bent out of shape about it. We have them and can read them any time we wish, the Church doesn't need to hand use everything on a silver platter.

Sure, it's a shame that the LoF don't have the label "Canonized" on them but really, the Spirit has the ultimate say on what is truth or not. We use the term "Standard Works" as the standard by which to measure everything else. It doesn't mean that anything that isn't a part of the "standard" isn't true. I suppose the brethren might have wanted the members to measure the Lectures by the Standards rather than try to measure the Standards by the Lectures.

If it were up to me, I'd have them back in the D&C, but it isn't and it doesn't really matter because I have the words and can be blessed by them so I'm not really missing anything. Could the Church benefit from having them in the scriptures, sure, but how well do we do with what we already have?

[stillwater]

I don't know that we need to get so bent out of shape about it. We have them and can read them any time we wish, the Church doesn't need to hand use everything on a silver platter.

Sure, it's a shame that the LoF don't have the label "Canonized" on them but really, the Spirit has the ultimate say on what is truth or not. We use the term "Standard Works" as the standard by which to measure everything else.

This same argument could be used to de-canonize every other book of scripture. If it's all just words until the spirit confirms it, then wouldn't canonization just get in the way of relying solely on the spirit? Isn't canonization just building idols?

The problem with that is that there is covenant involved in the canonization process (when carried out by common consent). We are bound by that covenant, even if we weren't present that day in 1835.

Yes, they are still published, but not as scripture. It would be impossible to suggest that people are just as familiar with the lectures as they would be if they were bound with the scriptures.

If the only consequence of decanonization was decreased general familiarity with the doctrine in the lectures, then I would suggest that amounts to a very sore curse. That is what people are bent out of shape about. It's more than a shame. Many people in the church have a very mixed up idea of redemption and salvation (which should be fundamental doctrines) because they generally haven't studied the lectures. That's huge.

[ajax]

I don't know that we need to get so bent out of shape about it. We have them and can read them any time we wish, the Church doesn't need to hand use everything on a silver platter.

Sure, it's a shame that the LoF don't have the label "Canonized" on them but really, the Spirit has the ultimate say on what is truth or not. We use the term "Standard Works" as the standard by which to measure everything else.

This same argument could be used to de-canonize every other book of scripture. If it's all just words until the spirit confirms it, then wouldn't canonization just get in the way of relying solely on the spirit? Isn't canonization just building idols?

The problem with that is that there is covenant involved in the canonization process (when carried out by common consent). We are bound by that covenant, even if we weren't present that day in 1835.

Yes, they are still published, but not as scripture. It would be impossible to suggest that people are just as familiar with the lectures as they would be if they were bound with the scriptures.

If the only consequence of decanonization was decreased general familiarity with the doctrine in the lectures, then I would suggest that amounts to a very sore curse. That is what people are bent out of shape about. It's more than a shame. Many people in the church have a very mixed up idea of redemption and salvation (which should be fundamental doctrines) because they generally haven't studied the lectures. That's huge.

Agreed.
Along with what coachmarc mentioned, "Had they remained canonized, every officer of the church, even all members from the greatest to the least would have at the very least been aware of their existence."

Not only aware, but encouraged to study, ponder and pray about. They would have been translated into hundreds of languages, given to all saints, from Mexico to the Congo. We shouldn't be so cavalier as to think, "well, I least I can get them, so it's all good."

Instead we are left with vapid 30 minute lessons on what should be a multiple month course.

[Frederick]

1- There are other "non-revelation" sections still in the D&C
2- "...the doctrine of salvation" per preface
3- I personally think it is the best exposition on the Godhead we currently have.
4- Sad really. Think of the great "fleshing out" discussions this would have engendered and encouraged.

1. Agreed
2. They were sustained by the entire church as doctrine. When they were sustained, they were referred to as the "doctrine and covenants of our faith." The title page states, "On the Doctrine of the Church of Latter Day Saints." The preface states they embrace the important doctrine of salvation.
Frankly, the assertion by Joseph Fielding Smith, that the Lectures are not doctrine holds no water whatsoever.
3. It is the most complete dissertation on the Godhead we have. Nowhere else is there found more profound and complete teachings on the godhead. Of course, it is not "complete," in the fact it doesn't cover everything.
4. Those men simply never understood the doctrine contained in the Lectures. If they did, they could have taught how Lecture Five is true along with D&C 130:22. There would be no confusion if the leaders would have taught the doctrine in its complete simplicity. It is really simple, more simple than what is currently taught today.

Finally, to exercise faith unto salvation, one must have a correct idea of God's character, perfections and attributes. By refusing to teach the plain and simple doctrine, we find ourselves now in a place where most are incapable of exercising this faith, because they do not know the true nature of the Godhead.

12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it— (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 123)

Most members in the church do not know where to find the truth about the Godhead. Sadly, the reasons given by Joseph Fielding Smith continue to dissuade people from looking to them for answers. Instead, people avoid them based on those excuses and are left in the dark as a consequence.

[laronius]

This is an excerpt of the:
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE LECTURES ON FAITH
as prepared by John A Widstoe

''The rank of the Lectures on Faith or their value in
comparison with the revelations found in the Doctrine and
Covenants may be understood from the following statement
taken from the authorized History of the Church : 'These
lectures on faith here referred to, were afterwards prepared
by the Prophet, and published in the Doctrine and Cove-
nants under the title ''Lectures on Faith." They are seven in
number, and occupy the first seventy-five pages in the
current editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. They are
not to be regarded as of equal authority in matters of doc-
trine with the revelations of God in the Doctrine and Cove-
nants, but as stated by Elder John Smith, who when the
Book of Doctrine and Covenants was submitted to the
several quorums of Priesthood for acceptance, (August 17,
1835) speaking in behalf of the Kirtland High Council, bore
record 'that the revelations in said book were true, and that
the lectures were judiciously written and compiled, and
were profitable doctrine.' The distinction which Elder John
Smith here makes should be observed as marking the difference
between the Lectures on Faith and the revelations of God in the
Doctrine and Covenants." (History of the Church, Vol.
2, p. 176, footnotes.)

Edit: the punctuation of the Elder John Smith quote corrected

[FoxMammaWisdom]

This is an excerpt of the:
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE LECTURES ON FAITH
as prepared by John A Widstoe

''The rank of the Lectures on Faith or their value in
comparison with the revelations found in the Doctrine and
Covenants may be understood from the following statement
taken from the authorized History of the Church : 'These
lectures on faith here referred to, were afterwards prepared
by the Prophet, and published in the Doctrine and Cove-
nants under the title ''Lectures on Faith." They are seven in
number, and occupy the first seventy-five pages in the
current editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. They are
not to be regarded as of equal authority in matters of doc-
trine with the revelations of God in the Doctrine and Cove-
nants, but as stated by Elder John Smith, who when the
Book of Doctrine and Covenants was submitted to the
several quorums of Priesthood for acceptance, (August 17,
1835) speaking in behalf of the Kirtland High Council, bore
record 'that the revelations in said book were true, and that
the lectures were judiciously written and compiled, and
were profitable doctrine/ The distinction which Elder John
Smith here makes should be observed as marking the difference
between the Lectures on Faith and the revelations of God in the
Doctrine and Covenants." (History of the Church, Vol.
2, p. 176, footnotes.)

Right... this ^^^ from a member of "the committee" that never should have been.....

[laronius]

This is an excerpt of the:
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE LECTURES ON FAITH
as prepared by John A Widstoe

''The rank of the Lectures on Faith or their value in
comparison with the revelations found in the Doctrine and
Covenants may be understood from the following statement
taken from the authorized History of the Church : 'These
lectures on faith here referred to, were afterwards prepared
by the Prophet, and published in the Doctrine and Cove-
nants under the title ''Lectures on Faith." They are seven in
number, and occupy the first seventy-five pages in the
current editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. They are
not to be regarded as of equal authority in matters of doc-
trine with the revelations of God in the Doctrine and Cove-
nants, but as stated by Elder John Smith, who when the
Book of Doctrine and Covenants was submitted to the
several quorums of Priesthood for acceptance, (August 17,
1835) speaking in behalf of the Kirtland High Council, bore
record 'that the revelations in said book were true, and that
the lectures were judiciously written and compiled, and
were profitable doctrine/ The distinction which Elder John
Smith here makes should be observed as marking the difference
between the Lectures on Faith and the revelations of God in the
Doctrine and Covenants." (History of the Church, Vol.
2, p. 176, footnotes.)

Right... this ^^^ from a member of "the committee" that never should have been.....

In case it isn't clear, the first four lines are John A Widtsoe's, everything else is a quote from History of the Church, which was written during the life of Joseph Smith and the 10 years or so following his death. I think it gives a very clear picture of how they viewed the Lectures on Faith, as opposed to a bunch of people's opinion who live 170 years later.

[SkyBird]

This is an excerpt of the:
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE LECTURES ON FAITH
as prepared by John A Widstoe

''The rank of the Lectures on Faith or their value in
comparison with the revelations found in the Doctrine and
Covenants may be understood from the following statement
taken from the authorized History of the Church : 'These
lectures on faith here referred to, were afterwards prepared
by the Prophet, and published in the Doctrine and Cove-
nants under the title ''Lectures on Faith." They are seven in
number, and occupy the first seventy-five pages in the
current editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. They are
not to be regarded as of equal authority in matters of doc-
trine with the revelations of God in the Doctrine and Cove-
nants, but as stated by Elder John Smith, who when the
Book of Doctrine and Covenants was submitted to the
several quorums of Priesthood for acceptance, (August 17,
1835) speaking in behalf of the Kirtland High Council, bore
record 'that the revelations in said book were true, and that
the lectures were judiciously written and compiled, and
were profitable doctrine/ The distinction which Elder John
Smith here makes should be observed as marking the difference
between the Lectures on Faith and the revelations of God in the
Doctrine and Covenants." (History of the Church, Vol.
2, p. 176, footnotes.)

Right... this ^^^ from a member of "the committee" that never should have been.....

In case it isn't clear, the first four lines are John A Widtsoe's, everything else is a quote from History of the Church, which was written during the life of Joseph Smith and the 10 years or so following his death. I think it gives a very clear picture of how they viewed the Lectures on Faith, as opposed to a bunch of people's opinion who live 170 years later.

It seems obvious that the committee made an "emotional" decision rather than a "feeling" decision from the Holy Spirit.
If a "bunch of people's opinions" are verified by the Holy Spirit stating the Lectures on Faith are true doctrines... it doesn't matter what the committee decides. Truth is truth and that will never change! It is man who must change if he seeks the truth!

[Frederick]

In case it isn't clear, the first four lines are John A Widtsoe's, everything else is a quote from History of the Church, which was written during the life of Joseph Smith and the 10 years or so following his death. I think it gives a very clear picture of how they viewed the Lectures on Faith, as opposed to a bunch of people's opinion who live 170 years later.

Quite frankly, the Saints got what they wanted. They treated lightly the word of God, namely the Book of Mormon and by 1832 the whole church was under condemnation. Why do you think that they would treat the word of God as contained in the Lectures any better than how they treated what they had in the Book of Mormon? Interestingly, John Smith said that he sustained the volume as the "doctrine and covenants of our faith." Interesting that they would leave out that portion of the quote. In fact, the whole Kirtland high council, and all of the other councils as well as the general body of the church sustained the Lectures and Covenants, as the "Doctrine and Covenants of our faith."

If you however choose to treat them as anything less than what Joseph esteemed them to be, then I guess you'll have to answer to that. Joseph stood by every principle set forth in that volume. He wrote the Fifth Lecture. I can personally testify that the Lectures are a manual on how to part the veil in this life. Is this something that you desire? Or, do you think that you can wait until after this life to see God?

33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.

34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world. (Alma 34)

[marc]

...Furthermore:

13. Q—Do the Father and the Son possess the same mind?

A—They do. “I [Christ] can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me” (John 5:30). “For I [Christ] came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me” (John 6:38). “I [Christ] and my Father are one” (John 10:30).

14. Q—What is this mind?

A—The Holy Spirit. “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me [Christ],” (John 15:26). “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts” (Gal 4:6).

"He shall testify of me."

Consider the following scripture in 1 Nephi 11

1 For it came to pass after I had desired to know the things that my father had seen, and believing that the Lord was able to make them known unto me, as I sat pondering in mine heart I was caught away in the Spirit of the Lord, yea, into an exceedingly high mountain, which I never had before seen, and upon which I never had before set my foot.

2 And the Spirit said unto me: Behold, what desirest thou?

3 And I said: I desire to behold the things which my father saw.

4 And the Spirit said unto me: Believest thou that thy father saw the tree of which he hath spoken?

5 And I said: Yea, thou knowest that I believe all the words of my father.

6 And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying: Hosanna to the Lord, the most high God; for he is God over all the earth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou believest in the Son of the most high God; wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou hast desired.

7 And behold this thing shall be given unto thee for a sign, that after thou hast beheld the tree which bore the fruit which thy father tasted, thou shalt also behold a man descending out of heaven, and him shall ye witness; and after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear record that it is the Son of God.

8 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me: Look! And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.

9 And it came to pass after I had seen the tree, I said unto the Spirit: I behold thou hast shown unto me the tree which is precious above all.

10 And he said unto me: What desirest thou?

11 And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof—for I spake unto him as a man speaketh; for I beheld that he was in the form of a man; yet nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another.

Nephi exemplifies Joseph Smith's explanation of the Comforter, which testified of the coming of the Son of God. Thereafter, Nephi is left alone, the heavens open up and an angel now begins to instruct Nephi. Before, however, it was the Holy Spirit that received Nephi and praised the most High God and then distinguished between Him and His Son, who Nephi believed. Verse six is a very telling exclamation. This is very different than the bro. of Jared's visit from the pre-mortal Jesus Christ, who specifically identifies Himself and explains why He does not yet have a body of flesh:

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

15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

I find it interesting and fitting that in Nephi's account, the Spirit is capitalized as it should be, whereas in the bro. of Jared's account (as recorded by Moroni), Jesus Christ's spirit is not. There is a distinction here.

Edit: In my final analysis, there is no doubt that it was the pre-mortal Jesus Christ who visited Nephi and not the Holy Ghost. Capitalization and punctuation was added to the first edition of the BoM, which affected my understanding.

[Frederick]

Coachmarc,

I'm not sure if I follow you, are you saying the Holy Spirit is a personage?

Because the Fifth Lecture states that there are only two personages in the Godhead, the Father and the Son. Just trying to understand what you are saying.

[ajax]

This is an excerpt of the:
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE LECTURES ON FAITH
as prepared by John A Widstoe

''The rank of the Lectures on Faith or their value in
comparison with the revelations found in the Doctrine and
Covenants may be understood from the following statement
taken from the authorized History of the Church : 'These
lectures on faith here referred to, were afterwards prepared
by the Prophet, and published in the Doctrine and Cove-
nants under the title ''Lectures on Faith." They are seven in
number, and occupy the first seventy-five pages in the
current editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. They are
not to be regarded as of equal authority in matters of doc-
trine with the revelations of God in the Doctrine and Cove-
nants, but as stated by Elder John Smith, who when the
Book of Doctrine and Covenants was submitted to the
several quorums of Priesthood for acceptance, (August 17,
1835) speaking in behalf of the Kirtland High Council, bore
record 'that the revelations in said book were true, and that
the lectures were judiciously written and compiled, and
were profitable doctrine/ The distinction which Elder John
Smith here makes should be observed as marking the difference
between the Lectures on Faith and the revelations of God in the
Doctrine and Covenants." (History of the Church, Vol.
2, p. 176, footnotes.)

Right... this ^^^ from a member of "the committee" that never should have been.....

In case it isn't clear, the first four lines are John A Widtsoe's, everything else is a quote from History of the Church, which was written during the life of Joseph Smith and the 10 years or so following his death. I think it gives a very clear picture of how they viewed the Lectures on Faith, as opposed to a bunch of people's opinion who live 170 years later.

Here's a more clear view on how they[the church] viewed it.

Preface to the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants:

To the members of the church of the Latter Day Saints
—
Dear Brethren:

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

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

The second part contains items or principles for the regulation of the church, as taken from the revelations which have been given since its organization, as well as from former ones.

There may be an aversion in the minds of some against receiving anything purporting to be articles of religious faith, in consequence of there being so many now extant; but if men believe a system, and profess that it was given by inspiration, certainly, the more intelligibly they can present it, the better. It does not make a principle untrue to print it, neither does it make it true not to print it.

The church viewing this subject to be of importance, appointed, through their servants and delegates the High Council, your servants to select and compile this work. Several reasons might be adduced in favor of this move of the Council, but we only add a few words. They knew that the church was evil spoken of in many places—its faith and belief misrepresented, and the way of truth thus subverted. By some it was represented as disbelieving the bible, by others as being an enemy to all good order and uprightness, and by others as being injurious to the peace of all governments civil and political.

We have, therefore, endeavored to present, though in few words, our belief, and when we say this, humbly trust, the faith and principles of this society as a body.

We do not present this little volume with any other expectation than that we are to be called to answer to every principle advanced, in that day when the secrets of all hearts will be revealed, and the reward of every man’s labor be given him.

With sentiments of esteem and sincere respect, we subscribe ourselves your brethren in the bonds of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

JOSEPH SMITH jr.
OLIVER COWDERY
SIDNEY RIGDON
F[rederick] G. WILLIAMS

From Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations vol 2:

On 17 August 1835, a general assembly of the church met “for the purpose of Examining a book of commandments and covenants” that had been “compiled and written by” the publication committee. “This Committee having finished said Book according to the instructions given them,” the minutes read, “it was deemed necessary to call the general assembly of the Church to see whether the book be approved or not by the authoroties of the church, that it may, if approved, become a law unto the church, and a rule of faith and practice unto the same.”
Though the assembly was convened “by the presidency of the Church,” JS and Frederick G. Williams, a member of the presidency, were in Michigan at the time of the assembly. The responsibility of presenting the book to the conference therefore fell to Oliver Cowdery, a member of both the presidency and the four-man publication committee. Sidney Rigdon, the other presidency member and committee member present, stood and “explained the manner by which they intended to obtain the voice of the assembly for or against said book.” Voting on the book proceeded by quorums and groups, with the leader of each group bearing witness of the truth of the volume before his group voted to accept it. After the voting by quorums, the entire church membership present, both male and female, voted to accept the book as “the doctrine and covenants of their faith.”

How was it removed again?

Also, the 1921 introduction to the Doctrine and Covenants contains this note regarding the reason for their removal, "...they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons."

Maybe that's why they felt the removal could be by simple committee decision and not involve the entire church.

Question. Did these brethren have access to the documentation showing it was accepted by the church, or did they make that up out of convenience? I would assume the records of a general assembly vote would be readily accessible, especially to the Q12.

[marc]

Coachmarc,

I'm not sure if I follow you, are you saying the Holy Spirit is a personage?

Because the Fifth Lecture states that there are only two personages in the Godhead, the Father and the Son. Just trying to understand what you are saying.

You are not the first person to ask this. It then becomes necessary to reconcile our definition of personage with Joseph Smith's definition of personage as used in his lectures. Without the Spirit's guidance, it can be easy to confuse the word personage with body. We are trying to fit Joseph's explanation within our individual paradigms. There is a body of spirit and a body of flesh. What does Joseph mean when he says personage? If you look up personage in the dictionary, do you read what you currently perceive the word to mean? Why did Joseph use this word and why isn't it commonly used any more? It becomes necessary to "empty our cup" and let the Lord fill it.

These are questions to take to Him. In the meantime, I am trying to find a clearer way to explain it in writing than Joseph Smith did. The best way I can do it is to recommend various scriptures for you to ponder that make all these distinctions. The above in 1 Nephi and Ether are key scriptures. Further key scriptures are found in John chapter 17, a good place to start. Jesus Christ exhorts his disciples to "be one." Study the distinctions He is making. Then study Abinadi's words to King Noah in the first half of Mosiah chapter 15. Then ponder the fifth lecture in the Lectures on Faith. It will take some sorting to separate them and yet make the distinctions while understanding they are all one, even as we all should be one. it's about context.

Study and ponder:

1. Fifth Lecture on Faith
2. John chapter 17
3. Mosiah chapter 15:1-10
4. First Nephi chapter 11:1-11
5. Ether chapter 3:6-16

[Hyrcanus]

A couple quick thoughts. I've often wondered how the Church might be different if they had access to all the digital records we have today throughout the history. I doubt the LoF would have been removed and I also think some of the early doctrinal issues would have worked themselves out much faster.

Regarding the LoF specifically, I've loved them ever since I came across them on my mission. The only think I think we should keep in mind is that they don't represent the final word, Joseph's and thereby the Church's understanding of the Godhead still evolved a little post LoF. Recognizing that can help to reconcile the few places where things seem out of sync.