Lectures On Faith-

[CCRW]

Is there other documented minutes or other lessons from the School of the Prophets?  How often did they meet and for how long did this last?

[JLHPROF]

Is there other documented minutes or other lessons from the School of the Prophets?  How often did they meet and for how long did this last?

 

There were many gatherings of the School of the Prophets.  Most people think of the early Kirtland one, in the early 1830s.  Both Brigham Young and John Taylor started versions in Salt Lake.

Most of the minutes of the Salt Lake ones are available if you go hunting.

http://findingaid.lib.byu.edu/viewItem/MSS%207989

http://books.google.com/books/about/Minute_Book_1883.html?id=q_34HAAACAAJ

http://www.amazon.com/SALT-LAKE-SCHOOL-THE-PROPHETS/dp/B000UQAIPQ

 

There's quite a bit out there if you google.

 

Interestingly there are also a bunch of less authentic School of the Prophets too:

http://www.amazon.com/School-Prophets-Advanced-Training-Prophetic/dp/0800796209

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7991605-lorin-c-woolley-s-school-of-the-prophets-minutes-from-1932---1941

[Thinking]

 

And where does it say that the lectures were true, or regarded as canonical scripture?

 

In an earlier post you quoted a letter from the twelve. Link

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 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.

 

Let's read what happened after the letter was read.

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.

Bishop N. K. Whitney bore record of the truth of the book, and with his counsellors, accepted and acknowledged it as the  doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.

Actng Bishop, John Corrill, bore record of the truth of the book, and with his counsellors, accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.

Wm. Burges acting President of the Deacons, bore record of the truth of the book, and they accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unianimous  vote.

The venerable President, Thomas Gates, then bore record of the truth of the book, and with his five silver-headed assistants, and the whole congregation, accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote. Link

 

Unless they were talking about some other book, the Lectures are in that book - that true book.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Thinking

[CCRW]

wow jlhprof, you have just shown me the root of the merge of mamon and the church.  Seriously!

 

http://findingaid.lib.byu.edu/viewItem/MSS%207989 hit the "Creator Info" tab and read where the corruption started.

 

I'd almost pay the 30 bucks to see if they still did the washing of feet

Edited April 23, 2015 by CCRW

[Russell C McGregor]

In an earlier post you quoted a letter from the twelve. Link

 

Let's read what happened after the letter was read.

 

Unless they were talking about some other book, the Lectures are in that book - that true book.

And the Bible Dictionary is in the Bible: that true book.

 

Note that each of the statements you've quoted, as if they somehow added up to a crushing weight of authority, simply repeats the one before.  IOW, they sustained the same motion by quorums, as was the custom of the day.

 

I wonder if, sometime in the future, the current Bible dictionary is removed -- perhaps to be replaced with something else, perhaps not -- someone will subsequently start some meaningless discussion (on the GWW) about how the Church simply discarded "canonical" material?

 

After all, if it's in the same binding, it must have the same standing as everything else, right?

 

Or perhaps not?

 

The Apostles, as of 1921, said that the lectures did not have the same status as the revelations.

 

The Apostles in 1835 didn't mention them at all.

BTW, can you please stop doing whatever it is you're doing with sizes and fonts? Thanks.

[Teancum]

I don't claim victimhood, for myself or anyone else, when I am contradicted.

 

 

It really depends on how aggressive they are.

 

Falsehood should not be allowed to stand, regardless of how troubled the person claims to be who is purveying it.

Indeed. Sort of like denying that the lectures were simply an nice supplement to the 1835 D&C as demonstrated by the words of the leading quorums that approved them as the doctrine of the Doctrine and Covenents. You and Russell are simply downplaying and spinning what was said to meet your own agenda.

And it is clear why. The Lectures disputes the ideas about the Godhead that later developed as well as show the in 1835 Mornons did not believe the father had a body of flesh and bones. As the top leaders were trying to clean up exactly what the LDS doctrine was on the the Godhead and make it in sync with the 1916 FP statement on the Godhead it was clear the earlier theology was inconsistent so the down played the lectures and removed them. For some reason if they have a higher status some apologists deem that r problem and thus the attempt to show the lectures as something less than what they were...part of the LDS canon for over 70 years.

[Thinking]

BTW, can you please stop doing whatever it is you're doing with sizes and fonts? Thanks.

 

Arial - size 14

 

What's wrong with it?

[ALarson]

Arial - size 14

 

What's wrong with it?

On my computer, your posts look just like everyone else's posts.  I'm not sure what McGregor was referring to (?).

[ttribe]

On my computer, your posts look just like everyone else's posts.  I'm not sure what McGregor was referring to (?).

Same.

[CCRW]

There was a quote that looked funky ... I'm yet to totally figure out the quote functionality here some times it acts strange.

[Scott Lloyd]

Indeed. Sort of like denying that the lectures were simply an nice supplement to the 1835 D&C as demonstrated by the words of the leading quorums that approved them as the doctrine of the Doctrine and Covenents. You and Russell are simply downplaying and spinning what was said to meet your own agenda.

And it is clear why. The Lectures disputes the ideas about the Godhead that later developed as well as show the in 1835 Mornons did not believe the father had a body of flesh and bones. As the top leaders were trying to clean up exactly what the LDS doctrine was on the the Godhead and make it in sync with the 1916 FP statement on the Godhead it was clear the earlier theology was inconsistent so the down played the lectures and removed them. For some reason if they have a higher status some apologists deem that r problem and thus the attempt to show the lectures as something less than what they were...part of the LDS canon for over 70 years.

Well, I disagree with you.

 

Apparently that enrages you.

 

Not my fault.

 

Why are you so desperate that everyone (contrary to the 1921 introduction) regard the lectures as canon?

Edited April 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Same.

Me too.

 

Must be a local computer glitch.

[Russell C McGregor]

Indeed. Sort of like denying that the lectures were simply an nice supplement to the 1835 D&C as demonstrated by the words of the leading quorums that approved them as the doctrine of the Doctrine and Covenents. You and Russell are simply downplaying and spinning what was said to meet your own agenda.

And it is clear why. The Lectures disputes the ideas about the Godhead that later developed as well as show the in 1835 Mornons did not believe the father had a body of flesh and bones. As the top leaders were trying to clean up exactly what the LDS doctrine was on the the Godhead and make it in sync with the 1916 FP statement on the Godhead it was clear the earlier theology was inconsistent so the down played the lectures and removed them. For some reason if they have a higher status some apologists deem that r problem and thus the attempt to show the lectures as something less than what they were...part of the LDS canon for over 70 years.

Your mind-reading is fundamentally flawed. You are simply wrong about my "agenda."

The only agenda you are qualified to comment upon -- indeed the one you have in fact commented upon -- is your own.

And it turns out that your agenda is to find a line of attack against the Church of Jesus Christ.

You fondly imagine to yourself that "the top leaders were trying to clean up exactly what the LDS doctrine was on the the Godhead." They were not. That doctrine was settled at least as early as April, 1843. See Doctrine and Covenants 130:22.

For Latter-day Saints there is no controversy; a revelation trumps a lecture. The lecture is simply rendered obsolete. To the extent that it disagrees with revealed truth, it is in error.

Your view -- and let's call it by its right name, shall we? Your anti-Mormon view seems to hold that as long as the LoF were between the same covers as the revelations, the doctrine was in doubt.  And, based upon that faulty assumption, augmented by your own wishful thinking, you imagine an improbable scenario; you then assume that your scenario is so self-evidently true that nobody could honestly dispute it; and then you lash out at anyone who disagrees, snarling about a "problem" that you only imagine, however fondly, we are desperately trying to avoid.

 

But your assumption is wrong; thus, every conclusion that proceeds from that assumption is equally wrong.

[Scott Lloyd]

Your mind-reading is fundamentally flawed. You are simply wrong about my "agenda."

The only agenda you are qualified to comment upon -- indeed the one you have in fact commented upon -- is your own.

And it turns out that your agenda is to find a line of attack against the Church of Jesus Christ.

You fondly imagine to yourself that "the top leaders were trying to clean up exactly what the LDS doctrine was on the the Godhead." They were not. That doctrine was settled at least as early as April, 1843. See Doctrine and Covenants 130:22.

For Latter-day Saints there is no controversy; a revelation trumps a lecture. The lecture is simply rendered obsolete. To the extent that it disagrees with revealed truth, it is in error.

Your view -- and let's call it by its right name, shall we? Your anti-Mormon view seems to hold that as long as the LoF were between the same covers as the revelations, the doctrine was in doubt.  And, based upon that faulty assumption, augmented by your own wishful thinking, you imagine an improbable scenario; you then assume that your scenario is so self-evidently true that nobody could honestly dispute it; and then you lash out at anyone who disagrees, snarling about a "problem" that you only imagine, however fondly, we are desperately trying to avoid.

 

But your assumption is wrong; thus, every conclusion that proceeds from that assumption is equally wrong.

Yeah, I hate to say it, but the line-of-attack motive is appearing more and more to be behind the desperate demand that everyone acknowledge the lectures as canonical.

[ttribe]

Your mind-reading is fundamentally flawed. You are simply wrong about my "agenda."

The only agenda you are qualified to comment upon -- indeed the one you have in fact commented upon -- is your own.

And it turns out that your agenda is to find a line of attack against the Church of Jesus Christ.

You fondly imagine to yourself that "the top leaders were trying to clean up exactly what the LDS doctrine was on the the Godhead." They were not. That doctrine was settled at least as early as April, 1843. See Doctrine and Covenants 130:22.

For Latter-day Saints there is no controversy; a revelation trumps a lecture. The lecture is simply rendered obsolete. To the extent that it disagrees with revealed truth, it is in error.

Your view -- and let's call it by its right name, shall we? Your anti-Mormon view seems to hold that as long as the LoF were between the same covers as the revelations, the doctrine was in doubt.  And, based upon that faulty assumption, augmented by your own wishful thinking, you imagine an improbable scenario; you then assume that your scenario is so self-evidently true that nobody could honestly dispute it; and then you lash out at anyone who disagrees, snarling about a "problem" that you only imagine, however fondly, we are desperately trying to avoid.

 

But your assumption is wrong; thus, every conclusion that proceeds from that assumption is equally wrong.

 

 

Yeah, I hate to say it, but the line-of-attack motive is appearing more and more to be behind the desperate demand that everyone acknowledge the lectures as canonical.

 

[CCRW]

ok, that's funny

 

Please sign up: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65282-what-are-your-motives/

Edited April 24, 2015 by CCRW

[Russell C McGregor]

Cute photo. Friend of yours, is he?

[ttribe]

Cute photo. Friend of yours, is he?

 

AFAIK, we've never met.

[Teancum]

Well, I disagree with you.

Apparently that enrages you.

Not my fault.

Why are you so desperate that everyone (contrary to the 1921 introduction) regard the lectures as canon?

Enraged? oh please Mr. dramatic, you over rate how your poor defenses impact my life and what I think and worry about. There was nothing in my post that your responded to that was anywhere near even and ounce of rage. Really this is just another personal attack on me by you similar to other ones you have done in the past, You must be losing the argument if you need to stoop to this.

Really you and this board are a small part of my life. I come here because it is a form of entertainment for me and of course things LDS interest me.

I feel bad for the apologists here really. You have a tough job defending what at least I have come to see as the indefensible.

As for desperate to portray the lectures as canon? Hardly desperate. Just concluding what those who authorized and apparently viewed the doctrine portion of the 1835 D&C is in their own words. No spin on my part.

Ultimately it matters little to me as I think that the lectures and the revelations are simply one small obscure (in 1835) millennial sects expectations sects best attempt at understanding the world through the a religious lens....one of many thousands since man has used religion to strengthen their tribe and community. No more true or false than any other.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Teancum

[Teancum]

Your mind-reading is fundamentally flawed. You are simply wrong about my "agenda."

The only agenda you are qualified to comment upon -- indeed the one you have in fact commented upon -- is your own.

And it turns out that your agenda is to find a line of attack against the Church of Jesus Christ.

You fondly imagine to yourself that "the top leaders were trying to clean up exactly what the LDS doctrine was on the the Godhead." They were not. That doctrine was settled at least as early as April, 1843. See Doctrine and Covenants 130:22.

For Latter-day Saints there is no controversy; a revelation trumps a lecture. The lecture is simply rendered obsolete. To the extent that it disagrees with revealed truth, it is in error.

Your view -- and let's call it by its right name, shall we? Your anti-Mormon view seems to hold that as long as the LoF were between the same covers as the revelations, the doctrine was in doubt.  And, based upon that faulty assumption, augmented by your own wishful thinking, you imagine an improbable scenario; you then assume that your scenario is so self-evidently true that nobody could honestly dispute it; and then you lash out at anyone who disagrees, snarling about a "problem" that you only imagine, however fondly, we are desperately trying to avoid.

 

But your assumption is wrong; thus, every conclusion that proceeds from that assumption is equally wrong.

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,

[Teancum]

Yeah, I hate to say it, but the line-of-attack motive is appearing more and more to be behind the desperate demand that everyone acknowledge the lectures as canonical.

Oh once again please, you and Russell need to get over yourselves. My response was I response to you when you proudly proclaim that you combat falsehoods even if it hurts a doubter who comes here. My response was in opposition to the idea that you seem to have that every defense you and other self proclaimed defenders here make are in fact true defenses agains falsehoods and I noted that at least in my view your position on the lectures was a falsehood and not as honest a defense as you want people to think. I then explained why I thnk you and Russell want to down play the lectures. I am not the first to make such an explanation. I could be wrong.

But there was absolutely no rage, no desperation nor demand, then what I get is personal attacks with you saying I am enraged and desperate and Russell calling me an anti Mormon. Seems pretty ad hominem to me .

The reader can decide who seems more enraged and desperate I guess.

Oh and I missed the snarling part. Snarling? Really? More ad hominem. Again the reader, Russell, can decide who the snarling poster is here.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Teancum

[Teancum]

Here is a part of a book review of The Lectures on Faith in Historical Perspective

Book Review

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=6090

The most sensitive assignment, Lecture 5, was given to Robert L. Millet, dean of Religious Education at Brigham Young University. The doctrine of the Godhead expressed in this lecture seems in conflict with Latter-day Saint teaching—a problem that has often been associated with the 1921 decision to delete the lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants. Millet successfully puts the casual critic of this lecture off balance by quoting an extraordinary endorsement of the lectures by Elder Bruce R. McConkie: "It is without question the most excellent summary of revealed and eternal truth relative to the Godhead that is now extant in mortal language. . . . To spiritually illiterate persons, it may seem hard and confusing; to those whose souls are aflame with heavenly light, it is a nearly perfect summary of those things which must be believed to gain salvation" (221).4 In the same spirit, Millet suggests to the reader that the desired harmony between Lecture 5 and the scriptures will be found by those who search prayerfully and "give solemn and ponderous thought" (222) to these insights, which he unequivocally attributes to Joseph Smith. For Millet, there is no authorship issue worth considering. Without qualification, he cites all passages from the lectures as Joseph Smith's words.

One of the first issues Millet addresses is the oft-remarked Protestantism of the lectures. Referring to this and the theory that they were early, experimental, and sectarian, he asserts that they "are neither primitive nor Protestant" (223). Millet's subsequent efforts to reconcile Lecture 5 with current Latter-day Saint teachings are admirable and well-written academic exercises—though they are puzzling. His first alternative explanation of the treatment of God the Father as a spirit being suggests that Joseph might not have grasped the Father's corporeality by 1835. But that explanation seems to play right into the primitivist thesis he rejects. The other alternatives offered by Millet feature interpretations by which the language is made to imply what the Church now expressly teaches.

The second troublesome issue in Lecture 5 is the character of the Holy Spirit, which, as Millet says, "seems to be relegated to some type of mystical connecting link between the other two members of the Godhead" (233). Millet acknowledges that there is little evidence before Nauvoo that Joseph understood the Holy Ghost as a distinct personage, except the statement just before his death to the effect that he had "always declared" it that way (234).5 Millet further hypothesizes that there may well have been "a significant chasm" between the Prophet's understanding and what he taught to the Saints (234). Few Latter-day Saints would question that Joseph knew more than he said, but it is harder to believe that what he taught was different from what he knew. The reader is left to wonder how it is that the awkwardness of composing such strained arguments never moves Millet to mention or consider the widely accepted and well-supported possibility that these lectures were largely authored by Sidney Rigdon, who clearly did not have all the understanding of Joseph Smith, and to acknowledge the doctrinal variations and Protestantism as consistent with that account of authorship.

Millet ignores the authorship issue and even makes his predicament more severe by insisting on the authoritative correctness of the lectures. He points out that the Saints in 1835 accepted them as the "doctrine of the Church" (238) and claims that they were "wholly approved" by the Prophet in their present form (238–39). These claims overstate the documented facts. The most that can be shown is that Joseph may have been involved in preparing the lectures for publication. But even that belief depends on a statement written several years later. In contrast, the minutes of the Church conference that approved publication of the new Doctrine and Covenants report language identifying the revelations as Church doctrine and the lectures as "judiciously arranged and compiled, and . . . profitable for doctrine."6

Millet establishes his unequivocal devotion to the lectures by quoting a 1972 statement by Elder Bruce R. McConkie: "In my judgment [Lecture 5] is the most comprehensive, intelligent, inspired utterance that now 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 (239)."7 Quotations like this help us understand why Elder McConkie might have urged including the lectures in the 1981 edition of the scriptures. And they may also partially explain the effort made in the present volume to rehabilitate the lectures among Latter-day Saint.

Apparently Elder McConkie was making and Robert Millet is bolstering an anti Mormon argument since my position is similar to theirs. However the reviewer beleives Millet over states the authority of the lectures and leans more towards Scott's and Russell's position or at least suggests such ideas should be considered .

Edited April 24, 2015 by Teancum

[Thinking]

Note that your entire argument rests upon the presentist fallacy. The assumption is that the concept of canonicity in the Church was as well-developed in 1835 as it is today. It's not at all obvious that that is even remotely likely to be the case. All of the members and leaders of the Church then were recent converts, nearly all from 66-book Protestantism, to a faith system that was based upon an open canon. We take it for granted today that the Doctrine and Covenants has the same scriptural authority as the Bible and the Book of Mormon; but did they?

 

Actually, it's you who are applying today's standards of establishing canon to 1835. By your own admission, they had an under-developed concept of canonicity. Why then is it a big deal to admit they made a mistake and move on?

[HappyJackWagon]

"You fondly imagine to yourself that "the top leaders were trying to clean up exactly what the LDS doctrine was on the the Godhead." They were not. That doctrine was settled at least as early as April, 1843. See Doctrine and Covenants 130:22."

You say this as if clarifying doctrine is a bad thing. Clearly it wasn't settled in April 1843 since a competing notion of God was still being published in the Doctrine and Covenants. You can privilege the covenants over the doctrine. I don't really care about that. What I find fascinating the the absolute refusal of some people to dig in their heals and pretend there was no need for clarification.

There were two competing doctrine about the nature of God. It has been clarified. But that doesn't mean that the conflict between doctrine never existed. I get the impression some would rather run around the room with fingers in their ear singing "la, la, la, la, la...la, I'm not listening" instead of grapling with the idea that all doctrines ever taught in this church are not all complimentary or in harmony.

[Avatar4321]

The prevalence of this attitude is exactly why this board is so useless for people enduring an actual faith crisis; their questions are all too often met with suspicion and thinly-veiled accusation.

Faith crises shave a simple solution.

Choose to have faith and fulfill your covenants.