What Was The Reaction To Lectures On Faith Removal?

[oremites]

The thread about whether the Lectures on Faith were de-canonized or simply removed got me wondering.  I'll admit I haven't done anything to research these questions but if anyone has any input, I'd appreciate hearing whatever you have to say.  I'm not necessarily looking for detailed answers to each of these questions but simply a general feel for how the whole thing played out at the time.

 

What was the reaction of the average church member in 1921 when the Lectures on Faith were removed?  Anger? Rejoicing? Apathy?

 

Was there a great deal of discussion about it? Or was it met with a collective yawn? 

 

Was it considered a big deal with lengthy newspaper articles going into details? Or was it quietly done and most people didn't even notice?

 

Were there arguments then about whether this constituted de-canonization?

 

Thank you

[JLHPROF]

The thread about whether the Lectures on Faith were de-canonized or simply removed got me wondering.  I'll admit I haven't done anything to research these questions but if anyone has any input, I'd appreciate hearing whatever you have to say.  I'm not necessarily looking for detailed answers to each of these questions but simply a general feel for how the whole thing played out at the time.

 

What was the reaction of the average church member in 1921 when the Lectures on Faith were removed?  Anger? Rejoicing? Apathy?

 

Was there a great deal of discussion about it? Or was it met with a collective yawn? 

 

Was it considered a big deal with lengthy newspaper articles going into details? Or was it quietly done and most people didn't even notice?

 

Were there arguments then about whether this constituted de-canonization?

 

Thank you

 

No idea.  But considering the other big changes made around the same time I can't imagine there was too much issue.  Probably a newspaper article or two with a couple of "disappointed" comments from the odd member.

[Duncan]

I wonder though, wasn't average attendance like 20% back in 1921? How many members would have even read it and let's face it I wonder how many today even know about it let alone have read it. It wasn't like they took it out and banned the reading of it, just decanonized it

 

I just took a quick scan through the talks in the April and Oct. 1921 GC and there was only one mention of the LOF and that was Pres. Charles W. Penrose. They just seemed to have taken it out without any mentioning of doing so, in those two conferences at least.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Duncan

[Freedom]

Sounds like a research topic for an up-and-coming mormon theologian. Get at it and let us know what you find out. 

[rongo]

 How many members would have even read it and let's face it I wonder how many today even know about it let alone have read it. It wasn't like they took it out and banned the reading of it, just decanonized it

 

 

Have any of you read it? We're not missing anything not having it canonized. It's boring, and doesn't add anything to the understanding of faith (the Book of Mormon and the New Testament are vastly superior in this regard). 

 

Despite its turgidity, it was removed pretty much because of the Godhead teaching in Lecture 5 (two persons instead of three).

[Freedom]

Have any of you read it? We're not missing anything not having it canonized. It's boring, and doesn't add anything to the understanding of faith (the Book of Mormon and the New Testament are vastly superior in this regard). 

 

Despite its turgidity, it was removed pretty much because of the Godhead teaching in Lecture 5 (two persons instead of three).

Turgidity. Very cool word. 

[Duncan]

Have any of you read it? We're not missing anything not having it canonized. It's boring, and doesn't add anything to the understanding of faith (the Book of Mormon and the New Testament are vastly superior in this regard). 

 

Despite its turgidity, it was removed pretty much because of the Godhead teaching in Lecture 5 (two persons instead of three).

 

 

I have read it twice but I got out of it some stuff that's great but when I read it I didn't pick up on the godhead controversial part

[The Nehor]

Have any of you read it? We're not missing anything not having it canonized. It's boring, and doesn't add anything to the understanding of faith (the Book of Mormon and the New Testament are vastly superior in this regard). 

 

Despite its turgidity, it was removed pretty much because of the Godhead teaching in Lecture 5 (two persons instead of three).

 

I have read it a few times.

 

I read a quote by Joseph Fielding Smith lamenting that the Saints were losing touch with it and got a copy (ironically from my grandmother when she died). It is pretty good but it is written in a lesson style that comes off as kind of patronizing today with its emphasis on rote learning the concepts. It stated things and then asked exact factual questions to emphasize the point. I found the ending questions dull and obvious. Maybe it is not entirely obsolete. I know the Jehovah's Witnesses were using that style of teaching in their magazines a decade ago and for all I know still are.

 

I will probably read it again at some point in any case. I think it was published in the canon as a convenience so everyone would have it. Later we distributed church lesson manuals for free and now we have them packed on our electronic devices and there is no need to print them with the scriptures to assure everyone has access to basic lesson material.

[Uncle Dale]

...

 

What was the reaction of the average church member in 1921 when the Lectures on Faith were removed?

...

 

 

As I recall, the Saints' Herald editor took notice of that event.

Or maybe I read about it in the Lamoni daily newspaper. At

any rate, there was some mention made of the fact that the

LDS quorums had not voted for the removal.

 

The RLDS "moved" the lectures to a companion volume

during the late 1890s, so the "average church member" only

felt some puzzlement, as to why he had to buy two books in 

order to get the "full" D&C.

 

But that easing-out of the lectures from the Josephite canon

was merely a result of leadership decisions. I think that the

annual General Conference had to approve the action, but

it was the First Presidency who did not wish to be obligated by

the content of the lectures. Those three worthy gentlemen were

supposed to run the Church on the basis of that content -- it was

considered to be the "Law of the Church," and excommunication

decrees occasionally cited some violation of that "law." Perhaps,

theoretically, up until the 1890s, a Reorganite member could

have been disfellowshipped for refusing to believe that the earth

had been created 8,000 years in the past, or some such absurdity.

 

However, among the Josephites, at least, there was a longstanding

precursor to the lectures removal -- and that was the concept of the

"commandments" being more important and more authoritative than 

the "doctrine." The book was often called the "book of covenants,"

or the "book of commandments" (even though it superseded the 

1833 volume of the latter name.

 

An observant RLDS was expected to abide by "every word" that issued

forth from the mouth of God, and there was no excuse in the case of

a lucid, adult member, disobeying some point printed in the D&C --

but, as I said, the "doctrine" section demanded that perfect obedience

at a less-monitored, or less observed level, than obedience to the

covenants/commandments.

 

By printing the lectures in a separate volume, the Church Leadership

gradually weaned the members away from the "doctrine" material, and

eventually, (in the early 20th century, I think) publication of the lectures

was relegated to private companies.

 

I came into that Church at about the time that the very last, elderly

members, (who thought the lectures to be Divine Wisdom and Counsel),

were dying off. I cannot recall anybody mentioning them after the

late 1900s.

 

UD

Edited April 24, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[CCRW]

Have any of you read it? We're not missing anything not having it canonized. It's boring, and doesn't add anything to the understanding of faith (the Book of Mormon and the New Testament are vastly superior in this regard). 

 

Despite its turgidity, it was removed pretty much because of the Godhead teaching in Lecture 5 (two persons instead of three).

 

Ouch, rongo?  I loved them.

[CCRW]

Uncle Dale,

 

I have so admired you and your journey.  Once way back you told me some personal history.  Would you please go to that Social, who are you thread and repeat a bit of your history ... past callings, school etc.?  I wonder how many here know these things about you?

[JLHPROF]

Have any of you read it? We're not missing anything not having it canonized. It's boring, and doesn't add anything to the understanding of faith (the Book of Mormon and the New Testament are vastly superior in this regard). 

 

Despite its turgidity, it was removed pretty much because of the Godhead teaching in Lecture 5 (two persons instead of three).

 

Disagree.  Lecture 6 alone is full of great teachings.

[Teancum]

Have any of you read it? We're not missing anything not having it canonized. It's boring, and doesn't add anything to the understanding of faith (the Book of Mormon and the New Testament are vastly superior in this regard). 

 

Despite its turgidity, it was removed pretty much because of the Godhead teaching in Lecture 5 (two persons instead of three).

Bruce McConkie would seem to disagree:

See a summary of the book The Lectures on Faith in Historical Perspective

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=609

See this quote from it:

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.

[rongo]

Ouch, rongo?  I loved them.

I'm glad you do! I don't want to take anything away from anyone who loves them.

 

I *really* enjoy Journal of Discourses, DHC, CHC, etc.  There's no accounting for taste . . .

[rongo]

Bruce McConkie would seem to disagree:

 

Wouldn't be the first time I don't agree with him.

 

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

 

That's vintage McConkie all right, with characteristic bedside manner.

 

Without qualification, [Millett] cites all passages from the lectures as Joseph Smith's words.

 

That isn't tenable, at least to me. Even without wordprint studies, etc. (which found most of it to match Rigdon), the style and language doesn't sound at all like Joseph Smith. 

 

Here's my question for the McConkie-ites: why was it de-canonized, then? If "it is a nearly perfect summary of those things which must be believed to gain salvation?" It seems that enough people just as authoritative as McConkie had the opposite view back in 1921.

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale,

 

I have so admired you and your journey.  Once way back you told me some personal history.  Would you please go to that Social, who are you thread and repeat a bit of your history ... past callings, school etc.?  I wonder how many here know these things about you?

 

Oh, I'd be reluctant to do much of that. If you search about on my

Sidney Rigdon site, you'll find pretty much what you've asked about.

 

 

As for schooling -- some of that was in Idaho and Utah, but I quit

my graduate studies in Geography/Cartography at the UofU and

eventually ended up in a theological seminary in Ohio -- graduated,

after serving a pastoral internship at a Baptist church there, and

not long afterwards ended up in South Asia. I've really never

returned since then, to the mainland USA (except for 3 very short

visits).

 

My near neighbor is Dr. Chris Eccel -- who is a much more interesting

fellow than myself. Here is one of his web-sites.

 

 

 

He's probably forgotten more about the LDS D&C's "Lectures on Faith,"

then I'll ever be able to learn. I attend his semi-weekly study sessions on

ancient Near Eastern history and associated commentary upon Nibley's

"Lehi in the Desert," etc. Keeps me alert.

 

UD

[williamsmith]

No big deal.....  They were lectures, not revelation.

Now, it could be said that the letters of the Apostles to the various branches of the church, or otherwise could be similar, for we also know there are opinions, mistakes therein, but it's what we have from/concerning Christ, so, a bit different.

[Teancum]

Wouldn't be the first time I don't agree with him.

That's vintage McConkie all right, with characteristic bedside manner.

That isn't tenable, at least to me. Even without wordprint studies, etc. (which found most of it to match Rigdon), the style and language doesn't sound at all like Joseph Smith.

Here's my question for the McConkie-ites: why was it de-canonized, then? If "it is a nearly perfect summary of those things which must be believed to gain salvation?" It seems that enough people just as authoritative as McConkie had the opposite view back in 1921.

Well I am not McConkie-ite. Just letting you know others viewed the lectures higher and more important that you apparently do. Millet seems to as well.

I think it was de canonized because especially lecture five seems to disagree with what the church theology was or had become after the lectures.

Here is a more expanded excerpt from the book review I link above. The writer thinks Millet gives too much credit to JS as well;

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 Saints.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Teancum

[CV75]

What was the reaction of the average church member in 1921 when the Lectures on Faith were removed?  Anger? Rejoicing? Apathy?

[rongo]

Thanks for the longer citation, Teancum! I enjoyed reading it. It did accord with my views . . .

[HappyJackWagon]

"They just seemed to have taken it out without any mentioning of doing so, in those two conferences at least."

It must have been at least voted on in the conference, so anyone in attendance would have been aware of the change. The question about the reaction is interesting. Thanks to the OP for posting.

[Duncan]

"They just seemed to have taken it out without any mentioning of doing so, in those two conferences at least."

It must have been at least voted on in the conference, so anyone in attendance would have been aware of the change. The question about the reaction is interesting. Thanks to the OP for posting.

 

 

I haven't seen anything in that regard but I am willing to stand corrected if someone finds a reference to that

[CA Steve]

There is this short article by Van Wagoner in the Fall 1987 Dialogue regarding their removal

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N03_73.pdf

 

 

The Van Wagoner article concludes with

 

 

When the Lectures on Faith were removed from the scriptures in 1921, Church leaders were evidently unaware that the 1835 First Presidency considered the Lectures the "doctrine" portion of the Doctrine and Covenants. Neither the Lectures importance nor their historical significance should be underestimated by Latter-day Saints.

 

[theplains]

What was the reaction of the average church member in 1921 when the Lectures on Faith were removed?  Anger? Rejoicing? Apathy? 

 

On the flip side, I think there was more rejoicing when it was added to the Doctrine and Covenants

(i.e. canon) in 1835.  But removing Lecture 5 because it teaches there are two personages in the

Godhead is understandable. The church had to clean up the false teaching so its members, who

took it as 'doctrine', were not deceived any longer.

 

Regards,

Jim

[Thinking]

"They just seemed to have taken it out without any mentioning of doing so, in those two conferences at least."

It must have been at least voted on in the conference, so anyone in attendance would have been aware of the change. The question about the reaction is interesting. Thanks to the OP for posting.

 

The same people who are writing the new essays removed the Lectures on Faith.