Lectures On Faith-

[HappyJackWagon]

On another thread I mentioned that the Lectures on Faith were previously canonized in the D&C before being removed. Scott called for a CFR so I supplied one.

"The Lectures were the "doctrine" portion of the Doctrine and CovenantsThe Lectures were included as the "doctrine" portion of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants (the revelations comprised the "covenants" portion). The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." [2]

While the Lectures on Faith were at one time included in the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed from the 1921 edition"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Doctrine_and_Covenants/Lectures_on_Faith/Removed

I admit that I was really surprised by the CFR because I felt this was widely known and accepted. Even after providing the reference the fact that the Lectures on Faith were a part of the canonized D&C until 1921 is still being disputed. I'm curious if there are logical arguments for this.

[ksfisher]

Also from the Fair Mormon site:

 

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons".^[6] This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith. b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine. c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. d) 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, 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.^[7]    

[pogi]

Are there any other examples of scripture being de-canonized.  Was there any reason given?  What is the process of removing something from the cannon any way?

Edited April 15, 2015 by pogi

[The Nehor]

Are there any other examples of scripture being de-cannonized.  Was there any reason given?  What is the process of removing something from the cannon any way?

The marriage article added at the same time as what is now D&C 134 was also cut when polygamy was announced openly.

[ksfisher]

 Was there any reason given? 

 

Did you read my post #2?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

The marriage article added at the same time as what is now D&C 134 was also cut when polygamy was announced openly.

 

Do you mean the old section 101 that used to declare marriage between 1 man and 1 woman? Also de-canonized in favor of D7C 132.

I'm aware of Joseph Fielding Smith's statements about why it was discontinued in the canon but that doesn't erase the fact that they were once accepted as canon. I'm not arguing that the church can't de-canonize. Clearly they can. But de-canonizing based on reasons such as JFS gave, doesn't change the fact that they were presented and accepted as canon previously.

[JLHPROF]

On another thread I mentioned that the Lectures on Faith were previously canonized in the D&C before being removed. Scott called for a CFR so I supplied one.

"The Lectures were the "doctrine" portion of the Doctrine and CovenantsThe Lectures were included as the "doctrine" portion of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants (the revelations comprised the "covenants" portion). The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." [2]

While the Lectures on Faith were at one time included in the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed from the 1921 edition"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Doctrine_and_Covenants/Lectures_on_Faith/Removed

I admit that I was really surprised by the CFR because I felt this was widely known and accepted. Even after providing the reference the fact that the Lectures on Faith were a part of the canonized D&C until 1921 is still being disputed. I'm curious if there are logical arguments for this.

 

It comes down to that tricky "official canon" label.

You know, the one we can never all agree on.

 

The LoF were part of the D&C which was canon of the Church.

The Lectures themselves were never accepted as canon but were added to the supposed canonical D&C revelations (although how many of those were voted on?)

The lectures were approved of by the Prophet at the time (although only one is thought to have been written by him).

The lectures pre-date a LOT of continuing revelation so much of their doctrine was tweaked even by Joseph himself.

 

Were they canon?  Depends how you define canon.  I would say yes, but never scripture.

[Senator]

  Was there any reason given?

 

It appears that it was a mistake.

[ttribe]

I think FAIR's statement on LOF is hairsplitting.  The LOF were part of the Doctrine & Covenants until 1921.  The entire volume of Doctrine & Covenants was accepted as canonized scripture, thus the LOF were part of canonized scripture.  To say otherwise is disingenuous, IMO.

[pogi]

Did you read my post #2?

 

Not until after I posted.  Thanks for that

[HappyJackWagon]

 

It comes down to that tricky "official canon" label.

You know, the one we can never all agree on.

 

The LoF were part of the D&C which was canon of the Church.

The Lectures themselves were never accepted as canon but were added to the supposed canonical D&C revelations (although how many of those were voted on?)

The lectures were approved of by the Prophet at the time (although only one is thought to have been written by him).

The lectures pre-date a LOT of continuing revelation so much of their doctrine was tweaked even by Joseph himself.

 

Were they canon?  Depends how you define canon.  I would say yes, but never scripture.

JLHPROF, thanks for your thoughts.

I admit that the argument against the lectures being canon really boggles. If the lectures are included in the D&C and the entire D&C is presented as scripture and accepted by the church, the method proscribed in the D&C itself, it feels like an absolute refusal of fact simply because it is inconvenient.

[ALarson]

I think FAIR's statement on LOF is hairsplitting.  The LOF were part of the Doctrine & Covenants until 1921.  The entire volume of Doctrine & Covenants was accepted as canonized scripture, thus the LOF were part of canonized scripture.  To say otherwise is disingenuous, IMO.

I agree with this.  Well stated.

[Coreyb]

The Doctrine and Covenants including the Lectures on Faith were voted on by common consent in general conference in 1835. No distinction was made between the first and second parts as far as one being "canon" and the other not. The later argument about them not being presented to the church as a revelation is pretty disingenuous because they were presented. No they do not claim to be a "thus saith The Lord" type revelation, but much of the material in our current doctrine and covenants does not claim that either. IMO they were dropped in an effort to streamline the doctrines of the church, because they presented an earlier concept of God.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Coreyb

[JLHPROF]

IMO they were dropped in an effort to streamline the doctrines of the church, because they presented an earlier concept if God.

 

I agree with this.  They represented the pre-Elijah church which had a limited view and understanding of God and was frankly steeped in protestant tradition brought in by the early converts.

As Joseph received more revelation most of the LoF became a bit outdated.  However, I find the 6th Lecture to read as a much more inspired document than the rest.

[Thinking]

After a hymn was sung, President Cowdery arose and introduced the "Book of doctrine and covenants of the church of the Latter Day Saints," in behalf of the committee: he was followed by President Rigdon, who explained the manner by which they intended to obtain the voice of the assembly for or against said book: the other two committee, named above, were absent. According to said arrangement W. W. Phelps bore record that the book presented to the assembly, was true. President John Whitmer, also arose, and testified that it was true. Elder John Smith, taking the lead of the high council in Kirtland, bore record that the revelations in said book were true, and that the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine; whereupon the high council of Kirtland accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote. Elder Levi Jackman, taking the lead of the high council of the church in Missouri, bore testimony that the revelations in said book were true, and the said high council of Missouri accepted and acknowledge them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.

President W. W. Phelps then read the written testimony of the Twelve, as follows. "The testimony of the witnesses to the book of the Lord's commandments, which he gave to his church through Joseph Smith, jr. who was appointed by the voice of the church for this purpose: we therefore feel willing to bear testimony to all the world of mankind, to every creature upon the face of all the earth, and upon the islands of the sea, that the Lord has borne record to our souls, through the Holy Ghost shed forth upon us, that these commandments were given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for all men, and are verily true.-We give this testimony unto the world, the Lord being our helper: and it is through the grace of God, the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, that we are permitted to have this privilege of bearing this testimony unto the world, in the which we rejoice exceedingly, praying the Lord always, that the children of men may be profited thereby. Elder Leonard Rich bore record of the truth of the book and the council of the Seventy accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote. (Messenger and Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 11, p.161-162)

[omni]

IMO, the incorrect doctrines taught in the LoF are a major issue and I'm surprised it doesn't receive more attention. This isn't one or two leaders "speaking as a man" on some obscure beliefs, but instead canonized doctrine on some of the most basic and fundamental aspects of the godhead. The teachings spanned the lives of a number of prophets and were voted on and accepted by the membership, in short they fit all the criteria of official doctrine.

Edited April 15, 2015 by omni

[Freedom]

It is more an example of the early church leaders not fully understanding the ramifications of what they say and publish. 

[Crypto]

I compare the LoF to the Gospel Principals manual. The big difference is during the time, it would make sense to bind them together with what is now the remaining D&C, Thus the discussion around what is cannon. There is a lot of truth in the LoF and in Gospel Principals. Seems like an honest enough endeavor.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Crypto

[Thinking]

This is the LINK to the quote from my earlier post.

[Robert F. Smith]

The following is worth noting, from the Joseph Smith Papers Project of the LDS Historical Department, online at http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835?p=1&highlight=lectures%20on%20faith ,

 

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,”11 comprised 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 officein the winter of 1834–1835.12 Lecture one was contemporaneously published as a broadside and lectures five and six were published in the May 1835 issue of the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate,13 but there is no known manuscript copy of any of the lectures. Although no JS-era published version states who authored the lectures, they were traditionally attributed to JS. Modern scholars, however, largely agree that Rigdon authored most or all of the lectures.14

[Thinking]

The following is worth noting, from the Joseph Smith Papers Project of the LDS Historical Department, online at http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835?p=1&highlight=lectures%20on%20faith ,

 

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,”11 comprised 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 officein the winter of 1834–1835.12 Lecture one was contemporaneously published as a broadside and lectures five and six were published in the May 1835 issue of the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate,13 but there is no known manuscript copy of any of the lectures. Although no JS-era published version states who authored the lectures, they were traditionally attributed to JS. Modern scholars, however, largely agree that Rigdon authored most or all of the lectures.14

 

So...when the Lectures were taken out in 1921, why wasn't the title changed back to The Book of Commandments?

[Russell C McGregor]

I think FAIR's statement on LOF is hairsplitting.  The LOF were part of the Doctrine & Covenants until 1921.  The entire volume of Doctrine & Covenants was accepted as canonized scripture, thus the LOF were part of canonized scripture.  To say otherwise is disingenuous, IMO.

 

Thank you for your opinion.

 

The fact is that the statement accompanying the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants refers only to the revelations, and not to the lectures.

 

You can call that "hairsplitting" if you like.

 

The LDS edition of the Bible includes the Topical Guide, the Bible Dictionary and various maps.  Are they also therefore part of the "official canon?"

 

I suggest that they are study aids.

 

Much like the Lectures on Faith.

 

Which were written by Sidney Rigdon, and never accepted as revealed documents.

 

You can call that "disingenuous" if you like.

 

But it is true, nonetheless.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[Thinking]

The fact is that the statement accompanying the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants refers only to the revelations, and not to the lectures.

 

Really?

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.

Link

[Russell C McGregor]

Really?

Link

 

Yes, really.

 

You are looking at the wrong statement.

 

Testimony of the Twelve Apostles to the Truth of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants

The Testimony of the Witnesses to the Book of the Lord’s Commandments, which commandments He gave to His Church through Joseph Smith, Jun., who was appointed by the voice of the Church for this purpose:

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

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

The names of the Twelve were:

Thomas B. Marsh

David W. Patten

Brigham Young

Heber C. Kimball

Orson Hyde

William E. McLellin

Parley P. Pratt

Luke S. Johnson

William Smith

Orson Pratt

John F. Boynton

Lyman E. Johnson

Please note: "These commandments." Namely, the revelations.

Not a peep about the lectures.

That's because they were study aids.

 

The above statement was first included in the 1833 Book of Commandments, which did not contain the Lectures, and was simply carried forward into the Doctrine and Covenants along with the revelations that had been included in that volume.

And if you read the quote you provided, you will notice that it clearly distinguishes between the Lectures, having been included only because "of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation," and the actual commandments given by revelation.

 

This distinction supports my position.

 

Thank you.

Regards,

Russell

Edited April 16, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[Teancum]

It comes down to that tricky "official canon" label.

You know, the one we can never all agree on.

 

The LoF were part of the D&C which was canon of the Church.

The Lectures themselves were never accepted as canon but were added to the supposed canonical D&C revelations (although how many of those were voted on?)

The lectures were approved of by the Prophet at the time (although only one is thought to have been written by him).

The lectures pre-date a LOT of continuing revelation so much of their doctrine was tweaked even by Joseph himself.

Were they canon?  Depends how you define canon.  I would say yes, but never scripture.

Yes they were accepted as canon by a committee and vote of the church as the DOCTRINE of the Doctrine & Covenants. They were not tossed in as simply a nice addition. The revelations from the prior Book of Commandments were the Covenants part. More doctrinal exposes were planned but never came to be. Joseph Smith may or may not have written them. Rigdon is more likely for the bulk as are others. But the historical records shows he worked on them and approved them.

It is clear they were removed because I some ways the disagreed with later teachings about the Godhead, especially Lecture 5.

Interestingly, McConkie liked them and even Lecture 5 he said once that for those spiritually mature ( or something like that) it was one of the best outlines about the Godhead we had