Can the Fifth Lecture on Faith be agreed to D&C 130

[_Jason Bourne]

It might help to understand that the Lectures on Faith were very probably written by Sidney Rigdon, and not by Joseph Smith:

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/books ... chapid=274

I am well aware of the issues over who wrote the lectures and that many believe they are mostly Rigdon, though Lecture 5 may be Joseph Smith. But that does not matter. What matters is that they were the Doctrine of the 1835 D&C and were part of the canon for 86 years. For part of that time they taught doctrine that was in direct conflict with another canonized section of the D&C. This seems problematic.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

It might help to understand that the Lectures on Faith were very probably written by Sidney Rigdon, and not by Joseph Smith:

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/books ... chapid=274

So what? Joseph Smith was clearly involved in preparing the "Lectures on Faith" for publication in the D&C, as he noted in his journal for June 1835 (see HC 2:180). In the preface to the first volume of the D&C (1835) he (along with other members of the FP) stated that the Lectures were among "the leading items of the religion which we have professed to believe" and that the Lectures "embrac[ed] the important doctrine of salavation...." I don't think there is any question that Joseph Smith himself approved and endorsed the Lectures, even if he did not personally pen them.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The issue here is that bcspace has been claiming that if the church publishes something, it's "doctrine." It sounds like you agree with the rest of us that such is not the case.

I think the Lectures are problematic on several levels, don't care for them particularly much, and think that Sidney Rigdon's authorship of them is important to keep in mind, since, among other things, it makes it far less problematic for believers to ignore them when they conflict with the clear teaching of the scriptures and the Church. (Professor Reynolds's article addresses their contradiction of Church teaching.)

That Joseph Smith must have approved them at some level seems likely to me. But it also seems clear -- the Bushman biography demonstrates this eloquently -- that Joseph was not the omnipotent and omniscient person Mormon tradition has made him out to be, always in firm command of everything in the Church, and particularly not in the pre-Nauvoo period. He deferred to the better-educated Sidney Rigdon on many matters, where, nowadays, I feel no need to do so.

Does this still leave issues to be resolved with the Lectures on Faith? Sure. But it points toward a possible resolution of several of them.

[_Who Knows]

Did Joseph Smith make any public statements regarding the nature of god (spirit/man with a body, etc.) prior to the printing of the LoF, that contradict the LoF?

[_guy sajer]

The issue here is that bcspace has been claiming that if the church publishes something, it's "doctrine." It sounds like you agree with the rest of us that such is not the case.

I think the Lectures are problematic on several levels, don't care for them particularly much, and think that Sidney Rigdon's authorship of them is important to keep in mind, since, among other things, it makes it far less problematic for believers to ignore them when they conflict with the clear teaching of the scriptures and the Church. (Professor Reynolds's article addresses their contradiction of Church teaching.)

That Joseph Smith must have approved them at some level seems likely to me. But it also seems clear -- the Bushman biography demonstrates this eloquently -- that Joseph was not the omnipotent and omniscient person Mormon tradition has made him out to be, always in firm command of everything in the Church, and particularly not in the pre-Nauvoo period. He deferred to the better-educated Sidney Rigdon on many matters, where, nowadays, I feel no need to do so.

Does this still leave issues to be resolved with the Lectures on Faith? Sure. But it points toward a possible resolution of several of them.

I thought that God revealed truth to the prophet. But apparently sometimes Sidney Rigdon does (or did).

If the Prophet defers to others on points of doctrine and, it appears, gets doctrine wrong on occasion, how does this differentiate him from others professing to understand the mind and will of God? I mean, where's the real value added?

Certainly a much different picture than God directly revealing his word to his chosen mouthpiece on earth as Chapel Mormons are prone to believe, and which the Church teaches directly and by implication.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I thought that God revealed truth to the prophet. But apparently sometimes Sidney Rigdon does (or did).

If the Prophet defers to others on points of doctrine and, it appears, gets doctrine wrong on occasion, how does this differentiate him from others professing to understand the mind and will of God? I mean, where's the real value added?

Certainly a much different picture than God directly revealing his word to his chosen mouthpiece on earth as Chapel Mormons are prone to believe, and which the Church teaches directly and by implication.

I don't have to believe that the Lectures on Faith were "revealed" -- a thought that has never crossed my mind before -- or to believe that the Prophet receives express divine dictation on every issue at every hour of every day, or to believe that Joseph was completely in command at every stage and that Church structures and principles were thoroughly and immutably in place ab initio, in order to recognize an enormous amount of "value added."

And, as I've pointed out several times before, whenever I've taken the Shades test, I've come out an unambiguous "chapel Mormon."

[_Ray A]

According to Thomas G. Alexander, "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine" (Sunstone, July-August, 1980):

Perhaps the main barrier to understanding the development of Mormon theology is an underlying assumption by most Church members that there is a cumulative unity of doctrine. Mormons seem to believe that particular doctrines develop consistently, that ideas build on each other in hierarchical fashion. As a result, older revelations are interpreted by referring to current doctrinal positions. Thus, most members would suppose that a scripture or statement at any point in time has resulted from such orderly change. While this type of exegesis or interpretation may produce systematic theology and while it may satisfy those trying to understand and internalize current doctrine, it is bad history since it leaves an unwarranted impression of continuity and consistency.
Historians have long recognized the importance of the Nauvoo experience in the formulation of distinctive Latter-day Saint doctrines. What is not so apparent is that before about 1835 the LDS doctrines on God and man were quite close to those of contemporary Protestant denominations......

The doctrines of God and man revealed in these sources were not greatly different from those of some of the religious denominations of the time. Marvin Hill has argued that the Mormon doctrine of man in New York contained elements of both Calvinism and Arminianism, though tending toward the latter. The following evidence shows that it was much closer to the moderate Arminian position, particularly in rejecting the Calvinist emphasis on absolute and unconditional predestination, limited atonement, total depravity, and absolute perseverance of the elect. It will further demonstrate that the doctrine of God preached and believed before 1835 was essentially trinitarian, with God the Father seen as an absolute personage of Spirit, Jesus Christ as a personage of tabernacle, and the Holy Ghost as an impersonal spiritual member of the Godhead.

The Lectures on Faith differentiated between the Father and Son somewhat more explicitly, but even they did not define a materialistic, tritheistic Godhead. In announcing the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants which included the Lectures on Faith, the Messenger and Advocate commented editorially that it trusted the volume would give "the churches abroad ... a perfect understanding of the doctrine believed by this society." The Lectures declared that "there are two personages who constitute the great matchless, governing and supreme power over all things-by whom all things were created and made." They are "the Father being a personage of spirit," and "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 war, formed after his likeness, and in his image." The "Articles and Covenants" called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost "one God" rather than the Godhead, a term which Mormons generally use today to separate themselves from trinitarians.

... between 1842 and 1844 Joseph Smith spoke on and published doctrines such as the plurality of gods, the tangibility of God's body, the distinct separation of God and Christ, the potential of man to become and function as a god, the explicit rejection of ex nihilo creation, and the materiality of everything including spirit. These ideas were perhaps most clearly stated in the King Follett discourse of April 1844.

Because doctrine and practice changed as the result of new revelation and exegesis, some members who had been converted under the doctrines of the early 1830s left the Church. John Corrill exhibited disappointment rather than rancor and defended the Church against outside attack, but left because of the introduction of doctrine which he thought contradicted those of the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/changod.shtml

[_cksalmon]

I don't have to believe that the Lectures on Faith were "revealed" -- a thought that has never crossed my mind before

And, yet, it not only crossed the minds of the compilers that LoF was given by God, but was heralded as having been:

There may be an aversion in the minds of some against receiving anything purporting to be articles of religious faith, in consequence of there being so many now extant; but if men believe a system [contained, at the very least, in LoF and the following Covenants and Commandments section], and profess that it was given by inspiration, certainly, the more intelligibly they can present it, the better. It does not make a principle untrue to print it, neither does it make it true not to print it. -- from the Preface [p. iii]

Moreover, Joseph Smith signed his name to the Preface, which concludes:

"We do not present this little volume with any other expectation than that we are to be called to answer to every principle advanced, in that day when the secrets of all hearts will be revealed, and the reward of every man's labors by given him. -- from the Preface [p. iv]"

[_bcspace]

He is a personage of Spirit and omnipresent. He's also embodied.

Which is the answer to the question. LDS doctrine includes the notion that God is a Spirit. Continuing revelation includes the physical body. Thus there is no contradiction. That a work of doctrine be out-dated onthe point of not including God's physical body does not render it valueless, hence it is not unreasonable to see it's publication long after the doctrine was enhanced.

Of course antiMormons here choose not to accept the principles guiding LDS doctrine and therefore will always be relegated to talking past us instead of to us.

[_mentalgymnast]

Hi Jason,

If you have the time, here's a good place to continue in regards to your understanding of the development of Mormon thought as it relates to the HG, God, and the Godhead.

http://mormonmisc.podbean.com/

The following podcasts are most applicable:

Development of Mormon Thought on the Holy Ghost

Development of Joseph Smith’s Concept of God

Discussion of God With Martin Tanner

Defining Mormon Concepts of Deity

There are some other podcasts in the list that you may find helpful also. I listened to these (and others) while working out at the gym (good place to do heavy lifting...but maybe not so much heavy thinking) and if I'm not mistaken some of the issues between LoF and the D&C are discussed. Being as I was at the gym when listening to these programs my comprehension was less than optimal. Anyways, enjoy.

Regards,
MG