Lectures On Faith-

[janderich]

In 1940 John W. Fitzgerald wrote a master thesis on the Doctrine and Covenants. He asked Joseph Fielding Smith, who was one of the members of the committee responsible for their removal, why they were removed. Here is JFS explanation: 

(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.
© 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. (A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants, M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, page 344)

The above points are hard to accept.

a) There are many portions of the D&C that are not direct revelation. These other sections were not removed, so this alone appears not to be a sufficient reason.

b) Certainly they were doctrine. In fact, as has been noted they were considered by some the "doctrine" portion of the "Doctrine and Covenants". 

c) No words can be complete regarding the Godhead. Section 130 is obviously also incomplete. I think this statement has more to do with the fact that the committee determined they contradicted section 130.

d) Unfortunately when they were separated from the D&C they have largely become unread by general membership. 

[Thinking]

 

Yes, really.

 

You are looking at the wrong statement.

 

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

 

Don't leave out the preceding paragraph (the one I already referenced in post #15).

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.

 

I guess there was a peep after all.

[Senator]

Could this precedence, and its justifications, be an argument for why the PotF could never be canonized?

[HappyJackWagon]

It is this kind of hairsplitting that turns people off from even wanting to listen to apologists who fight against statements that the sky is blue. It comes across as totally dishonest and you forfeit any credibility you may have had.

The question is, why are some people so afraid of admitting the obvious, that the Lectures on Faith were part of the canonized Doctrine and Covenants from 1835-1921?

Is it a fear of admitting that doctrine evolves or that prophets and apostles from 1835-1921 may have been teaching a false doctrine? In a church of continuing revelation I'm not sure why either of those scenarios would be scary. There are other revelations that have been de-canonized (the original sec 101 revelation on marriage) and replaced with new doctrine (D&C 132). It happens guys. Admit it and move on.

[hagoth7]

...The question is, why are some people so afraid of admitting the obvious, that the Lectures on Faith were part of the canonized Doctrine and Covenants from 1835-1921?

...Admit it and move on.

That's not too hard to admit. I don't see what the big deal about it is. It happened. So what?

 

(And I still enjoy the Lectures on Faith.)

[Teancum]

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.

I disagree with your conclusion. It is clear the lectures were as much a part of the book as the revelations. They were presented as the doctrine of the Doctrine & Covenanats and accepted as such. No delineation was made like you state above. These are the facts. And nobody is claiming they were revealed documents nor do they have to be to be canon.

[ttribe]

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.

 

Of course it was my opinion.  That's why I began my statement with "I think..."  Nevertheless, it is no more an opinion than is your label of "study guides" applied to the Lectures on Faith and making them akin to the maps in the LDS version of the Bible.

 

That the majority of the LoF were penned by Sidney Rigdon does not mean they fell exclusively from his own mind.  Indeed, Joseph Smith indicated his own involvement in his personal journal (see HC 2:180).  Furthermore, the LoF were an outgrowth of the School of the Prophets; an event few LDS historians would dismiss as being insignificant in the development of the leadership and doctrines of the Church.  It is also important to note, at the time of their preparation and assembly, Sidney Rigdon was a member of the First Presidency. 

 

That being said, I will concede there is a long history of stating the LoF were not revelation in the sense that many of the sections in the D&C were identified.  They were, for all intents and purposes, a catechism.  Guiding principles to form a framework around which the revelations within the D&C were to be viewed (not to be confused with maps and dictionaries).

 

Frankly, I think John A. Widtsoe's explanation for their later removal from the D&C to be the best - they were not revealed to the Church.  In other words, they were instruction for the members of the School of the Prophets and were appended to the D&C (perhaps incorrectly) by Church leadership at the time of the D&C's first publication.

 

I agree with HJW's sentiment.  This hardly seems an admission to avoid.  They were in the canon for some 75+ years.  A decision was made by subsequent leadership that they would be removed. So what?  Why you, FAIR, and others, seek to distance the Church canon from the LoF throughout all time is utterly mysterious to me and, yes, creates a perception of defenders being disingenuous.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I disagree with your conclusion. It is clear the lectures were as much a part of the book as the revelations. They were presented as the doctrine of the Doctrine & Covenanats and accepted as such. No delineation was made like you state above. These are the facts. And nobody is claiming they were revealed documents nor do they have to be to be canon.

That is not clear. What we can say is that they are not included now. What does that tell you? They are not doctrine. Plain and simple. I can only go off of what is now. Not what they were 100 years ago.

[CCRW]

That is not clear. What we can say is that they are not included now. What does that tell you? They are not doctrine. Plain and simple. I can only go off of what is now. Not what they were 100 years ago.

 

That makes me sad ... Don't be afraid Mola (also join us downstairs)

[sethpayne]

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.

 

I was surprised as well.  I thought it was common knowledge that the "Lectures" were removed.  I was always told that it is because they were included/composed prior to Joseph's full understanding of the Godhead which he began teaching in Nauvoo.

[sethpayne]

 

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]    

 

 

By that logic there are at least 2 additional sections that need removal.

[sethpayne]

 

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

 

Religious Canons are made up of scripture.  By definition then, Canon is scripture.

 

Or perhaps I'm missing something..... ???

[JLHPROF]

Religious Canons are made up of scripture.  By definition then, Canon is scripture.

 

Or perhaps I'm missing something..... ???

 

Perhaps.

But to my mind at least there is a difference.

 

Canon to me is ANY item that is considered "official doctrine".

Scripture to me are inspired writings (revelations etc).

 

They should usually be the same, but they aren't.  Take OD1 - it's in our scriptures, it was inspired BY a revelation, it contains canonized doctrine.  But to me, it's not scripture, it's a press release.

Conversely, there is much scripture (including modern revelation) that is not canon, adopted officially.

 

Canon and scripture are not the same thing to my mind.  Scripture is recorded inspired writings.  Canon is approved official doctrine.  They may overlap but they aren't the same.  Hence, the LoF WAS canon at one point, but it was never scripture (except maybe Lecture 6 ).

[CCRW]

 Dang, our very own JLHPROF is a cafeteria Mormon!

 

Take OD1 - it's in our scriptures, it was inspired BY a revelation, it contains canonized doctrine.  But to me, it's not scripture, it's a press release.

 

[sethpayne]

Perhaps.

But to my mind at least there is a difference.

 

Canon to me is ANY item that is considered "official doctrine".

Scripture to me are inspired writings (revelations etc).

 

They should usually be the same, but they aren't.  Take OD1 - it's in our scriptures, it was inspired BY a revelation, it contains canonized doctrine.  But to me, it's not scripture, it's a press release.

Conversely, there is much scripture (including modern revelation) that is not canon, adopted officially.

 

Canon and scripture are not the same thing to my mind.  Scripture is recorded inspired writings.  Canon is approved official doctrine.  They may overlap but they aren't the same.  Hence, the LoF WAS canon at one point, but it was never scripture (except maybe Lecture 6 ).

 

Interesting.  I see where you are coming from.

 

But I do think most people equate canon with scripture -- although I know there is some debate in Christian circles about the distinction made between the two.  In particular the Canon remains fluid but scripture never changes/loses its inherent authority.  

[Russell C McGregor]

I agree with HJW's sentiment.  This hardly seems an admission to avoid.  They were in the canon for some 75+ years.  A decision was made by subsequent leadership that they would be removed. So what?  Why you, FAIR, and others, seek to distance the Church canon from the LoF throughout all time is utterly mysterious to me and, yes, creates a perception of defenders being disingenuous.

It's funny how, whenever critics and defenders of the Church disagree, the critics invariably accuse the defenders of being "disingenuous."

Is that because you really can't grasp the concept that anyone could honestly disagree with you? Do you really imagine that your opinions are that self-evidently and indisputably true?

Or do you just find it tactically useful to put your opponents on the defensive?

Again: I have yet to see any authoritative source that definitively describes the Lectures as "canonical." In fact, every text I've seen produced in support of that claim actually makes a clear distinction between the lectures and the revelations: the revelations were given by God to the Church, and the lectures are there because they are useful.

So go ahead; repeat your accusation that I'm being "disingenuous." You know you want to.

[ttribe]

It's funny how, whenever critics and defenders of the Church disagree, the critics invariably accuse the defenders of being "disingenuous."

Is that because you really can't grasp the concept that anyone could honestly disagree with you? Do you really imagine that your opinions are that self-evidently and indisputably true?

Or do you just find it tactically useful to put your opponents on the defensive?

Again: I have yet to see any authoritative source that definitively describes the Lectures as "canonical." In fact, every text I've seen produced in support of that claim actually makes a clear distinction between the lectures and the revelations: the revelations were given by God to the Church, and the lectures are there because they are useful.

So go ahead; repeat your accusation that I'm being "disingenuous." You know you want to.

 

No need.  You attacked my argument, I responded to that attack with an explanation as to why I used the word I did.  I think I won't resort to the personal here.

 

 

ETA:  One question, since you used the terms in your reply, I have to ask - Am I a "critic" now?  I'm wondering what t-shirt you think I should be wearing.

Edited April 16, 2015 by ttribe

[Scott Lloyd]

No need.  You attacked my argument, I responded to that attack with an explanation as to why I used the word I did.  I think, unlike you, I won't resort to the personal here.

 

 

ETA:  One question, since you used the terms in your reply, I have to ask - Am I a "critic" now?  I'm wondering what t-shirt you think I should be wearing.

I think the word disingenuous is tossed around rather haphazardly by critics.

 

On another thread, I just noticed somebody called me "disingenuous" because I disagreed with his convoluted application of a D&C passage in support of a quirky modern-day definition of tithing.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

Again: I have yet to see any authoritative source that definitively describes the Lectures as "canonical." In fact, every text I've seen produced in support of that claim actually makes a clear distinction between the lectures and the revelations: the revelations were given by God to the Church, and the lectures are there because they are useful.

 

You don't consider the D&C itself to be authoritative?

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.

 

From this authoritative description, the doctrine is contained in the lectures (which I know that you know were used in the School of the Prophets). Now if you want to continue to claim that they were somehow just guidelines in the POTC kind of way, well you have a right to your opinion.

[JLHPROF]

 Dang, our very own JLHPROF is a cafeteria Mormon!

 

 

Ouch...you wound me sir! 

 

I think every Mormon is a cafeteria Mormon.  In the grand scope of all prophetic teaching, scripture, revelation, etc there is always something that we don't agree with.  So we pick and choose, sometimes based on sound reasoning, sometimes based on human emotion, sometimes based on what's "popular/accepted".  We all have our own approach to the cafeteria line...

[Scott Lloyd]

No need.  You attacked my argument, I responded to that attack with an explanation as to why I used the word I did.  I think I won't resort to the personal here.

 

 

ETA:  One question, since you used the terms in your reply, I have to ask - Am I a "critic" now?  I'm wondering what t-shirt you think I should be wearing.

In the first part of your post, by implication, you take him to task for "resort[ing] to the personal."

 

Then, in the addition to your post, you appear to be trying to goad him into doing more of that sort of thing.

 

Makes me wonder if you're trying to set him up for a complaint to the moderators.

 

The ttribe I remember would not be that dishonorable.

[ttribe]

In the first part of your post, by implication, you take him to task for "resort[ing] to the personal."

 

Then, in the addition to your post, you appear to be trying to goad him into doing more of that sort of thing.

 

Makes me wonder if you're trying to set him up for a complaint to the moderators.

 

The ttribe I remember would not be that dishonorable.

 

Not at all.  Didn't even cross my mind.  I was genuinely curious what he meant.  He seemed to draw a bright line distinction and I was trying to figure out where, in his mind, he thought I resided.

 

Every post on this board isn't motivated by a hidden agenda.

Edited April 16, 2015 by ttribe

[pogi]

I think every Mormon is a cafeteria Mormon.  

 

I was going to say the same thing!

 

 If I tried to believe and reconcile everything ever taught from the pulpit, I would be clinically insane.  I eat what tastes good, and my taste buds are ever evolving as I try new things and am led by the Lord. 

[Scott Lloyd]

 

You don't consider the D&C itself to be authoritative?

 

From this authoritative description, the doctrine is contained in the lectures (which I know that you know were used in the School of the Prophets). Now if you want to continue to claim that they were somehow just guidelines in the POTC kind of way, well you have a right to your opinion.

 

I have to object to this on a couple of points.

 

First, it seems to have become the common practice of those who don't like the content of "The Family: a Proclamation to the World," to dismiss it as being "just guidelines." It won't do to so trivialize it. The document is far more than that. It is a solemn declaration, a "proclamation,' just as the title states, setting forth the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and being directed to the world at large as well as to the Latter-day Saints.

 

Second, the comparison of the Lectures on Faith to study aids, is actually a very apt one. Or, we might regard the lectures in some ways as an early-day equivalent to a lesson manual for priesthood quorums and groups. That they would be bound for the sake of convenience with the earliest form of a volume of latter-day scripture is not surprising, and their subsequent removal from that binding is not all that momentous.

 

It just occurred to me while typing this that it could be argued that the family proclamation, given its timeless and essential nature, has far greater stature than do the Lectures on Faith, which, today, are viewed as interesting and potentially beneficial reading, but certainly not essential.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I was going to say the same thing!

 

 If I tried to believe and reconcile everything ever taught from the pulpit, I would be clinically insane.  I eat what tastes good, and my taste buds are ever evolving as I try new things and am led by the Lord. 

Well, I, for one, don't cop to being a "cafeteria Mormon." And I don't buy that everyone does.