“Lectures on Faith” is a set of seven lectures on the doctrine and theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, first published as the doctrine portion of the 1835 edition of the canonical Doctrine and Covenants, but later removed from that work by both major branches of the faith. The lectures were originally presented by Joseph Smith to a group of elders in a course known as the “School of the Prophets” in the early winter of 1834–35 in Kirtland, Ohio.
So says Wikipedia. Wikipedia has some interesting info.
Although authorship of the lectures is uncertain, studies suggest that the actual wording was largely by Sidney Rigdon,[1] with substantial involvement and approval by Joseph Smith and possibly others. (See Dahl & Tate at 7–10, 16 n. 8.) Smith was involved, both in their authorship in November 1834 and in their later preparation for publication in January 1835. (See History of the Church 2:169–70, 180.)
The original title of each lecture was “Of Faith”. It was not until 1876, in an edition of the Doctrine and Covenants edited by Church Historian Orson Pratt of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), that the title was given as “Lectures on Faith”.
Possibly the most famous quotation is from Lecture 6:7: “A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation”.
The lectures were published in 1835 as the “Doctrine” portion of the volume entitled Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints: Carefully Selected from the Revelations of God. The lectures were selected for that volume by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834, by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee of Presiding Elders, consisting of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams, stated that the lectures were included “in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation,” and that the lectures, together with the church-regulatory sections that followed, represent “our belief, and when we say this, humbly trust, the faith and principles of this society as a body.” (See 1835 D&C, Preface.) Accordingly, the church body accepted the committee’s compilation on August 17, 1835, as “the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote” (History of the Church 2: 243–46).
Some Latter Day Saint denominations have subsequently removed the lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants. The lectures were removed from the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints version of the Doctrine and Covenants in 1897, although that denomination began publishing the lectures in a separate volume in 1952. The LDS 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”. (See Introduction, 1921 edition.) This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants, which are officially recognized by nearly all Latter Day Saint denominations as divine revelation given specifically to the church.
Mormon apologists give several reasons to explain why the Lectures were removed from the scriptural volumes of the LDS Church. According to church apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, the reasons were:
- “(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 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.”[2]
Brigham Young University‘s Thomas G. Alexander has stated in a Sunstone article:
Revision [of the Doctrine and Covenants] continued through July and August 1921, and the Church printed the new edition in late 1921. The committee proposed to delete the ‘Lectures on Faith’ on the grounds that they were ‘lessons prepared for use in the School of the Elders, conducted in Kirtland, Ohio, during the winter of 1834-35; but they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons.’ How the committee came to this conclusion is uncertain. The general conference of the Church in April 1835 had accepted the entire volume, including the Lectures, not simply the portion entitled ‘Covenants and Commandments,’ as authoritative and binding upon Church members. What seems certain, however, is that the interpretive exegesis of 1916 based upon the reconstructed doctrine of the Godhead had superseded the Lectures.[3]
Other commentators have theorized that the lectures represented official church doctrine in 1835, but that by 1897 or 1921, when the work was decanonized by the major Latter Day Saint denominations, the doctrine concerning the Godhead had changed, and the lectures were no longer generally consistent accepted doctrines. For instance, in Lecture 5, paragraph 2, it defines the Father as a “personage of spirit, glory and power,” whereas in section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 22 states that “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s.” In addition, the Father and Son are said to possess the same mind, “which mind is the Holy Spirit” (Lecture 5, paragraph 2). The Holy Spirit is not a personage, as defined at the beginning of paragraph 2: “There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things …. They are the Father and Son.” This could cause confusion when compared with section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants: “The Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.” Section 130 was added in the 1876 edition and hence co-existed with the Lectures on Faith.
One leader in the LDS Church praised the lectures as follows:
-
“In my judgment, it is the most comprehensive, inspired utterance that now exists in the English language—that 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.”[4]
During a recent wheatmeister poll it was noted that Lectures on Faith was de-canonized, I purchased a copy to read the lectures for myself. The book is rather short, and I read it over an hour flight. It definitely reads differently than the D&C and other scriptures, but quotes the Bible liberally. Each paragraph is numbered, similar to verses. Reason (c) above was interesting. I noticed a few times in Lecture 2 that there were a few references that seemed to refer to trinitarian doctrine.
Lecture 2: 2 – “We here observe that God is the only supreme governor and independent being in whom all fullness and perfection dwells; who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; without beginning of days….
Do Mormons believe God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient in the same way protestants do? No. I think this is more of a trinitarian doctrine. Certainly in 1835, the corporeal nature of God wasn’t known. At the end of Lecture 2, there is a Q&A (seems oddly non-scriptural compared to other D&C verses) and once again references omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient: (Versing stops at 56 and a bunch of questions and answers follow.)
Lecture 2:56 Q&A
Q. Is there a being who has faith in himself independently?
A. There is.
Q. Who is it?
A. It is God.
Q. How do you prove that God has faith in himself independently?
A. Because he is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; without beginning of days or end of life, and in him all fullness dwells. Ephesians 1:23: “Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.” Colossians 1:19: “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell” (Lecture 2:2)
….
Lecture 5 seems to confirm trinitarian ideas a bit.
Lecture 5:2 – There are two personages who constituted the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things–by whom all things were created and made that are created and made, whether visible or invisible; whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space. They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personal of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man–or rather, man was formed after his likeness and in his image. He is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father, possessions all the fullness of the Father, or the same fullness with the Father, being begotten of him; and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name; and is called the Son because of the flesh–and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer, or in other words, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be….
This paragraph continues on for quite a bit, but I’ll stop here as is sure seems to contradict D&C 130:22
22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.
Is this why it was jettisoned from canonization in the D&C?
Lecture 3 Q&A had an interesting question about “preventing faith.”
Q. Where do you find the revelations which give us this idea of the character of the Deity?
A. In the Bible and Doctrine and Covenants and they are quoted in the third lecture (Lecture 3:9-11).
Q. What effect would it have on any rational being not to have an idea that the Lord was God, the creator and upholder of all things?
A. It would prevent him from exercising faith in him unto life and salvation.
Q. Why would it prevent him from exercising faith in God?
A. Because he would be as the heathen, not knowing but there might be a being greater and more powerful than he; and thereby he be prevented from fulfilling His promises (Lecture 3:19)
There were some good quotes in there too. There is the idea that doubt cannot exist with faith.
Lecture 6:12 … where doubt and uncertainty are, there faith is not, nor can it be. For doubt and faith do not exist in the same person at the same time. So that persons whose minds are under doubts and fears cannot have unshaken confidence; and where unshaken confidence is not, there [sic] faith is weak; and where faith is weak, the persons will not be able to contend against all the opposition, tribulations, and afflictions which they will have to encounter in order to be heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ Jesus; and they will grow weary in their minds, and the adversary will have power over them and destroy them.
(Note: This lecture is so plain, and the facts set forth so self-evident, that it is deemed unnecessary to form a catechism upon it. The student is therefore instructed to commit the whole to memory.)
Lecture 7 had some cool quotes as well.
Lecture 7:3 – Let us here offer some explanation in relation to faith that our meaning may be clearly comprehended. We ask then, what are we to understand by a man’s working by faith? We answer, We understand that when a man works by faith he works by mental exertion instead of physical force. It is by words instead of exerting his physical powers, with which every being works when he works by faith. God said, “Let there be light; and there was light” (Genesis 1:3). Joshua spake, and the great lights which God had created stood still. Elijah commanded, and the heavens were stayed for the space of three years and six months, so that it did not rain. He again commanded, and the heavens gave forth rain. All this was done by faith, and the Savior says, “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove (Matthew 17:20); or “ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be though planted in the sea; and it should obey you: (Luke 17:6). Faith then works by words, and with these its mightiest works have been, and will be, performed.
Paragraph 5 goes even further, saying “So then faith is truly the first principle in the science of Theology…”
As I read from the pages, what struck me was how important faith is to miracles, visions, etc. It made me wonder if we have no miracles because we don’t emphasize faith anymore. Could this be why church seems so dead? I mean I don’t hear this kind of stuff very often any more, and when someone says you can move mountains to yonder place, does anyone actually believe (or have faith) that such a thing can happen?
Lecture 3:10 referred to the “Book of Commandments,” a precursor to the Doctrine and Covenants.
Lecture 3:10 – Book of Commandments, chapter two, commencing in the third line of the first paragraph: “For God doth not walk in crooked paths; neither doth he turn to the right hand nor the left; neither doth he vary from that which he hath said; therefore his paths are strait and his course is one eternal round” (D&C 3:2). D&C 35:1: “Listen to the voice of the Lord your God, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, whose course is one eternal round, the same today as yesterday and forever”
Once again, from Wikipedia:
The Book of Commandments was planned as a compilation of Joseph Smith Jr.‘s early prophecies. Smith, leader of the Latter Day Saint movement, gathered several of his revelations for a High Priest’s council in November 1831. The ten-man council voted to print 10,000 copies, but the actual number of prints was reduced to between three and five thousand.
W. W. Phelps publisher of the book, ran a press in Independence, Missouri. A faithful Mormon, Phelps also edited an historically important Mormon periodical, The Evening and Morning Star from September 1831 to July 1833. Most revelations in the Book of Commandments were previously published by Phelps in the Star.
The title page of the book reads “Book of Commandments, for the government of the Church of Christ, organized according to the law on the 6th of April, 1830. / ZION: published by W. W. Phelps & co. / 1833.”
On July 20, 1833 an anti-Mormon and pro-slavery mob destroyed the press. The mob, purportedly frightened of Mormon political power, was incensed by an editorial in Phelps’ Evening and Morning Star perceived to be abolitionist. Breaking down the door, they razed Phelps’ home and business in less than an hour. At that point, 65 revelations of the Book of Commandments, about two thirds the total, were already printed. Totaling 160 pages, most of the uncut and unbound sheets were destroyed in the ensuing fire. However, some neighbors including teenage sisters Caroline and Mary Elizabeth Rollins[1] saved remnants of nearly 100 copies.
Fewer than 30 are known to exist today, including several incomplete versions. Further enhancing the book’s scarcity, several copies of the Book of Commandments are held in permanent collections. For example, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and the Community of Christ have multiple copies, and the rare books divisions of the University of Utah Marriott Library, Brigham Young University Harold B. Lee Library, and the New York Public Library each own a copy. When sold on the open market, the book regularly fetches over $100,000. An incomplete copy changed hands for $200,000 in 2001, and a complete volume sold at auction for $391,000.[2] Rare books dealer Ken Sanders claims a copy was sold privately in Utah for $500,000.[3]
Have you read the Lectures on Faith? What are your thoughts? Why do you think the church de-canonized the Lectures on Faith? Does it teach false doctrine concerning God? Have you found faith promoting/inspiring parts of the Lectures on Faith? Could Lectures 2 &5 have been modified or removed, leaving the others set of lectures alone in promoting faith?
Wheat & Tares 
The Lectures on Faith are beautifully written and powerful, but may have sewn the seeds of what might be termed a faith crisis for me. It helped that I knew they weren’t canonical (anymore) but Joseph Smith had presumably taught the doctrine which seemed to contradict what I was teaching as a missionary. And if anyone should have been able to stick to true doctrine it should be Joseph Smith. And it wasn’t like it was deep doctrine, either. This is basic Nature of God doctrine, not have-your-planet-near Kolob speculation.
I think it was removed from the canon because of the apparent contradictions with the God Head doctrine as discussed in the OP. Does it teach false doctrine? Well, I don’t pretend to know what is True anymore, but it certainly seems to contradict the current stance.
Joseph got line upon line, like everyone else. That’s apparent by reading the D&C chronologically, an exercise I would recommend to everyone. The idea that it all came to him in one blinding flash and that he got it all down from Day One is in contradiction not only of the historical record but of what we know about revelation.
In addition, if Rigdon was in fact the main author of the Lectures, it seems likely that errors, if any, were his. If we all see “through a glass darkly,” Brother Sidney’s seems to have been darker than many, at times, especially after his concussion and injuries at the Johnson farm in March 1832. I suspect that, good and trusting friend that he was, Joseph might not have scrutinized every word as rigorously as we might do today, if/when he reviewed the material. That catechismal Q & A style just screams “Rigdon.”
I do think that the Lecture in question borders on false doctrine. (I note that some of the Episcopalian wanna-bes over at BCC have used that to rationalize an unjustified belief in apostate Nicene Trinitarianism.) However, I think it’s due to a combination of an evolving understanding of the nature of God, the timing of the writing of the Lectures, and Rigdon’s formal education as a Baptist minister. D&C 130, given to Joseph in 1843 at the height of his ministry and prophetic gift, is a much clearer explication of the nature of the Godhead than all of the polysyllabic mumblings of the Lectures.
Finally, and parenthetically, there is no [sic] error in this passage, as annotated above:
So that persons whose minds are under doubts and fears cannot have unshaken confidence; and where unshaken confidence is not, there [sic] faith is weak; and where faith is weak . . .
Rather, it reads, “Where unshaken confidence is not, there (“in that place”) faith is weak.”
When I was growing up, I was told that two personages of flesh and bone appeared to Joseph in the grove and revealed the nature of God to a world that had lost the true knowledge of God through apostasy. The creeds of the world were an abomination because they taught trinitarianism. The lectures on faith aren’t quite trinitarian, but they are closer to it than to the three member godhead. Why was Joseph learning line upon line about the nature of God after seeing him?
I read the lecture on faith on my mission. In fact I was reading them while my companion was playing tennis with the mission president when I stumbled upon the statements about the Godhead only being two personages. The father is a personage of spirit and the son is a personage of tabernacle.
As a missionary it caused me a bit of a pause. What did I just read?????
I find it interesting that in many sunday school classes, the instructors (including prior senior leaders in the church) will boldly declare our knowledge of the Godhead came directly from Joseph Smith’s first vision. It was during that vision that he discovered that there were three members of the Godhead. God and Jesus were separate. And that they had bodies.
It is always an uncomfortable moment, when I have to ask them to please consider that Joseph’s understanding of the Godhead evolved over time and in no way was solidified in one single moment. I have even referenced the lectures on faith as a piece of valid evidence of his understanding of the Godhead at one moment in time that is inconsistent with what was later revealed in D&C section 130.
I believe there is too much emphasis on the Father having a body of “spirit.” The full quote is “spirit, glory, and power.” Bruce R. McConkie wrote, “Resurrected bodies, as contrasted with mortal bodies, are in fact spiritual bodies” (A New Witness, p. 73).
To my knowledge, Joseph Smith did not describe the Father and Son as “personages of flesh and bone,” in his account(s) of the First Vision. This is something that we find in section 130, which was never published during his life and thus we cannot determine what Joseph actually meant.
Interesting stuff. Until just now I always believed (because I’ve heard it so many times) that we believed God the Father had a body of flesh and bone because Joseph Smith saw it for himself. I always wondered how Joseph could tell though. How did he know God’s body was so without doing a bunch of testing. Couldn’t God have just appeared that way to make it easier for Joseph to understand?
Reading this and the comments has made me reevaluate the entire thing. (fun!)
New Iconoclast, the problem lies with the multiple accounts of the First Vision. As mentioned in that post,
Let me highlight some of the big differences between the 1832 and 1838 accounts.
1. Who visited Joseph?
a. 1832 says “Lord” (singular)
b. 1838 says God and Jesus (2 beings)
2. Was Satan there?
a. 1832 makes no mention of Satan
b. 1838 Satan almost overcame Joseph
3. What was purpose of First Vision?
a. 1832 says it was for Joseph to receive remission of sins
b. 1838 says it was to establish “the one and only true church.”
This sure sounds like an evolving narrative and leads some to question why such a fundamental part of the story seemed to change pretty dramatically, as well as a pretty drastic change in the nature of God. Lectures on Faith talks so much about proper belief, yet it is fundamentally flawed?
I found the LOF on my mission and fell in love. The godhead conundrum never bothered me, since 1) the BOM and NT also have trinitatian descriptions of the godhead, and 2) careful reading of D&C 88 and 1 COR 15 provides perspectives that allow for God the father to be the father of spirits while having a spiritual body.
The Holy Ghost? Well, LDS doctrine has very little knowledge about that, simply because we conflate the “spirit” with the “Holy Ghost”. We “know” the Holy Ghost is a spirit personage. We have rumors that he’ll be the last person born in the milenium. We know that Nephi spoke to him in the vision. We know that Christ was conceived through its power.
I wish the LOF Were still included in the D&C. I understand the justification for removing them, and the history (i.e. Distancing the SLC church from rigdon). I understand that rigdon (like the vast majority of early converts) mastatized aspects of Protestant beliefs into LDS theology. I thnk that Joseph knew this too, (he said similar in the king follet discourse and other places). I don’t think he really thought it mattered in the end, because he was relying on the OT idea that once God establishes a covenant with a people, as long as the covenant is kept, not much else matters- certainly not extraneous beliefs or behaviors that a religious society developes.
Which of the beliefs from LoF covered in this discussion are extraneous?
Andy asks (#3): The lectures on faith aren’t quite trinitarian, but they are closer to it than to the three member godhead. Why was Joseph learning line upon line about the nature of God after seeing him?
Place your question before my #2 and read #2 again. Simply put: Rigdon wrote the relevant parts of the LoF, and he was a classically-trained Baptist minister.
In addition, when Joseph went into the Grove, his primary question had nothing to do with the Trinity as doctrine. It was, simply, “which church should I join?” The answer was, “None of them.” The significance of seeing two personages didn’t dawn on him immediately; he was 14. He didn’t exit the Grove saying, “Now I know that Athanasius was wrong, and the Council of Nicaea erred!” Even the Bible mentions a vision of two personages (Acts 7:55-56), but the Trinitarians got it wrong anyway. By the time of the writing of the LoF, in the early 1830s, the full import of the nature of the Godhood may not have been apparent. By the time the matter was clarified in D&C 130, in 1843, a lot of revelation had passed under Joseph’s bridge, so to speak. He was never as rigid in his theology, especially over time, as later commenters would like him to have been.
MH (in #7) also rightly raises the inconsistencies between the different accounts of the First Vision, which have led to some confusion. Personally, I think it depends to some extent on what Joseph was taking from the experience at the time he wrote the account, and what his scribes may have been taking from it as they were editing him. The versions are inconsistent, but not outright contradictory. Memory is a strange thing.
Yes, Sidney Rigdon may have written parts of the lectures, but Joseph approved the Lectures. Shouldn’t Joseph have corrected Sidney before they were published? And they were published for nearly a century before removed from the canon. Shouldn’t those trinitarian doctrines have been removed during Joseph’s lifetime, rather than long after his death?
I was speaking more in general– the WOW (Jesus drank wine) polygamy and cultural definitions of chastity (masterbation will send you to hell, but having 18 wives is cool), ritualistic approaches to covenant making (temple ceremony evolution) are cultural developments which we LDS have tied to belief systems and group membership, but they are ver tingly not doctrines of salvation… You will probably still be saved if you like coffee.
Similarly, the corporeal nature of God is irrelevant in Joseph’s covenant of exhaustion….IE, to Joseph, the foundation of the gospel and exaltation was simple: belief in Christ as the savior, faith in God, repentance, covenant making and keeping those covenants.
Understanding the nature of God is paramount to salvation. However, at this point in my life I don’t see how salvation is changed if God almighty can materialize from spirit to flesh and bone, or if he is limited to spirit, or if gods spiritual body is more refined, bridges the states of “spirit” and flesh and bone” in a way that is unexplainable to me right now.
I don’t think there was any confusion in Joseph’s mind. I think he knew some this stuff didn’t matter and he went along with some definitions that were operational in context.
I love the LoF and believe it is a shame they were decanonized. If we see Joseph’s overarching attempt to get a specific message across (that we are to approach the veil in faith, rend it, and enter into the presence of God – while in the flesh), the LoF fit nicely into that overall treatise. It jibes very much with the message conveyed through the Endowment Ceremony, which was a very late addition by Joseph.
I think the LoF was decanonized due to the conflict with D&C 130. It happened at a time when LDS concepts of the godhead were being formalized, largely by Talmage. Here we have two, competing texts: one specifically approved of, edited by, and sanctioned by Joseph Smith (his journal entries at the time indicate he was responsible for the editing of the LoF for inclusion into the D&C 1835), while the other is a mish-mash of inconsistent, third-hand recollections and notes, highly edited over the years. D&C 130 is a dubious text and why we would prefer it over LoF as a reflection of Joseph’s ideas is, to me, odd.
In re. 11, sure, he “should have” corrected or removed the trinitarianisms – assuming that the later, 1843, D&C 130-style doctrine was front-of-mind at the time. It might not have been, or even have been what he was thinking about, or he might not have had the seer stone handy when he reviewed Rigdon’s LoF drafts.
It’s unclear to us even today what constitutes “scripture” in the church (“every issue of the Ensign!”). The line between canonical and non-canonical writings is a later construction and even the terms are ahistorical in the context of “what goes into the D&C during Joseph’s lifetime.” I think he simply put too much trust in Sidney Rigdon – not for the first, nor for the last, time.
I can think of plenty of things that I wish Joseph had, or that he “should have,” made more clear.
Not to belabor the point (ok, well maybe a little), but if Joseph saw God and Jesus in 1820 (as stated in the canonized 1838 account of the First Vision), he had known God was a body of flesh and bone the whole time, not some new revelation 23 years later in 1843. And once again, to quote the OP above that asks what “prevents faith”, Joseph/Sidney responded forcefully that knowing the nature of God was essential. Even if Sidney didn’t understand the nature of God in 1832, Joseph knew it back in 1820, and had a decade after the lectures were published to correct the misinformation.
I don’t think we can chalk this up to “well, 1843 was 1 year before Joseph’s death and he just didn’t get around to correcting the lectures.” No, he knew this for 12 years before the publication of the lectures, and 23 years before D&C 130 was written down. That should be ample time.
And the church then waited almost 80 years after Joseph’s death to remove the Lectures from Faith from the canon.
Will someone, anyone… please explain the assumption that Joseph KNEW God had a body of flesh and bone from his 1st vision?
Everything I’ve read states that God basically “this is my beloved son, hear him”. And that was the extent of the god/Joseph interaction. We know section 76 occurred in 1832. That seems like the earliest that anyone could provide evidence for more personal knowledge of God.
Taking all first vision versions into account, I don’t see any evidence of God explaining himself to Joseph.
I don’t see any evidence of Joseph proving flesh and bone by handling god the way the apostles did christ
I see evidence of Two distinct beings.
My previous reply hasn’t been moderated yet, but tldr… When we refer to someone’s “nature” we typically mean their personality and individual psychological factors, not their height, weight, or gender… When “Steve by nature was a cowardly man” or “Stephanie was naturally optimistic and trustworthy” we are assessing psychosocial aspect….
“Will someone, anyone… please explain the assumption that Joseph KNEW God had a body of flesh and bone from his 1st vision?”
I won’t. Not really. Because I think you have a point: the first vision account(s) don’t actually show that. BUT in missionary discussions (the old ones, at least) and primary lessons and Sunday school discussions people often people use the first vision account to show that there are two separate beings and immediately follow by talking about the physical body. Now, I don’t remember if the correlated materials actually say that the first vision revealed the flesh and bones, but it doesn’t matter because people don’t listen or read that carefully most of the time. So people (my past self included) assume or are taught that Joseph Smith learned about the corporeal nature of God at that young age.
The comment about what someone’s”nature” means is also valid but is somewhat at odds with the correlated materials which seem to stress so much the importance of the fact that God has a physical body.
Also, I think some assume that in a vision one can distinguish a spirit from a flesh and bone body. Having never had a vision, I don’t know if that is true. (Perhaps a wheat and tares poll would shed some light.)
Actually, if you take it seriously (which is difficult for me to do, admittedly) there is evidence that in LDS theology a spirit body is visually indistinguishable from a physical body, otherwise the handshake test in d&c 129 would be different.
MH wrote: “As I read from the pages, what struck me was how important faith is to miracles, visions, etc. It made me wonder if we have no miracles because we don’t emphasize faith anymore. Could this be why church seems so dead? I mean I don’t hear this kind of stuff very often any more, and when someone says you can move mountains to yonder place, does anyone actually believe (or have faith) that such a thing can happen?”
I know we have miracles because I’ve experienced miracles. I also believe if there was a reason mountains could be moved by those who are faithful.
As far as the “church seems so dead”, I think some people see it that way, but others see it as alive and filled with the power of God. The power we see today is less than in Joseph’s day, but the church is still led by prophets.
Joseph Smith was commanded to establish Zion. The early church members weren’t able to. The reasons for their failure is explained in these verses (101:1-9). The Lord stopped the work of establishing Zion until a future day as taught here (D&C 100:13).
While Joseph Smith lived we had a prophet who was able to ushered in a restoration, which included the ability to bring forth the Book of Mormon.
We haven’t had a prophet of Joseph stature since. Why? Because we haven’t needed one. We have prophets, seers, and revelators but there hasn’t been a need for prophets like Joseph Smith. The work nowadays doesn’t require the likes of Joseph Smith; in a future we will have others of the statue of Joseph Smith to accomplish what needs to be done as explained in these verses (D&C 103:15-16).
One of the reasons we don’t have powerful manifestations of the Spirit, in our day as it was in Joseph’s day, is explained in the following verse.
“Nevertheless, in your temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld.” D&C 70:14
The time will come when Zion will be redeemed with power. Until then we are in a time of gathering and testing.
@rockwell the handshake trial was my next consideration, I’m glad you caught that.
I agree with the statement about correlation.
#15, #16, and #17 would essentially be my answer to the issue raised by MH in #14, while repeating that Joseph simply didn’t have God’s physical nature front of mind. (Or as J.Shmoe says, When we refer to someone’s “nature” we typically mean their personality and individual psychological factors, not their height, weight, or gender.) Plus, once the handshake thing (among other clearer indications) came around later, he had other things on his mind. How likely is it that he woke up one night at 3AM screaming, “Oh NO! Sidney said something vaguely Trinitarian in the LoF! I need to get to the printer!”
I mean, maybe that was on his mind in Carthage, who knows?
Agree with N.I. .
Also, we know from the King follet discourse that Joseph let a lot of teachings be propagated that weren’t necessarily eternally accurate… We also know from Damon Smiths research that Protestantism had impact on doctrinal development.
I go back to the idea that Joseph really didn’t care to clarify or even teach about some things.
This is the specific language in the lectures on faith regarding the Father and the Son.
2. There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were created and made, whether visible or invisible, whether in heaven, on earth, in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space.
They are the Father and the Son: the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fulness.
The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, is a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, being in the form and likeness of man, or rather man was formed after his likeness and in his image.
He is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father, possessing all the fulness of the Father, or the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name.
**He is called the Son because of the flesh.**
“there is evidence that in LDS theology a spirit body is visually indistinguishable from a physical body, otherwise the handshake test in d&c [130] would be different.”
Rockwell, that’s a fair point.
“BUT in missionary discussions (the old ones, at least) and primary lessons and Sunday school discussions people often people use the first vision account to show that there are two separate beings and immediately follow by talking about the physical body.”
I know that I taught that on my mission, so if the missionaries have appropriated an incorrect teaching, well, that needs to be corrected. I’m not holding my breath on that happening though.
Jared, I’m glad you commented. I almost called you out since I knew faith was your kind of post you’ve been asking for.
“We haven’t had a prophet of Joseph stature since. Why? Because we haven’t needed one.”
I think Mormon squarely rejects this notion. Mormon 9:20:
I think that the unbelief is rather caused by a lack of emphasis of faith that the LoF says is required. “Faith precedes the miracle” we are told. If miracles cease it is because of unbelief. Frankly, despite the problems regarding the nature of God in LoF, I think it’s a shame that the other points regarding faith are no longer emphasized.
Sure, miracles happen today, but you can’t argue that the miracles of today are the same as the miracles in Joseph’s day. Mormon tells us that is because of “unbelief.” I think the unbelief of today could squarely be laid at the de-emphasis of faith due to decanonization of LoF.
I mean there is some pretty cool stuff in there. I think I’d rather there was a footnote added along the lines of what New Iconoclast or Rockwell said. Perhaps in the First Vision, it wasn’t clear God had a body, and the erroneous teachings in LoF have been superseded by D&C 130. Still, there is a wonderful emphasis on “correct faith” that is required for miracles to happen.
Decanonization of LoF seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me. I think there could have been something done differently to fix the errors.
By the way Joe Schmoe, I’m not sure why your comment (now #12) was moderated. I released it. (Of course that messes up the numbering system after that some have referred to.)
“We haven’t had a prophet of Joseph stature since. Why? Because we haven’t needed one.”
Jared, this sounds suspiciously like “A Bible! A Bible! We need no more Bible!” or paraphrased “A prophet! A prophet! We need no more prophet!”
I don’t buy it. If the world is getting more wicked, as Hawkgrrrl just posted, we need a prophet today as much as in Joseph’s day.
Thanks MH. Ya, I agree that the line of thought “we don’t need a prophet like Joseph” counters all doctrine as we know it. Unfortunately, I think that being without a prophet like Joseph, Abraham, or Moses is the norm.
The reference to D&C 129 was not a mistake.
More specifically, D&C 129:4
4 When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.
5 If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.
Would read something like this:
If a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, and the messenger has a physical body of flesh and bones, then dude you better listen, cuz that guy is a resurrected angel. Otherwise, try to trick him into shaking your hand.
Pardon the lack of King James style scripture language.
There is a very interesting comment on my blog from Jim Harris. He thinks LoF was de-canonized due to James Talmadge’s reaction to some people who had appropriated Joseph’s comment in Lecture 6:7: “A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation”.
A group in Tintic, Utah had decided that they should be willing to sacrifice their own wives to other men to show they were willing to sacrifice all things (never mind that the wives were considered possessions of men!) to consecrate everything unto God.
See https://mormonheretic.org/2016/08/29/lectures-on-faith-science-of-theology/comment-page-1/#comment-36305