The Lectures of Faith, or in other words, the “Doctrine” portion of the Doctrine & Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was removed by a committee in 1921 for four questionable reasons. Were they legitimate reasons? What if we have been looking at the theology of these lectures all wrong? I would like to propose a way of looking at the lectures that solves the alleged theological problems.
*Yes, I know now that there is a stain on my shirt LOL, for some reason my studio lighting makes it stand out way more than it does in natural light, I didn’t even notice it when I picked the shirt. Oh well, I’m not going back to re-record! Gotta be more careful next time ;)
2 Comments
I read the lectures on faith on your reccomendation, and I’ve enjoyed them, and especially enjoyed your explanation of Lecture 5. That said, gems aside, they have some serious flaws and are left best as latter day apocrypha.
Lecture 1 says faith is work, with the prime example of a farmer cultivating and sowing with the expectation that he will get a harvest. True and good, but this is hopelessly incomplete. If that’s all faith is, why does having a perfect knowledge of things preclude faith? The LoF says faith can’t exist with doubt and uncertainty (lack of sure knowledge). When reading lectures 3 and 4 with this in mind I had an overpowering thought that this is why so many of the men who worked on this in the school of prophets fell away a few years after this was published. They present faith as so fragile and brittle. You can only trust God if he acts in a way that doesn’t cause doubt and uncertainty. Since God sees the whole and we see in part, many of his actions will cause us some doubt and uncertainty. This limited definition of faith has nothing to say about why there would be a trail of faith. For a farmer working towards his harvest, incomplete knowledge and adverse avents are just bad, decreasing the yeild. There is no redeeming benefit of having to battle drought, or blight, or not knowing that the soil is low in magnesium and this crop would do better if the soil was amended. Just a poorer crop.
Next, faith as presented conflates objects that act and objects that are acted upon. This definition of faith sees everything except the 1st person POV as objects to be acted upon. We cannot treat Christ, and the atonment this way, rather God acts upon us, and we yeild to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, if we choose. The view they have a faith is that it is a power, but they seem to imply that its a power within us, and not a way to allow God’s power to work in and through us. That’s pretty close to magical thinking, The Secret, territory with its implication that the power is within us, we just need to develop it, i.e. we were god the whole time.
Lecture 2 is just wrong. Most people most of the time don’t have the gospel or any knowledge of Christ, a fact recognized by section 76. Even before the flood, which is its main focus, a lot of people did not know these things, else why would Enoch have to be sent out to preach them?
Lecture 3 and 4 are great, but it misses one thing – you come to trust God through personal experience, and coming to know he is true, not by an academic knowledge of him. We simply aren’t smart enough or comprehend the whole plan well enough for that to work. Consider Abraham sacrificing Isaac. Their was a last minute reprieve but the geographic clues in the text indicate that afterwards he and his beloved Sarah seperated, and Isaac didn’t talk to him again until her funeral. This is not something Abraham could have gotten through with knowledge but rather trust created in repeated interactions.
I liked 5 with your explanations, I’m not sure I would have made those connections – The Fathers role in the godhead is the will, the Sons role is his taking on him flesh, and the place, like the temple where we can be in God’s presence. The Spirit is the medium of their oneness.
Six misses some of the meaning of sacrifice by calling the things people give up, including family as dross and filth. A better view of sacrifice is that you give up something good for something better. Giving up dross and filth is a no-brainer, (but yes sometimes that’s where we are). But we are also asked to give up good things – such as a family in some circumstances, which is definitely not worthless garbage. This is probably rhetorical overshoot, and not meant literally, but getting carried away with your imagery is probably not something we want in scriptures.
I’m not sure I fully grasp what seven is getting at, so I ought to revisit it sometime.
I get the impression that they were tired and didn’t quite finish six and seven, and the catechism approach is a bit weird. Perhaps the closest thing we have to it is youth memorizing their themes. Maybe the temple reccomend questions? Anyways, my main impression is that this was a Sunday School Manual, and its modern equivalent is Gospel Doctrine, which we still use for converts. Maybe every member should do that class once? That’s the thing with D&C, some parts of it are living in the sense it changes to meet the times, such as the priesthood organization sections being superseded by the church handbook.
I think the Lectures on Faith get misunderstood when they are read as if they are giving a complete and final definition of faith.
Lecture 1 uses the farmer as a starting point, showing that faith involves action, not passivity. That example is not meant to be the whole picture. Faith always sits in the gap between what we do know and what is unseen.
Once you have perfect knowledge, there is no need for faith, which is why the Lectures say knowledge and faith cannot occupy the same space. That does not make faith fragile, it makes it essential for mortals who live with uncertainty.
The trials you mentioned, like Abraham’s test with Isaac, are actually where the Lectures line up with Hebrews 11. Faith shines brightest when trust continues in the face of adversity. The Lectures assume the biblical framework that trials are refining, even if they do not restate it at length.
The Lectures on Faith describe faith as the principle of power, but that does not mean faith is some inner magic we generate ourselves. The point is that faith is the channel that connects mortals to God’s power. Think of it this way: God is the source, faith is the conduit, and the results are His. When the woman touched the hem of Christ’s garment, her faith did not heal her because she was secretly divine all along. Her faith drew on His power because she trusted Him enough to reach out.
That is why the Lectures say faith underlies all action, both temporal and spiritual. Without faith you do not plant seed, and without faith you also do not pray, repent, or take steps into the unknown. Faith is not magic because it is never independent of God. It only has power when it rests on His character, His promises, and His will. Magic says the power is in you if you just learn the formula. The gospel says the power is in God, and faith is how we yield ourselves so His power can work in and through us.
Lecture 2 is not claiming every person always had the gospel, but that God revealed it from the beginning so that light was present in the world. Section 76 shows that many are kept from truth by circumstance, but that does not erase the point that God made His character known early and repeatedly.
Your point about personal experience is important. Lectures 3 and 4 stress knowledge of God’s attributes so we can trust Him, but that knowledge is not academic only, it comes through revelation and experience. Abraham is a perfect example of that.
On sacrifice, I agree the wording about “dross and filth” can sound like overstatement. Sacrifice does involve giving up something and sometimes that means even good things, which makes the test more piercing. Christ Himself said that whoever loves father or mother more than Him is not worthy of Him. It is always a matter of comparison, not contempt.
The catechism style in Lectures 6 and 7 feels foreign to us, but in their day it was a way of fixing truths in memory, much like a youth theme or temple recommend questions today.
I read the Lectures as scaffolding, not as a brittle system. They give a framework for how faith works, knowing that the actual living out of faith will always be through personal experience with God.
Perhaps many things could be worded better in the lectures but I would say the same thing about the scriptures in general. How many times have we had people go off into the weeds because they misinterpreted a verse or even entire portions of text.
We don’t need to ignore such texts but rather seek to understand them more.
Joseph Smith conversed with God the Father, his Son, many angels and people from the scriptures. He understood faith well, he lived it. He wanted to teach us as well so he put these lectures in the forefront of the Doctrine and Covenants.
I’ve always thought it odd that we don’t trust Joseph’s wisdom in that.