Lectures On Faith-

[Avatar4321]

All I know is that they inspired me, and left me with a yearning for a school of the prophets.  Combined or not I always felt it a shame that the average member has never even heard of them.

Our quorum meetings are supposed to be our school of the prophets. Which is why we should all prepare for it to he so.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Faith crises shave a simple solution.

Choose to have faith and fulfill your covenants.

 

One may choose to exercise faith but I don't believe someone can choose to believe. It's like love. A person will either feel it or they won't. They can chase after it. They can desire to feel it. They can do certain things to help promote it. But they can't choose to believe.

So IMO, a faith crisis does not have a simple solution because the choice to live faithfully, despite naturally occuring beliefs, can be a struggle because there may be conflict between the two.

[Avatar4321]

May I make a suggestion that will should solve this problem?

If you believe the lectures to be scripture, follow them and let others disagree with you.

If you don't believe them to be scripture don't try to force others to accept them as revelation and scripture.

That way everyone is happy.

[Avatar4321]

One may choose to exercise faith but I don't believe someone can choose to believe. It's like love. A person will either feel it or they won't. They can chase after it. They can desire to feel it. They can do certain things to help promote it. But they can't choose to believe.So IMO, a faith crisis does not have a simple solution because the choice to live faithfully, despite naturally occuring beliefs, can be a struggle because there may be conflict between the two.

You don't believe you can believe and you wonder what the problem is?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

You don't believe you can believe and you wonder what the problem is?

 

Everyone believes but I don't think we choose our belief. I consider belief to be a natural reaction to how we perceive truth. Faith, on the other hand is a totally different story.

I can experiment on the word like Alma instructs, but if I'm honest I will accept the results of the experiment, regardless of my preconceived expectations. In other words, if I experiment and I see a good fruit, it would be dishonest to force myself to believe that it is bad, simply because that's what I choose to believe it is bad.

So you can say that is my "problem" but I think it's an issue everyone faces in different ways.

[CCRW]

Our quorum meetings are supposed to be our school of the prophets. Which is why we should all prepare for it to he so.

I struggle with the correlated gospel, not much of an education (intention is spiritual uplifting right).   And the ritual that was associated with it would be way cool in my mind.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

 

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

Book Review ...

 

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.

 

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 .

Does anyone else here observe the incoherence in Teancum's assertions?

 

First, he declares that the Lectures on Faith were removed because they were inconsistent with established LDS theology.

 

Subesequently, he quotes statements from Bruce R. McConkie and Robert L. Millet, who clearly do not believe the lectures display such inconsistency.

 

Then Teancum tells us that his position is "similar to theirs."

 

To borrow the stock line from the Robot in the "Lost in Space" TV series, this does not compute.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I struggle with the correlated gospel, not much of an education (intention is spiritual uplifting right).   And the ritual that was associated with it would be way cool in my mind.

The "correlated gospel" as opposed to what kind of gospel?

[CCRW]

Does anyone else here observe the incoherence in Teancum's assertions?

not really

 

First, he declares that the Lectures on Faith were removed because they were inconsistent with established LDS theology.

I think this is true

 

Subesequently, he quotes statements from Bruce R. McConkie and Robert L. Millet, who clearly do not believe the lectures display such inconsistency.

I think this is true (that they stated it, this never bothered me personally, so I never looked for futher info)

 

Then Teancum tells us that his position is "similar to theirs."

as is mine (i.e. i would not have voted for removal for this purpose)

 

To borrow the stock line from the Robot in the "Lost in Space" TV series, this does not compute.

Every once in awhile, computers get confused and require a reboot.

[CCRW]

The "correlated gospel" as opposed to what kind of gospel?

 

"uncorrelated" (The fullness of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ), not something limited to 72 index cards.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Does anyone else here observe the incoherence in Teancum's assertions?

not really

 

First, he declares that the Lectures on Faith were removed because they were inconsistent with established LDS theology.

I think this is true

 

Subesequently, he quotes statements from Bruce R. McConkie and Robert L. Millet, who clearly do not believe the lectures display such inconsistency.

I think this is true (that they stated it, this never bothered me personally, so I never looked for futher info)

 

Then Teancum tells us that his position is "similar to theirs."

as is mine (i.e. i would not have voted for removal for this purpose)

 

To borrow the stock line from the Robot in the "Lost in Space" TV series, this does not compute.

Every once in awhile, computers get confused and require a reboot.

 

Briefly stated, he has contradicted himself. Do you really want to sign on with that?

Edited April 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

"uncorrelated" (The fullness of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ), not something limited to 72 index cards.

What you identify here as the "uncorrelated gospel" is really the correlated one.

 

 

The other is your own caricature that bears scarce, if any, resemblance to reality.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[CCRW]

Briefly stated, he has contradicted himself.

did I just contradict myself in blue above?  maybe I'm missing something ... I haven't followed this back and forth very closely

[CCRW]

What you identify here as the "uncorrelated gospel" is really the correlated one.

 

 

The other is your own caricature that bears scarce, if any, resemblance to reality.

 

This is likely off topic and I should consider a different thread, but wonder if it would be pure contention or if there could be anything of value in it?  Do you feel this is worth discussion?

[Scott Lloyd]

This is likely off topic and I should consider a different thread, but wonder if it would be pure contention or if there could be anything of value in it?  Do you feel this is worth discussion?

I can briefly state my position here and be done with it. Whether you want to open another thread is, of course, up to you.

 

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are charged, among other things, with keeping the doctrine pure. The Correlation department works under their direction to serve that end. I believe Correlation gets a bad rap among critics who, if they have a problem, should take it up with the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, not their functionaries.

 

I believe there is value in what is done under Correlation with regard to preventing error from creeping into the doctrine and getting itself entrenched in the minds of the Church membership, who might come to take it for granted as authoritative when it really isn't.

 

Elder Oaks once called it "spiritual quality control."  I see that as an apt expression.

 

In fact, that entire address from Elder Oaks is worth a look. Here it is.

 

Here's  a passage I especially like:

 

 

Of course, the Church does have a responsibility to point out what is the voice of the Church and what is not. This is especially necessary when some alternate voice, deliberately or inadvertently, communicates a message in a way that implies Church sponsorship or acquiescence.

For the same reason, the Church does approve or disapprove those publications that are to be published or used in the official activities of the Church, general or local. For example, we have procedures to ensure approved content for materials published in the name of the Church or used for instruction in its classes. These procedures can be somewhat slow and cumbersome, but they have an important benefit. They provide a spiritual quality control that allows members to rely on the truth of what is said. Members who listen to the voice of the Church need not be on guard against being misled. They have no such assurance for what they hear from alternate voices.

Local Church leaders also have a responsibility to review the content of what is taught in classes or presented in worship services, as well as the spiritual qualifications of those they use as teachers or speakers. Leaders must do all they can to avoid expressed or implied Church endorsement for teachings that are not orthodox or for teachers who will use their Church position or prominence to promote something other than gospel truth.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

"uncorrelated" (The fullness of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ), not something limited to 72 index cards.

 

Oh, you mean the good stuff.  What Paul called meat.  At some point we ended up on an all milk diet because we couldn't correlate meat.

[Investigator]

Here is an excellent treatment of this topic...

"Before its publication, [1835 Doctrine and Covenants] Joseph Smith, Assistant President of the Church, Oliver Cowdery, First Counselor in the First Presidency, Sidney Rigdon, and Second Counselor in the First Presidency, Frederick G. Williams, jointly signed a preface written by Joseph Smith. In his journals, leading up to the publication of The Lectures on Faith, Joseph Smith recorded that he spent days editing the Lectures that had been given before their publication as scripture.

Since they've been removed from the scriptures, there are a lot of people who are trying to vindicate the decision that was made to remove them from scripture. One of the arguments that is made in furtherance of removing them from scripture was that it was primarily a product of Sidney Rigdon's pen. It was primarily of product of Sidney Rigdon' pen. They've done word typing and computer analysis, and they've come up with probability of authorship. It doesn't matter if Sidney Rigdon had a hand in the document, because Joseph Smith edited it. And Joseph Smith corrected it. And Joseph Smith vouched for it. In the preface to The Lectures on Faith in the 1835 edition, (which you can read in the Joseph Smith Papers, Volume 2 of the Revelations and Translations beginning on page 311 of that volume), you can read the preface (on page 313). And I'm reading you this over Joseph Smith's name. “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 the answer to every principle advanced.” [This is Joseph Smith saying, this is a document that I intend to vouch for. In his official history, January 1835 he says: “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."]

You find that in the History of the Church Volume 2 beginning at page 180. He defended every principle that was advanced. 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

[JLHPROF]

Here is an excellent treatment of this topic...

 

Denver Snuffer Lecture 2

 

Oxymoron.

[Investigator]

Just ignore the messenger and read the message. There is historical information in there that adds to the discussion.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it important to restate here that one does not have to harbor a generally negative attitude about the Lectures on Faith to regard them as non-canonical.

 

As I pointed out earlier, the Church over the years has produced countless tomes of material that could be regarded as "profitable for doctrine," but only a fraction of it is part of the scriptural canon.

[Calm]

Just ignore the messenger and read the message. There is historical information in there that adds to the discussion.

Doublecheck any historical information that D Snuffer presents.  He is not always accurate.

 

(this is not bad advice for everyone if you are depending on the  historical information to make important decisions...even if accurate, information can be left out or presented in a different way such that you would come to a different conclusion if you read the original source)

Edited April 24, 2015 by calmoriah

[Investigator]

Doublecheck any historical information that D Snuffer presents.  He is not always accurate.

 

(this is not bad advice for everyone if you are depending on the  historical information to make important decisions...even if accurate, information can be left out or presented in a different way such that you would come to a different conclusion if you read the original source)

Your right. In this case he is only providing historical references that add to understanding the topic. Check out the references yourself.

[CCRW]

interesting, thanks for the info investigator

[Teancum]

Does anyone else here observe the incoherence in Teancum's assertions?

First, he declares that the Lectures on Faith were removed because they were inconsistent with established LDS theology.

Subesequently, he quotes statements from Bruce R. McConkie and Robert L. Millet, who clearly do not believe the lectures display such inconsistency.

Then Teancum tells us that his position is "similar to theirs."

To borrow the stock line from the Robot in the "Lost in Space" TV series, this does not compute.

If you read the review it discusses both sides of the issue. I posted relevant parts and then posted more that talks about the lectures being removed because of the inconsistent teachings about God that changed after 1835 as well as differing positions. The review talks about how Millet has a high view of the lectures as does McConkie who calls them scripture. Millet also attributes the lectures to Joseph Smith but the reviewer disagrees. Interestingly Millet in the book I reference posits that the idea of The Father being corporeal may not have been fully developed in 1835. I have read this by Millet elsewhere. But the reviewer of the book seems surprised tht Millet takes that position on the book because apparently elsewhere he has taken a different position .

You may think my post and use of this review contradicts what I have been saying. It does and does not because as noted it discussed both sides. My point in posting it was to show the coterversy and note that there are others that ypu likely respect that see the lectures as having more authority and a higher level as part of the D&C than you and Russell do. And to show if my view was anti Mormon so was Millet's and McConkie's.

So yes the review says Millet and McConkie viewed Lecture 5 as quite fine and in line with what the Church believed about God but it also noted that one of the main reasons some think they were removed was because they conflicted with later teqchinga about God. Also as noted that McConke and apparently Millet viewed them as more than simple lessons. It was on that note that we agree.

so no there was no conflict but perhaps I was not clear.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Teancum

[Avatar4321]

I struggle with the correlated gospel, not much of an education (intention is spiritual uplifting right).   And the ritual that was associated with it would be way cool in my mind.

not sure what you mean by the correlated gospel. The gospel is what it is. If we seek the Spirit we can learn about the truth.