Lectures On Faith-

[Russell C McGregor]

Oh poor Russell. It is hard for you to restrain yourself isn't it? I am LDS. I am not an anti Mormon. I am however honest about the historical record. I know in your world view if an LDS member disagrees with you well, it tends to create a lot of anger in you. Too bad for you . You don't decide who is Mormon or not.

Lash out? Please. Like I told Scott such drama. There was nothing in my post that indicated rage nor lashing out,

As for LDS doctrine about God being settled in 1843, well Brigham Young thought Adam was God and the titles of Eloheim and Jehovah seemed a bit confusing at times. Other that those two rather important things sure I would agree. But the 1843 doctrine about God sure did conflict with the Lectures as well. So since at least they were bound with what you would agree was canon removing them due to the conflict was the motivation. You rank them as simply the equivelant of a Sunday School manual. I and others, even brighter historians than you or me view them as something more. We disagree I guess. Sorry that bugs you so much,

 

Lash out?  Lash out?  How DARE anyone say you are lashing out!  If anyone dares to say you are lashing out, you'll rip their head clean off!

 

Okay Teancum.  Take a deep breath.  You're amazingly calm.  Really.

 

Now do try not to have an aneurism.

 

I'm afraid that all that anger you see in me is a projection of something.  Perhaps it's your own state of mind.  Or perhaps it's what you hope will be the result of you rabbitting on about this silly argument.

 

Since at least Joseph Smith's time, and possibly since the invention of movable type, there have always been things bound into a published volume of scripture that were not considered part of the sacred revealed text.  Indices, concordances, maps, dictionaries, harmonies of the gospels, lectures on faith, topical guides, footnotes, etc.

 

The removal of one or the insertion of another is not grounds for anyone to start fomenting a conspiracy theory.

 

So before you and "Thinking" leap to the conclusion that the 1921 apostles were all liars because they said something you disagree with, perhaps you'd like to consider an alternative possibility.

 

Maybe -- just maybe -- you might be mistaken.

 

Now I know you have the utmost difficulty even imagining that as a possibility, but work with me here.  Try it as a thought experiment.  Consider it as a possible alternate reality, if that helps.

But it is actually possible.

 

And not only possible, but likely.

 

Far more likely than your preferred "explanation," which is that the 1921 apostles were all liars.

 

Which is, after all, the real reason you are interested in this historical footnote, isn't it?

 

Not that there's anything remotely anti-Mormon about that.  Oh dear me, no!

[janderich]

Here is an excellent treatment of this topic...

...

It was brought before a Council of the Church. And I'm reading from the Joseph Smith papers. This is on page 307 of Volume 2 of the Revelations and Translations. “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 publications committee. (Joseph Smith headed the publications committee.) This committee having finished the 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 if the book be approved or not by the authorities of the Church. That it may, if approved, become a law of the church, and a rule of faith and practice of the same.” Though the assembly was convened by the Presidency of the Church, several of them were absent at the time of the vote. So the responsibility of presenting the book to the conference fell to Oliver Cowdery, a member of both the presidency and the four man publication committee and Assistant President of the Church at the moment that this took place. Sidney Rigdon, the other presidency member and committee member, stood and explained the matter 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. And then they proceeded to vote. And they voted by quorums from the least to the greatest. Then after all the quorums of the church had accepted the Doctrine and Covenants, the first 70 some pages of which were The Lectures on Faith, the General Assembly voted, including everyone who was present. Children, women, everyone voted. They all sustained this as the Doctrine of the Church."

Denver Snuffer Lecture 2

It appears Denver Snuffer is a little judicious in the history he shares. He pointedly declares that the Doctrine and Covenants including the Lectures on Faith were voted upon by the quorums and then by the general assembly. He emphasizes, "Children, women, everyone voted. They all sustained this as the Doctrine of the Church." I believe he means to contrast the fact that everyone voted in this initial meeting with the fact that the body of the church did not vote to remove the LoF. But there are two pieces of evidence he leaves out when discussing this meeting on August 17, 1835.

1. He fails to mention who was not present in the meeting when the D&C, including the LoF, was accepted. Denver avoids this fact by saying, "Though the assembly was convened by the Presidency of the Church, several of them were absent at the time of the vote."  Who? Namely, Joseph Smith himself, Fredrick G. Williams, all of the twelve apostles, eight of the twelve Kirtland High Council members, nine of the twelve Missouri High Council members, three of the seven Presidents of the Quorum of Seventy, and Presiding Bishop Partridge (see Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy Volume 1: History, 154)

2. He also fails to mention that at this same meeting the "Article on Marriage" was presented and unanimously accepted. This AoM states, "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again" (HC 2:247). It has been acknowledged that the AoM was written by Oliver Cowdrey. Of course subsequently this section was removed from the D&C.

 

[Teancum]

Lash out? Lash out? How DARE anyone say you are lashing out! If anyone dares to say you are lashing out, you'll rip their head clean off!

Okay Teancum. Take a deep breath. You're amazingly calm. Really.

Now do try not to have an aneurism.

I'm afraid that all that anger you see in me is a projection of something. Perhaps it's your own state of mind. Or perhaps it's what you hope will be the result of you rabbitting on about this silly argument.

Since at least Joseph Smith's time, and possibly since the invention of movable type, there have always been things bound into a published volume of scripture that were not considered part of the sacred revealed text. Indices, concordances, maps, dictionaries, harmonies of the gospels, lectures on faith, topical guides, footnotes, etc.

The removal of one or the insertion of another is not grounds for anyone to start fomenting a conspiracy theory.

So before you and "Thinking" leap to the conclusion that the 1921 apostles were all liars because they said something you disagree with, perhaps you'd like to consider an alternative possibility.

Maybe -- just maybe -- you might be mistaken.

Now I know you have the utmost difficulty even imagining that as a possibility, but work with me here. Try it as a thought experiment. Consider it as a possible alternate reality, if that helps.

But it is actually possible.

And not only possible, but likely.

Far more likely than your preferred "explanation," which is that the 1921 apostles were all liars.

Which is, after all, the real reason you are interested in this historical footnote, isn't it?

Not that there's anything remotely anti-Mormon about that. Oh dear me, no!

Ahhh more drama. Really Russell I am amazingly calm. I have not once accused anyone else of rage on this tread nor is lashing out. Nor do I use imflammatory language like calling someone anti Mormon. Why not next time when you post try dropping your immature over the top hyperbole which seems like such a good friend of yours. Rip your head off? No when I commented about your stating that I was lashing out in a post directed at me and how it typifies your typical drama I was doing so to note the absurdity of it. How anyone got lashing out from what I posted is beyond me. Not an ounce of projecting from me. The aneurism additon is sort of cute and cuddly though.

Sure I could be mistaken. I have been and often am. I still may be on this point. I often say on this board when posting I may be mistake. Unlike you and other down the line beleivers here I am very open to my conclusions being wrong about a lot of things.

However on this topic I have studied this issue quite extensively. I have even argued along your lines and once wrote soemthing to an EV critic using some of your arguments and more. Later I concluded that most my arguments that the lectures were not considered part of the canon were weak. I think they are weak. I think your arguments on this subject are weak. I think the fact that most your post above is your typical bloviation shows that it is weak.

If that makes you think I am an anti Mormon so be it. I promise you I am not losing sleep over what think about me. and again the readers here can measure your words and mine to see who is projecting, who is raging and who is about ready to have an aneurism.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Teancum

[Teancum]

It appears Denver Snuffer is a little judicious in the history he shares. He pointedly declares that the Doctrine and Covenants including the Lectures on Faith were voted upon by the quorums and then by the general assembly. He emphasizes, "Children, women, everyone voted. They all sustained this as the Doctrine of the Church." I believe he means to contrast the fact that everyone voted in this initial meeting with the fact that the body of the church did not vote to remove the LoF. But there are two pieces of evidence he leaves out when discussing this meeting on August 17, 1835.

1. He fails to mention who was not present in the meeting when the D&C, including the LoF, was accepted. Denver avoids this fact by saying, "Though the assembly was convened by the Presidency of the Church, several of them were absent at the time of the vote." Who? Namely, Joseph Smith himself, Fredrick G. Williams, all of the twelve apostles, eight of the twelve Kirtland High Council members, nine of the twelve Missouri High Council members, three of the seven Presidents of the Quorum of Seventy, and Presiding Bishop Partridge (see Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy Volume 1: History, 154)

2. He also fails to mention that at this same meeting the "Article on Marriage" was presented and unanimously accepted. This AoM states, "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again" (HC 2:247). It has been acknowledged that the AoM was written by Oliver Cowdrey. Of course subsequently this section was removed from the D&C.

When I used to argue the Lectures were not canon I believe the fact that JS was absent when the book was approved as well as the point about the AoM was one of the best historical arguments against them being canon. Still do.

See Russell I might be mistaken? Happy now? Has my anti Mornonism dropped a notch?

Edited April 26, 2015 by Teancum

[theplains]

When I used to argue the Lectures were not canon I believe the fact that JS was absent when the book was approved...

 

How would the Lectures on Faith make their way into the 1835 canon of the LDS Church without

the approval of Joseph Smith?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[janderich]

How would the Lectures on Faith make their way into the 1835 canon of the LDS Church without

the approval of Joseph Smith?

 

Thanks,

Jim

How did the Article on Marriage make it in when Joseph had practiced polygamy and new the will of the Lord on the matter as early as 1831?

[Thinking]

But there are two pieces of evidence he leaves out when discussing this meeting on August 17, 1835.

1. He fails to mention who was not present in the meeting when the D&C, including the LoF, was accepted. Denver avoids this fact by saying, "Though the assembly was convened by the Presidency of the Church, several of them were absent at the time of the vote."  Who? Namely, Joseph Smith himself, Fredrick G. Williams, all of the twelve apostles, eight of the twelve Kirtland High Council members, nine of the twelve Missouri High Council members, three of the seven Presidents of the Quorum of Seventy, and Presiding Bishop Partridge (see Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy Volume 1: History, 154)

 

Not being present doesn't mean not approving. In fact, Joseph was involved in the preparation of the Lectures for publication in the 1835 D&C.

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]. Link

[janderich]

Thinking,

Agreed. The Lectures contain very important doctrine and there is no doubt but that Joseph reviewed them to some extent. However, it is important to note that Joseph, Richards, the 12, and others were not present when they were approved, so the level of scrutiny regarding the final result is in question.

[Thinking]

Where was Joseph Smith on August 17, 1835?

Edited May 3, 2015 by Thinking

[janderich]

Where was Joseph Smith on August 17, 1835?

Visiting the saints in Michigan with Frederick G. Williams (HC 2:243).

[Thinking]

Visiting the saints in Michigan with Frederick G. Williams (HC 2:243).

 

Thanks.