The Mormon god of the Lectures on Faith was a spirit. No physical body. On 8/17/1835, a general assembly of the Mormon Church (this was before a splinter group became a Corporation in Utah) was held in Kirtland OH. (HoC, Vol II, Chapter XVIII. The Book of Doctrine and Covenants Presented to the General Assembly of the Priesthood and the Church.) The committee of JSJr, S Rigdon, O Cowdery and F G Williams that was formed 9/24/1834 had finsiehed the book of "arranging the items of the doctrine of Jesus Christ for the government of the Church." It included in 7 "lectures" comprising the first 75 pages and generally being the "doctrine" part of the Doctrine and Covenants. It was presented by "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", and unanimously approved to be the "law and a rule of faith and practice to the Church."
In issuing the 1921 edition of the Doctrine & Covenants, the Mormon Corporation omitted the Lectures on Faith, without any vote of the membership body of the Mormon Corporation. The explanation, set forth in the introduction to the 1921 edition, that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons."
In a July-August 1980 edition of the Sunstone magazine, BYU professor of history Thomas G Alexander's "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine" appeared. In it, Alexander noted
Thomas G Alexander wrote:... 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certain, however, is that the interpretive exegesis of 1916 based upon the reconstructed doctrine of the Godhead had superseded the Lectures...
The Mormon god had morphed from the winter of 1834-35 when the Lectures were delivered by JSJr from a mere spirit, into a tangible physical body with flesh and bones by 2 April 1843 per the purposed revelation that is now codified by the Mormon Corporation as section 130 of its Doctrine and Covenants compilation.
Over the course of JSJr's ministry (1830-1844), however, the Mormon god seemed to devolve from the more advanced Christian like god of the New Testament into the more ledger keeping, vengeance seeking god of the Old Testament. This can be seen in the way that the first Mormon holy book, the Book of Mormon being produced in the 1829-30 timeframe, as compared with the second Mormon holy book, the D&C being compiled in 1835 (and variously added to -- and deletions made, like the Lectures on Faith -- since 1835), the PoGP (such as the BoAbr 1835/1842). Morally speaking, the Mormon god changed over the course of JSJr's ministry from a benevolent Jesus of the New Testament to a more tit-for-tat authoritarian so characteristic of the god of the Old Testament.
Now, almost 167 years since JSJr's murder, the Mormon god that for the most part has been stuck in the prevailing notions of morality etc of those 15 years of the first half of the 19th Century (with spice from the Old Testament added those last years of JSJr's life) is getting a little long in the tooth, morally speaking.
It is time for the Mormon Corporation to give their god a makeover. Give him (or perhaps her, if a new gender for god might be considered) some updated morality. If the Mormon Corporation would do this, pushing the re-set button on the 'god' that they believe in, they'd probably get decades of mileage before he (or she) would begin looking antiquated again, morally. After all, any god, including the Mormon god, ought to be the vanguard of morality, leading his (or her) followers on moral issues, not be dragged, virtually kicking and screaming as the Mormon god was by societal pressures to drop the ban on blacks having the priesthood.
It seems 2011 would be a good time for the Mormon Corporation to push that re-set button, and give the Mormon god a makeover, morally speaking.