Why did Lecture Five of the Lecture on Faith teach the that Father was a personage of spirit?
Why did it teach that the Father and Son were the only two personages in the Godhead and why did it relegate the HG to a non personage Mind of the Father?
It seems that the Lecture were canon until 1921. Why did the Church drop them from canon?
Why doesn't the Book of Mormon support the later teaching of Joseph Smith that he gave in 1844 about the Father and the Godhead?
Is it doctrine that the Father was once a mortal man? If yes was he a man like us or a man in the way Jesus was?
Because he is both spirit and flesh.
Sorry Nehor. That one does not work in Lecture Five. It states the Father is a personage of spirit then states the Son is a personage of tabernacle. It contrasts the Son against the Father:
SECTION V
[Lec 5:1a] In our former lectures we treated of the being, character, perfections, and attributes of God.
[Lec 5:1b] What we mean by perfections is, the perfections which belong to all the attributes of his nature.
[Lec 5:1c] We shall in this lecture speak of the Godhead; we mean the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
[Lec 5:Second Amendment] There are two personages who constitute 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;
[Lec 5:2b] whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space.
[Lec 5:2c] They are the Father and the Son:
The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness.
[Lec 5:2d] 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.Because the Holy Ghost hadn't introduced himself personally to Joseph yet. That was rectified later.
So for 15 years Joseph Smith from the FV Joseph Smith did not know who or what the HG was?
The Church dropped them because they are not and never were Revelations. Later Prophets still commended their study and one lamented how little-known they were becoming.
They were not revelations. But they were the doctrine portion of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. The revelations were the covenant part. They were accepted as part of the D&C by sustaining vote of the presiding quorums of the Church. They were part of the canon. They were actualy the first segment of planned series of lectures on various docrtinal topics. There were and still are other sections of the D&C that were not revelations that are considered canon. The original article on marriage that was later removed, the article on government, letters from Joseph Smith, the manifesto and the declaration on the priesthood. None of these are revelations but are still canon. The Lectures were canon from 1835 until 1921 when they were removed without any sustaining vote at all.
It seems that they most likely were removed because particularly after the 1916 FP statement on the Godhead they seemed to conflict with the LDS position on the Godhead. How they were little known is a puzzle since every copy of the D&C included them. That they are little known now may be true because of their de-canonization.
Because Joseph knew more than most in the Book of Mormon.
So when Joseph Smith tranlated the Book of Mormon you are saying that he knew more then what he Book of Mormon prophets recorded. So if what he knew conflicted with what they knew why did he no correct it? And why take 16 years to do so? Also, you just contradicted yourself where you said in 1835 he did not know about the HG.
No, it is not doctrine in the sense that you must believe it though it is taught. We have no idea. Speculate to your heart's content.
So the teaching of the KFD are not doctrine. But they are in Gospel Essentials and the new Joseph Smith manual. The idea that God was once a man certainly was taught as doctrine when I was growing up as well.