The de-canonization of the Lectures on Faith

[_sock puppet]

Was it because the LDS Hierarchy came to realize later that what had once been regarded as the words of god (when canonized) were simply the words of men?

[_Sethbag]

No. They realized at some point that the LoF had never been put to a sustaining vote in conference, and that the best solution to this was not to take the 10 or 15 seconds it might have required to put it to a sustaining vote in conference, but rather to just rip it out altogether and let it sink down the memory hole.

Seems reasonable to me.

snort

[_honorentheos]

Was it because the LDS Hierarchy came to realize later that what had once been regarded as the words of god (when canonized) were simply the words of men?

There are two entries in The History of the Church that relate to your question.

First, in Volume 2, Chapter 13, there is indication that Joseph Smith himself authored the LoF:

January, 1835.—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, which the committee appointed last September were now compiling.

The sustaining of the D&C, to include the doctrine portion (or LoF) is found in Volume 2, Chapter 18:

A general assembly of the Church of Latter-day Saints was held at Kirtland on the 17th of August, 1835, to take into consideration the labors of a committee appointed by a general assembly of the Church on the 24th of September, 1834, for the purpose of arranging the items of the doctrine of Jesus Christ for the government of the Church. The names of the committee were: Joseph Smith, Jun., Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery and Frederick G. Williams, who, having finished said book according to the instructions given them, deem it necessary to call a general assembly of the Church to see whether the book be approved or not by the authorities of the Church: that it may, if approved, become a law and a rule of faith and practice to the Church. Wherefore, Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon, members of the First Presidency, (Presidents Joseph Smith, Jun., and Frederick G. Williams being absent on a visit to the Saints in Michigan,) appointed Thomas Burdick, Warren Parrish, and Sylvester Smith clerks, and proceeded to organize the whole assembly as follows:

They organized 1 the High Council of the church at Kirtland, and Presidents with. with. Phelps and John Whitmer organized the High Council of the church in Missouri.

Bishop Newel K. Whitney organized his counselors of the church in Kirtland, and acting Bishop John Corrill organized the counselors of the church in Missouri.

[Page 244]

Presidents Leonard Rich, Levi with. Hancock, Sylvester Smith and Lyman Sherman organized the council of the Seventy. Elder John Gould, acting president, organized the Elders. Ira Ames, acting president, organized the Priests. Erastus Babbitt, acting president, organized the Teachers. William Burgess, acting president, organized the Deacons. And they also, as the assembly was large, appointed Thomas Gates, John Young, William Cowdery, Andrew H. Aldrich, Job L. Lewis and Oliver Higley assistant presidents of the day, to assist in preserving order in the whole assembly.

Elder Levi with. Hancock being appointed chorister, a hymn was sung, and the services for the day opened by the prayer of President Oliver Cowdery, and the solemnities of eternity rested upon the audience.

Another hymn was then sung. After transacting some business for the Church, such as ordaining Morris Phelps to the High Priesthood; Warren Parrish, to the First Seventy; Sherman Gilbert, an Elder; and blessing James Foster, Dean Gould, Benjamin Gifford, Elisha H. Groves and Joseph Hartshorn, the assembly adjourned for one hour.

Afternoon: A hymn was sung, when President Rigdon arose and rebuked some of the authorities for not being in their seats at the time appointed.

President Cowdery arose and introduced the "Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter-day Saints," in behalf of the committee. He was followed by President Rigdon, who explained the manner by which they intended to obtain the voice of the assembly for or against said book.

According to said arrangement, with. with. Phelps bore record that the book presented to the assembly was true. President John Whitmer, also, rose and testified that it was true.

Elder John Smith, taking the lead of the High Council in Kirtland, bore record that the revelations in said book were true, and that the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine. Whereupon, the High Council of Kirtland accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith by a unanimous vote.

Elder Levi Jackman, taking the lead for the High Council of the church in Missouri, bore testimony that the revelations in said book were true, and the said High Council of Missouri accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.

President with. with. Phelps then read the written testimony of the Twelve, as follows:

[Page 245]

Testimony of the Twelve Apostles to the Truth of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.

"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 all the earth, that the Lord has borne record to our souls, through the Holy Ghost shed earth 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.

(Signed)

"Thomas B. Marsh,

"David with. Patten,

"Brigham Young,

"Heber C. Kimball,

"Orson Hyde,

"Walmart. E. M'Lellin,

"Parley P. Pratt,

"Luke S. Johnson,

"William Smith,

"Orson Pratt,

"John F. Boynton,

"Lyman E. Johnson."

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

[Page 246]

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

Acting President John Gould gave his testimony in favor of the book, and with the Elder accepted and acknowledge it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.

Ira Ames, acting president of the Priests, gave his testimony in favor of the book, and with the Priests accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.

Erastus Babbitt, acting president of the Teachers, gave his testimony in favor of the book, and they accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.

William Burgess, 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 unanimous vote.

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

The several authorities and the general assembly, by a unanimous vote, accepted the labor of the committee.

Two items of particular note here: first Joseph Smith was not present in this meeting even though it was a general assembly of the church. I personally think we see evidence in the HoC of the struggle for power and leadership taking place up to the 1837-38 crisis.

Second, I think it's no accident that the "Article on Marriage" was read and sustained in a conference without Joseph present but where Oliver presided. I see it as one more hint of Oliver's knowledge and disapproval of Joseph's extra-marital relationships.

You have to click to get to the links, but a free online version of the HoC is available here.

As to why they took it out, this source is the only one I've seen as original that attempts to explain it. The explaination begins on page 343 and is summarized from a letter supposedly authored by Joseph Fielding Smith to the author of the paper. Among the multiple reasons, the 1921 edition of the D&C had them removed because a majority of the leadership did not believe they were received by revelation. This is maybe what you meant when you suggested they realized they were the "words of men". But even so, claims by some apologists that they were authored by Sidney Rigdon rather than Joseph Smith are not supported by the journal accounts. I believe this is justified on the grounds Joseph would have known the doctrine in Lecture Fifth was wrong based on his experience in the grove. Only, the greenest of critics knows the issues there, so...

They did not seek a sustaining vote on removing the LOF in conference.

[_bcspace]

Was it because the LDS Hierarchy came to realize later that what had once been regarded as the words of god (when canonized) were simply the words of men?

Some couldn't reconcile the development of doctrine with actual doctrine on a couple of points.

[_sock puppet]

Was it because the LDS Hierarchy came to realize later that what had once been regarded as the words of god (when canonized) were simply the words of men?

Some couldn't reconcile the development of doctrine with actual doctrine on a couple of points.

Why can the whole of the LoF from the canon rather than just excise those irreconcilable parts?

[_bcspace]

Why can the whole of the LoF from the canon rather than just excise those irreconcilable parts?

I agree. Why? But that is from a world where everyone operates by logic. Anti Mormonism can't stand logic and therefore they are not given leverage in this case.

[_honorentheos]

Why can the whole of the LoF from the canon rather than just excise those irreconcilable parts?

I agree. Why? But that is from a world where everyone operates by logic. Anti Mormonism can't stand logic and therefore they are not given leverage in this case.

Speaking of leverage, bc, on what fulcrum do you rest your view of this issue?

To the former believer or an informed outsider, the fact the LoF contradicts not only the description of the Godhead added to the D&C in 1876 (1876...over 30 years after Joseph's lynching), but also the final sanctioned description of the visitors during what we now call the first vision seems to leave very little lifting left to be done for the critical argument.

As sock has pointed out: what was once thought to be Doctrine (with a capital "D" as it was in the title of the book) turned out to be something else.

So what do you see it as? Where did it come from? Why was it sustained by the church in 1835, but then removed by a committee in 1921 without a sustaining vote by the church?

What you've offered so far is posturing, not logical argument.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Was it because the LDS Hierarchy came to realize later that what had once been regarded as the words of god (when canonized) were simply the words of men?

Some couldn't reconcile the development of doctrine with actual doctrine on a couple of points.

What points, Sir?

- Doc

[_bcspace]

If I had to guess, the nature of the Godhead.

[_honorentheos]

If I had to guess, the nature of the Godhead.

Are you saying the doctrine regarding the Godhead was still developing in 1835?