Chapter 11—Lectures on Faith
Given the tremendous role of faith in God’s great work, it is no wonder that when Joseph was commanded to organize the school of the prophets in December 1832, their first curriculum was entirely devoted to the study of faith. The LDS church was condemned in November 1832 and one month later, God commanded this instruction be given. These seven theological lectures would lay the proper foundation to understand the doctrine of Christ needed to remove their condemnation.
To “be perfect” requires faith in the Lord. Faith is first in “the order of the house prepared” and “established for their instruction in all things that are expedient for them.” None are excluded. “All the officers of the church” and “those who are called to the ministry in the church, beginning at the high priests, even down to the deacons” (D&C 88:127) are expected to attain faith’s power to speak and prophesy in God’s name.
Given God’s purpose for the school, no other topic could, or should, be taught first except faith, the first ordinance and “foundation of all righteousness” (LF 1:1). As God’s curriculum, faith must be studied with utmost priority by all who desire its blessings. God commanded the school of the prophets be established to help them gain a fulness of faith: the testimony of Jesus and knowledge of God. This testimony defines a prophet or prophetess, for the “testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Revelation 19:10). A faithful testimony “is always attended by the spirit of prophecy and revelation,” and it is just as necessary to obtain it today as in all prior dispensations.
We can only “prophesy in accordance with your faith” (Romans 12:6, NIV). “Prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe . . . for ye may all prophesy one by one that all may learn . . . Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy” (1 Corinthians 14:22, 31, 39). Jesus defines ‘brethren’ by their worthiness, not church position. “My brethren are these which hear the word of the Lord and do it” (Luke 8:21). The school of prophets was admonished,
Having a testimony about Jesus is not the same as having Jesus testify to God on our behalf. The testimony of Jesus is the reward of faith (John 17:3) and the purpose of the school of prophets. The testimony of Jesus is founded on the doctrine of Christ and its ordinances. How we respond to this testimony determines our eternal glory.
The Lectures present foundational doctrine to perfect our ministry. Joseph understood the urgency of the charge to “build a house of God and establish a school for the Prophets,” for “this is the word of the Lord to us, and we must, yea, the Lord helping us, we will obey.”
While revising the D&C in 1879, Orson Pratt questioned “the orthodoxy and authoritativeness of the Lectures” and suggested the Lectures be their own publication, distinct from scripture. LDS president John Taylor replied, “The Lectures on Faith were published with the sanction and approval of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and we do not feel that it is desirable to make any alteration in that regard.”
Not long after Taylor’s death, apostle James E. Talmage was asked in 1891 to “prepare a work on theology, suitable as a textbook for our church schools.” The theological curriculum developed under Joseph’s direction for the school of the prophets apparently was not sufficient. In response, Talmage published Articles of Faith, a book that focused on the church’s thirteen statements of belief. While the Articles of Faith are undoubtedly worthy of study, overlooking the divinely-commanded Lectures and an in-depth study of the doctrine of faith itself was unfortunate. With one exception, Talmage did not quote the Lectures on Faith, although one chapter summarized some of its key points.
Embracing Talmage’s Articles of Faith while ignoring the Lectures further distanced the LDS church from the Lectures. Talmage’s work was a Mormon classic for many decades until later generations removed it from the ‘approved missionary library,’ meaning missionaries could neither study it (nor Lectures on Faith) on their mission. That the LDS banned missionaries from studying this doctrine given to ‘perfect the ministry,’ is tragic.
So why were the Lectures removed? In a candid 1940 interview, LDS apostle and committee member Joseph Fielding Smith offered four reasons: (1) they were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith; (2) they are only explanations and instructions relative to the general subject of faith, but are not doctrine; (3) they are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead; and (4) the committee thought it would be better to remove the Lectures to avoid possible confusion or contention on beliefs about the Godhead. Smith’s viewpoint was reinforced by Lundwall’s 1940 publication that declared, “The Lectures on Faith have not been printed in current editions of the Doctrine and Covenants because they are not revelations to the Church.”
These reasons raise questions and concerns. Was Joseph the only acceptable source of truth? Joseph admitted the Lord revealed truth to others. Even if Joseph did not deliver every Lecture, he approved and authorized the content, took an active role in its development, obtained a copyright, encouraged its canonization and study, and declared the Lectures as truth necessary for salvation. He “underscored his personal support of the Lectures by noting in the introduction of the 1835 edition that he accepted responsibility for ‘every principle advanced’” therein. Since Joseph held the “keys of the school of the prophets, which [God] commanded to be organized” (D&C 90:7), his approval matters.
Further, what is revelation? The Lord said that “whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation” (D&C 68:4). Whatever the Spirit of God reveals is revelation, so all revelation is scripture. Likewise, all scripture dictated by His spirit and translated correctly is revelation. We must not limit ourselves by self-imposed suppositions or we risk rejecting His revealed word. God is not bound to deliver His gospel in our desired or expected way.
Some justify the Lectures’ removal because of their unique format, but again we cannot limit how or what God communicates based on our preference or expectations. This rationale would require us to dismiss some New Testament writings of Paul, an apostle ordained directly by God, because they include letters, comments, or preachings to a group, not formal revelations to the church at large. Many sections of the Doctrine and Covenants are not specifically revelations in the traditional sense and include a variety of forms like “declarations of belief, reports of visions, historical narratives, admonishments, answers to questions, explanations of scripture, minutes of instruction meetings, prayers, letters, and items of instruction” plus a hymn. If a specific format is the defining characteristic of revelation, then why are so many other sections of the D&C, the Articles of Faith, and Joseph Smith’s history still canonized? Ironically, Woodruff’s Manifesto (now D&C–Official Declaration 1) was neither a revelation nor presented to the church for approval. This declaration now considered scripture was “a press release through the office of Utah’s delegate in Congress, John T. Caine.”
Dismissing truth, in any format, is sin. While the Lectures’ presentation may not be typical, their content is divine. In comparison, today’s LDS publications are treated as scripture but they have little doctrinal substance, offering stories or metaphors at the expense of foundational principles. How such publications are considered to be of greater worth than the Lectures God designed to bring us perfection and salvation is concerning. Do we understand the doctrine of faith today as well as those who received the Lectures? If not, we must repent and return to what God revealed. After all, the Lectures were “instruction that the Lord designs they should receive” to remove condemnation.
Smith’s second rationalization is that, contrary to early church leaders’ sentiments, the Lectures are “only explanations and instructions but are not doctrine.” Denying their doctrinal status is “historically erroneous” since the Lectures specifically comprised the ‘Doctrine’ portion of the Doctrine & Covenants. More than an explanation of “the general subject of faith,” the Lectures contained “the leading items of the religion which we have professed to believe,” hoping for the “consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation” contained therein. The September 1840 Millennial Star confirms the Lectures contain “the first principles of theology, or the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” The 1835 D&C preface declared all other content to be the “items or principles for the regulation of the church” that comprised the ‘Covenants and Commandments’ portion.
While preparing the D&C, Kirtland’s council specifically sought “to arrange the items of doctrine of Jesus Christ for the government of the church of the Latter-day Saints.” Contents of the D&C were intended to, “if approved, become a law.” Speaking of the D&C, Elder John Smith “bore record that the revelations in said book were true and that the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine.” In this meeting, President Phelps declared their content was “well arranged and calculated to govern the church in righteousness,” then testified that “he knew assuredly for himself, having received witness from Heaven, and not from men” the truth of their content. Others delivered similar testimony. Its content was “prized by this Conference to be worth to the Church the riches of the whole Earth.”
Since faith brings power to “commune with Him” and “stand in His presence” (LF 2:34), can any instruction, explanation, or revelation that teaches us how to return to God and attain salvation not be doctrine? Further, can content that comprised “the doctrine” portion of the Doctrine & Covenants not be doctrine? Joseph intended the Lectures to be part of the canon, for he acknowledged being busy “preparing the lectures on theology for publication in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.” Because the Lectures were “expressly given to teach church leaders and missionaries doctrines considered truthful and binding upon present and future church members,” holding the position that this “would not be doctrine puts the missionaries in a curious position.”
Smith’s third claim was that the Lectures are ‘not complete’ in their teachings of the Godhead. No current scripture is complete, and intentionally so. The Book of Mormon contains not “even a hundredth part” of Christ’s teachings (3 Nephi 26:6). Nephi, Isaiah, Moroni, the brother of Jared, and others were constrained and commanded to refrain from imparting all they knew. Since the Lord teaches “line upon line, precept upon precept” (D&C 98:12), we should be grateful, not critical, of foundational truths. We are promised that greater truths will be given only after we accept and believe what He already revealed.
Some believed the fifth lecture had “incomplete, if not erroneous doctrine [on the Godhead] which was corrected or clarified in 1843 by Joseph Smith . . . Fitzgerald reports being told in an 1940 interview with Joseph Fielding Smith, ‘They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on this point of doctrine are given in section 130 of . . . the Doctrine & Covenants.’ Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission thought that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants.”
In contrast, LDS apostle and scholar Bruce McConkie has no issue with the Lecture’s “statement on the Godhead,” finding it “a nearly perfect summary of those things which must be believed to gain salvation.” To him the Lectures were “the most comprehensive, intelligent, inspired utterance that now exists in the English language—that exists in one place—defining, interpreting, expounding, announcing, and testifying what kind of being God is. It was written by the power of the Holy Ghost, by the spirit of inspiration. It is, in effect, eternal scripture; it is true.”
LDS scholar Robert Millet also found “these conflicts to be more apparent than real” and attempted reconciliation. Regarding the fifth lecture, Millet stated, “I believe the doctrines taught therein to be true and the concepts presented—though difficult and in some cases seemingly at odds with more traditional discussions of God and the Godhead —to be deep, penetrating, and, when fully grasped, soul inspiring. I believe them to be in harmony with other doctrines found in the standard works and the teachings of living apostles and prophets.” If there was a legitimate error or an inconsistency, would we not be better served to correct it and continue encouraging study of the doctrine of faith? Since the Lectures were modified in 1876, 1891, 1985, and 1990, clearly the LDS have no concern about changing the text.
Also, why was an updated version never published with the doctrine Joseph is said to have clarified? Was removing the entire Lecture series the only option if there was confusion with content in one Lecture? Just because people fail to comprehend these truths does not mean God will allow them to discard, remove, or deny the Lectures.
Smith’s fourth point, that the Lectures should be removed to avoid “possible confusion” is ironic because faith, the subject of the Lectures, is the only means to remove confusion. If there is confusion on the subject, was the Lord asked for truth? The committee admitted they “thought” it would be better to remove it, but they did not state they sought His guidance to understand it. Turning to others for counsel instead of asking God keeps us “in darkness and confusion” and fills “the world with confusion” (D&C 123:7). Confusion is only avoided by receiving truth, and faith leads us to the source of all truth.
Others suggest the Lectures were rejected as scripture because their canonization was not voted on by the whole church. The “Explanatory Introduction” in the 1921 Doctrine & Covenants states the Lectures were removed because “those lessons were prepared for use in the School of the Elders” in 1834–1835 “but they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons.” But LDS records state that on 17 August 1835, “representatives from the presidency of the high priesthood, the Kirtland and Missouri high councils, the Kirtland and Missouri bishoprics, the Seventy, and the elders, priests, teachers, and deacons expressed their belief in the divinity of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants . . . then voted to approve the publication and the work of the committee that compiled it.” Finding the Lectures “were profitable for doctrine . . . the high council of Kirtland accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.” They were again approved in the 1891 and 1897 general conferences.
Differences of opinion exist among LDS leadership regarding the necessity to vote on such things. First Presidency member George Cannon took issue with required voting.
On the contrary, LDS Presidents Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith both claimed under oath that voting was required for revelation to be binding, a position that brings questions. If a vote is required to bind the church to revelation or doctrine, was there a vote to decanonize the Lectures? Was an opportunity given to vote whether to bind themselves to modifications of scripture or ordinances every time it occurs? Are we bound to God’s laws if there is no vote? What if the majority votes against what God revealed? No discussion, opinion, consensus, declaration, or vote by the arm of flesh can absolve a people of their covenant responsibilities to attain these blessings. Many believe they already possess faith and have progressed beyond basic doctrine but the widespread condemnation of the LDS (“even all”) shows it is not so.
The RLDS church broke away from the LDS church and was formally organized in 1860. In 1897, they removed the Lectures from their canon saying, “The materials in these pages (being simply outlines of the Lectures given in a strictly local situation to a class of elders) had lost much of their relevance to the circumstances of the church over half a century later.” It is bold to assume that what God commanded for His restoration is no longer relevant. The doctrine of faith is never irrelevant.
Believing we can outgrow or improve what God revealed endangers our soul, but such as been the tendency of men throughout time. “The learned fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries boast that the wise and noble who shunned the primitive church are now safe in a bosom of a Christian society which preaches and practices things that would have frightened off the rude converts of an earlier day . . . Modern churchmen duly shudder at the thought of being ‘at the mercy of the primitive church, its teachings, its life, its understanding,’ and congratulate themselves on having outgrown” it. Embracing reformation and revised policy, doctrine, and ritual brought the demise of many covenant people.
“That cunning plan of the evil one” encourages us to believe we are secure even as we do not hearken to what God commanded and “set it aside, supposing they know of themselves” (2 Nephi 9:28). The RLDS reversed their decision in 1952 because of the historical value of the Lectures. The Lectures
dealt with basic principles and assumptions by which the Saints could acquire true faith, and by the expression of such faith develop in spiritual truth and power to commune directly and openly with God.
We cannot be given further knowledge until our faith is successfully tried, yet many willingly dismiss the very doctrine needed to attain it. In other words, rejecting the Lectures demonstrates ignorance of the Gospel itself. The faithful seek truth wherever it may be found. Being neither a naïve nor primitive attempt to understand faith, the Lectures present sound eternal principles that testify of the way to Him. The Lord tests us to see if we will honor all that He reveals.
The Lectures were to help perfect their ministry but many failed to see their worth. They are “a rich source of doctrinal treasures couched in clear and powerful language. One can drink as deeply from them as he has a mind to.” Their removal from LDS curriculum speaks volumes about how thirsty we are for His word and how deeply we want to drink.
“Coming to God, asking, receiving, heavens open, visions, etc. are done away because of unbelief.” That no new revelations or visions have been recorded in LDS scripture for an entire century confirms a famine is real. It is no coincidence the last canonized revelation was in 1918, just prior to rapid modifications to ordinances, scripture, garments, and doctrine. The 1920s marked much change, progress, and achievement for the LDS, as they supposed. In 1920, apostle George Richards, along with a committee of other apostles, oversaw a revised edition of the Book of Mormon. The Doctrine & Covenants was also modified. In 1921, the Lectures on Faith were removed from scripture. Alterations continued the following year as Richards submitted many changes to ordinances which he considered to be a “splendid accomplishment.” Around this time, the holy garments, auxiliary and priesthood organizations, the endowment, and other details were significantly modified.
Faith is “the first principle in revealed religion” (LF 1:1). Without revelation, there is no faith in the Lord. Vanity ministers without revelation, a powerful indictment against the condemned. “Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near” (Isaiah 55:6). Refusing light perpetuates sin and iniquity, eventually bringing judgments that result in mourning and devastation. When the awful reality sets in, “they shall go with their flocks and with their herds to seek the Lord; but they shall not find Him; he hath withdrawn himself from them” (Hosea 5:6). “I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face” (Hosea 5:15).
To admit we lack faith requires humility and realizing our true condemned condition, something most refuse to believe. Because faith is an ordinance, and a change of ordinances ties to changes in priesthood, dismissing faith impacts priesthood. Changing our understanding of the doctrine of faith changes our access to the priesthood, but comprehending faith increases our ability to attain it.
Many assume the doctrine of Christ is whatever their church or priests teach but faith finds no place in religions that have only a form of godliness. The LDS have redefined the doctrine of Christ and denied faith as an ordinance. The Lectures’ removal may have been both a catalyst for, and result of, de-emphasizing the doctrine of Christ and its ordinances. We are warned that Satan will “lead them away to believe that the doctrine of Christ [is] a foolish and a vain thing” (3 Nephi 2:2). Neglecting the doctrine of faith assures that the doctrine of Christ will not be preserved. “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God” (2 John 1:9).
Since Christ’s doctrine is meant to bring us into His presence, we might measure how well His doctrine is preserved by how often these truths are taught or these experiences had. In 1994 the First Presidency admitted, “We have a responsibility to preserve the doctrinal purity of the Church. We are united in this objective,” but Jesus warned that saying and doing can be two different things. In 1835, it was said, “The people of this church were weak in faith compared to the ancients . . . Your ordination is not full and complete until God has laid His hand upon you. We require as much to qualify as those who have gone before us. God is the same.” But in 2014, LDS First Presidency member Dieter Uchtdorf declared a personal manifestation of Christ is no longer necessary. “You do not need to see the Savior, as the Apostles did, to experience the same transformation.” This belief contradicts scripture.
With leadership’s approval, apostle Bruce McConkie similarly said a personal relationship with Christ is not only unnecessary, but “improper and perilous.” Man reviles against God by saying “in his heart, Thou wilt not require it” (Psalm 10:13). Much different was David’s faith as he declared, “When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, Lord, will I seek” (Psalm 27:8).
The doctrine of Christ’s appearing was not revered in Helaman’s day either. Unbelievers declared, “We know [this teaching] is a wicked tradition which has been handed down unto us by our fathers, to cause us that we should believe in some great and marvelous thing which should come to pass, but not among us.” This doctrine was ascribed to “the cunning and the mysterious arts of the evil one,” such that many called it “a wicked tradition” that would “keep us in ignorance.” His gospel remained “some great mystery” to them. Such delusions “did the people imagine up in their hearts, which were foolish and vain; and they were much disturbed, for Satan did stir them up to do iniquity continually . . . that he might harden the hearts of the people against that which was good and against that which should come” (Helaman 16:20–22).
Refusing to seek counsel from God, they relied on others. Asking God for truth was not a consideration for they only needed to believe their leaders. Their lack of faith is further attested to by their wanting to “witness with our own eyes that they are true” (Helaman 16:20), but faith is “hoped for and not seen” (Ether 12:6).
The doctrine of faith cannot be any less relevant today than it was for Joseph, Abraham, Abel, Enoch, and others who rent the veil to receive exaltation. Without faith, we cannot glorify God.
Joseph experienced the way to God. Have we received the same divine experiences as him? Have we received the greater revelations and truths promised if we are faithful? If not, perhaps we should not be so quick to dismiss or discard the foundational doctrine of faith that God commanded Joseph be taught to those not yet perfected in their ministry.
Remember, “the great blessing that God has promised to the faithful of the Church of Christ” is “a visit from the heavens to honor us with his own presence.” Do we believe Him? If we have not experienced it, our faith is not full. It is surprising that professed believers reject the opportunity to bring the Lord ever-so-near. Obtaining such a marvelous blessing is worthy of all effort and sacrifice. This was the greatest desire of David’s heart: “One thing have I desired of the Lord that I will seek after: that I may . . . behold the beauty of the Lord and to inquire in his temple” (Psalm 27:4). To see His face is an ordinance, the glorious reward of faith. If such ordinances are no longer necessary, God would be a God who changes, but He is not. Therefore, seeing His face is the privilege and purpose of mortality, His gift to the faithful. If we do not have this knowledge, more faith is needed.
Holy prophets walked the path to sanctification, received their calling from God, and are endowed with His power and spiritual gifts, including prophecy. Being called a prophet does not assure the gift of prophecy. All who claim to be a prophet but do not have experiential knowledge of Christ are false prophets. Do today’s ‘prophets’ testify of truths that lead to actual knowledge of God? Are they seers who actually see with the eye of faith and understand this critical component of salvation? Can they translate what scholars cannot? Do they preach the way to receive divine experiences and encourage our pursuit of such glorious things? If not, we remain condemned and in darkness.
Faith in Christ removed darkness from the minds of Lamanites once they chose to believe Him. “Repent and cry unto the voice, even until ye shall have faith in Christ . . . and when ye shall do this, the cloud of darkness shall be removed from overshadowing you” (Helaman 5:41). A willingness to examine their beliefs prepared them for greater truths. Filled with joy as a marvelous pillar of fire encircled them, “they saw the heavens open and angels came down out of heaven and ministered unto them . . . and they were bidden to go forth and marvel not, neither should they doubt” (Helaman 5:48–49) because doubt destroys faith.
“Where doubt and uncertainty is, there faith is not, nor can it be” (LF 6:12). It is not enough to just “go forth,” for many strange roads lead away from His true path. Go “forth unto Him” (3 Nephi 17:9) for acceptance, holiness, completeness, and perfection—blessings only He can bestow. “Doubt and faith do not exist in the same person at the same time” (LF 6:12). Doctrine that claims reforms are a prerogative or right of leadership is error carefully disguised as faith, but it is doubt. As the enemy of faith, doubt discourages pursuit of divine knowledge. The greatest threat to doubt is knowing we can commune with and see God.
The Lectures “provided instruction necessary for those who were preaching and gathering the elect to Zion, thereby facilitating the redemption of Zion.” Since Zion is not here almost two centuries later, there is an ever-increasing need today for these foundational principles to be understood and taught with great diligence.
For footnotes and references, click HERE.
Faith being the first principle in revealed religion, and the foundation of all righteousness, necessarily claims the first place in a course of lectures which are designed to unfold to the understanding the doctrine of Jesus Christ. (LF 1:1)Joseph, who held “keys of the school of the prophets, which I have commanded to be organized” (D&C 90:7), approved the curriculum. Originally titled “Lectures . . . of Faith” (not “Lectures on Faith”), this doctrine was so highly esteemed in the church’s early years that it was canonized as scripture. The Lord’s purpose in organizing the school and curriculum was to prepare people for greater things.
These lectures are being compiled and arranged with other documents of instruction and regulation for the church, titled ‘Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter-day Saints’ &c. It may be well, for the information of the churches abroad, to say, that this book will contain the important revelations on doctrine and church government now extant, and will, we trust, give them a perfect understanding of the doctrine believed by this society.Joseph was to “continue in the ministry and presidency” over “the affairs of the church and the school” (D&C 90:12–13), and his personal history confirms he understood the task. He wrote, “It was necessary to make preparations for the school for the elders, wherein they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God.”
To “be perfect” requires faith in the Lord. Faith is first in “the order of the house prepared” and “established for their instruction in all things that are expedient for them.” None are excluded. “All the officers of the church” and “those who are called to the ministry in the church, beginning at the high priests, even down to the deacons” (D&C 88:127) are expected to attain faith’s power to speak and prophesy in God’s name.
Given God’s purpose for the school, no other topic could, or should, be taught first except faith, the first ordinance and “foundation of all righteousness” (LF 1:1). As God’s curriculum, faith must be studied with utmost priority by all who desire its blessings. God commanded the school of the prophets be established to help them gain a fulness of faith: the testimony of Jesus and knowledge of God. This testimony defines a prophet or prophetess, for the “testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Revelation 19:10). A faithful testimony “is always attended by the spirit of prophecy and revelation,” and it is just as necessary to obtain it today as in all prior dispensations.
We can only “prophesy in accordance with your faith” (Romans 12:6, NIV). “Prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe . . . for ye may all prophesy one by one that all may learn . . . Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy” (1 Corinthians 14:22, 31, 39). Jesus defines ‘brethren’ by their worthiness, not church position. “My brethren are these which hear the word of the Lord and do it” (Luke 8:21). The school of prophets was admonished,
He that is found unworthy of this salutation shall not have place among you; for ye shall not suffer that mine house shall be polluted by him. And he that cometh in and is faithful before me and is a brother, shall salute . . . with this same prayer and covenant. Behold, verily, I say unto you, this is an ensample unto you for a salutation to one another in the house of God, in the school of the prophets . . . that it may become a sanctuary, a tabernacle of the Holy Spirit to your edification. (D&C 88:134–137)Moses hoped all would become prophets. “Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets and that the Lord would put His spirit upon them!” (Numbers 11:29). God again expressed His desire “that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world; that faith also might increase in the earth; that mine everlasting covenant might be established” (D&C 1:20–22).
Having a testimony about Jesus is not the same as having Jesus testify to God on our behalf. The testimony of Jesus is the reward of faith (John 17:3) and the purpose of the school of prophets. The testimony of Jesus is founded on the doctrine of Christ and its ordinances. How we respond to this testimony determines our eternal glory.
The Lectures present foundational doctrine to perfect our ministry. Joseph understood the urgency of the charge to “build a house of God and establish a school for the Prophets,” for “this is the word of the Lord to us, and we must, yea, the Lord helping us, we will obey.”
Unless we fulfill this command vis establish an house and prepare all things necessary whereby the Elders may gather into a school called the school of prophets and receive that instruction that the Lord designs they receive, we may all despair of obtaining the great blessing that God has promised to the faithful of the Church of Christ.What is great blessing is promised? “On conditions of our obedience, he has promised us great things, yea even a visit from the heavens to honor us with his own presence.” The Lectures acknowledged this as their purpose, given so we may
see by what means it was that God became an object of faith among men after the fall; and what it was that (1) stirred up the faith of multitudes to feel after him; (2) to search after a knowledge of his character, perfections and attributes, until they (3) became extensively acquainted with him; and not only (4) commune with him, and (5) behold his glory, but (6) be partakers of his power, and (7) stand in his presence. (LF 2:34, numerals added)Although this precious doctrine was held sacred as scripture in 1835, its preeminence among the LDS did not last. “Upon recommendation of a committee of apostles, the Lectures were deleted from the 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants,” then subsequently from church curriculum. Today the majority of LDS are not aware of the Lectures’ existence or their once-scriptural status. Even fewer are acquainted with their rich doctrinal content. Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith found them “to be of extreme value in the study of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” but still supported their removal. He later admitted, “The rising generation knows little about the Lectures on Faith.”
While revising the D&C in 1879, Orson Pratt questioned “the orthodoxy and authoritativeness of the Lectures” and suggested the Lectures be their own publication, distinct from scripture. LDS president John Taylor replied, “The Lectures on Faith were published with the sanction and approval of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and we do not feel that it is desirable to make any alteration in that regard.”
Not long after Taylor’s death, apostle James E. Talmage was asked in 1891 to “prepare a work on theology, suitable as a textbook for our church schools.” The theological curriculum developed under Joseph’s direction for the school of the prophets apparently was not sufficient. In response, Talmage published Articles of Faith, a book that focused on the church’s thirteen statements of belief. While the Articles of Faith are undoubtedly worthy of study, overlooking the divinely-commanded Lectures and an in-depth study of the doctrine of faith itself was unfortunate. With one exception, Talmage did not quote the Lectures on Faith, although one chapter summarized some of its key points.
Embracing Talmage’s Articles of Faith while ignoring the Lectures further distanced the LDS church from the Lectures. Talmage’s work was a Mormon classic for many decades until later generations removed it from the ‘approved missionary library,’ meaning missionaries could neither study it (nor Lectures on Faith) on their mission. That the LDS banned missionaries from studying this doctrine given to ‘perfect the ministry,’ is tragic.
So why were the Lectures removed? In a candid 1940 interview, LDS apostle and committee member Joseph Fielding Smith offered four reasons: (1) they were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith; (2) they are only explanations and instructions relative to the general subject of faith, but are not doctrine; (3) they are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead; and (4) the committee thought it would be better to remove the Lectures to avoid possible confusion or contention on beliefs about the Godhead. Smith’s viewpoint was reinforced by Lundwall’s 1940 publication that declared, “The Lectures on Faith have not been printed in current editions of the Doctrine and Covenants because they are not revelations to the Church.”
These reasons raise questions and concerns. Was Joseph the only acceptable source of truth? Joseph admitted the Lord revealed truth to others. Even if Joseph did not deliver every Lecture, he approved and authorized the content, took an active role in its development, obtained a copyright, encouraged its canonization and study, and declared the Lectures as truth necessary for salvation. He “underscored his personal support of the Lectures by noting in the introduction of the 1835 edition that he accepted responsibility for ‘every principle advanced’” therein. Since Joseph held the “keys of the school of the prophets, which [God] commanded to be organized” (D&C 90:7), his approval matters.
Further, what is revelation? The Lord said that “whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation” (D&C 68:4). Whatever the Spirit of God reveals is revelation, so all revelation is scripture. Likewise, all scripture dictated by His spirit and translated correctly is revelation. We must not limit ourselves by self-imposed suppositions or we risk rejecting His revealed word. God is not bound to deliver His gospel in our desired or expected way.
Some justify the Lectures’ removal because of their unique format, but again we cannot limit how or what God communicates based on our preference or expectations. This rationale would require us to dismiss some New Testament writings of Paul, an apostle ordained directly by God, because they include letters, comments, or preachings to a group, not formal revelations to the church at large. Many sections of the Doctrine and Covenants are not specifically revelations in the traditional sense and include a variety of forms like “declarations of belief, reports of visions, historical narratives, admonishments, answers to questions, explanations of scripture, minutes of instruction meetings, prayers, letters, and items of instruction” plus a hymn. If a specific format is the defining characteristic of revelation, then why are so many other sections of the D&C, the Articles of Faith, and Joseph Smith’s history still canonized? Ironically, Woodruff’s Manifesto (now D&C–Official Declaration 1) was neither a revelation nor presented to the church for approval. This declaration now considered scripture was “a press release through the office of Utah’s delegate in Congress, John T. Caine.”
Dismissing truth, in any format, is sin. While the Lectures’ presentation may not be typical, their content is divine. In comparison, today’s LDS publications are treated as scripture but they have little doctrinal substance, offering stories or metaphors at the expense of foundational principles. How such publications are considered to be of greater worth than the Lectures God designed to bring us perfection and salvation is concerning. Do we understand the doctrine of faith today as well as those who received the Lectures? If not, we must repent and return to what God revealed. After all, the Lectures were “instruction that the Lord designs they should receive” to remove condemnation.
Smith’s second rationalization is that, contrary to early church leaders’ sentiments, the Lectures are “only explanations and instructions but are not doctrine.” Denying their doctrinal status is “historically erroneous” since the Lectures specifically comprised the ‘Doctrine’ portion of the Doctrine & Covenants. More than an explanation of “the general subject of faith,” the Lectures contained “the leading items of the religion which we have professed to believe,” hoping for the “consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation” contained therein. The September 1840 Millennial Star confirms the Lectures contain “the first principles of theology, or the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” The 1835 D&C preface declared all other content to be the “items or principles for the regulation of the church” that comprised the ‘Covenants and Commandments’ portion.
While preparing the D&C, Kirtland’s council specifically sought “to arrange the items of doctrine of Jesus Christ for the government of the church of the Latter-day Saints.” Contents of the D&C were intended to, “if approved, become a law.” Speaking of the D&C, Elder John Smith “bore record that the revelations in said book were true and that the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine.” In this meeting, President Phelps declared their content was “well arranged and calculated to govern the church in righteousness,” then testified that “he knew assuredly for himself, having received witness from Heaven, and not from men” the truth of their content. Others delivered similar testimony. Its content was “prized by this Conference to be worth to the Church the riches of the whole Earth.”
Since faith brings power to “commune with Him” and “stand in His presence” (LF 2:34), can any instruction, explanation, or revelation that teaches us how to return to God and attain salvation not be doctrine? Further, can content that comprised “the doctrine” portion of the Doctrine & Covenants not be doctrine? Joseph intended the Lectures to be part of the canon, for he acknowledged being busy “preparing the lectures on theology for publication in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.” Because the Lectures were “expressly given to teach church leaders and missionaries doctrines considered truthful and binding upon present and future church members,” holding the position that this “would not be doctrine puts the missionaries in a curious position.”
Smith’s third claim was that the Lectures are ‘not complete’ in their teachings of the Godhead. No current scripture is complete, and intentionally so. The Book of Mormon contains not “even a hundredth part” of Christ’s teachings (3 Nephi 26:6). Nephi, Isaiah, Moroni, the brother of Jared, and others were constrained and commanded to refrain from imparting all they knew. Since the Lord teaches “line upon line, precept upon precept” (D&C 98:12), we should be grateful, not critical, of foundational truths. We are promised that greater truths will be given only after we accept and believe what He already revealed.
Some believed the fifth lecture had “incomplete, if not erroneous doctrine [on the Godhead] which was corrected or clarified in 1843 by Joseph Smith . . . Fitzgerald reports being told in an 1940 interview with Joseph Fielding Smith, ‘They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on this point of doctrine are given in section 130 of . . . the Doctrine & Covenants.’ Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission thought that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants.”
In contrast, LDS apostle and scholar Bruce McConkie has no issue with the Lecture’s “statement on the Godhead,” finding it “a nearly perfect summary of those things which must be believed to gain salvation.” To him the Lectures were “the most comprehensive, intelligent, inspired utterance that now exists in the English language—that exists in one place—defining, interpreting, expounding, announcing, and testifying what kind of being God is. It was written by the power of the Holy Ghost, by the spirit of inspiration. It is, in effect, eternal scripture; it is true.”
LDS scholar Robert Millet also found “these conflicts to be more apparent than real” and attempted reconciliation. Regarding the fifth lecture, Millet stated, “I believe the doctrines taught therein to be true and the concepts presented—though difficult and in some cases seemingly at odds with more traditional discussions of God and the Godhead —to be deep, penetrating, and, when fully grasped, soul inspiring. I believe them to be in harmony with other doctrines found in the standard works and the teachings of living apostles and prophets.” If there was a legitimate error or an inconsistency, would we not be better served to correct it and continue encouraging study of the doctrine of faith? Since the Lectures were modified in 1876, 1891, 1985, and 1990, clearly the LDS have no concern about changing the text.
Also, why was an updated version never published with the doctrine Joseph is said to have clarified? Was removing the entire Lecture series the only option if there was confusion with content in one Lecture? Just because people fail to comprehend these truths does not mean God will allow them to discard, remove, or deny the Lectures.
Smith’s fourth point, that the Lectures should be removed to avoid “possible confusion” is ironic because faith, the subject of the Lectures, is the only means to remove confusion. If there is confusion on the subject, was the Lord asked for truth? The committee admitted they “thought” it would be better to remove it, but they did not state they sought His guidance to understand it. Turning to others for counsel instead of asking God keeps us “in darkness and confusion” and fills “the world with confusion” (D&C 123:7). Confusion is only avoided by receiving truth, and faith leads us to the source of all truth.
Others suggest the Lectures were rejected as scripture because their canonization was not voted on by the whole church. The “Explanatory Introduction” in the 1921 Doctrine & Covenants states the Lectures were removed because “those lessons were prepared for use in the School of the Elders” in 1834–1835 “but they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons.” But LDS records state that on 17 August 1835, “representatives from the presidency of the high priesthood, the Kirtland and Missouri high councils, the Kirtland and Missouri bishoprics, the Seventy, and the elders, priests, teachers, and deacons expressed their belief in the divinity of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants . . . then voted to approve the publication and the work of the committee that compiled it.” Finding the Lectures “were profitable for doctrine . . . the high council of Kirtland accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.” They were again approved in the 1891 and 1897 general conferences.
Differences of opinion exist among LDS leadership regarding the necessity to vote on such things. First Presidency member George Cannon took issue with required voting.
It seems nonsensical that the Prophet of God could not deem the revelations he received authentic until they had the approval of the different quorums of the Church. They were authentic and divinely inspired whether any man or body of men received them or not. Their reception or non-reception of them would not affect in the least their divine authenticity. But it would be for the people to accept them after God had revealed them. In his way, they have been submitted to the Church, to see whether the members would accept them as binding or not. Joseph himself had too high a sense of his prophetic office and the authority he had received from the Lord to ever submit the revelations which he received to any individual or to any body, however numerous, to have them pronounce upon their validity.McConkie concurred. “Revelations given of God through his prophets . . . are not subject to an approving or sustaining vote of the people in order to establish their validity. Members of the Church may vote to publish a particular revelation along with the other scriptures, or the people may bind themselves by covenant to follow the instructions found in the revealed word. But there is no provision in the Lord’s plan for the members of the Church to pass upon the validity of revelations themselves by a vote of the Church; there is nothing permitting the Church to choose which of the revelations will be binding upon it, either by a vote of people or other means.”
On the contrary, LDS Presidents Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith both claimed under oath that voting was required for revelation to be binding, a position that brings questions. If a vote is required to bind the church to revelation or doctrine, was there a vote to decanonize the Lectures? Was an opportunity given to vote whether to bind themselves to modifications of scripture or ordinances every time it occurs? Are we bound to God’s laws if there is no vote? What if the majority votes against what God revealed? No discussion, opinion, consensus, declaration, or vote by the arm of flesh can absolve a people of their covenant responsibilities to attain these blessings. Many believe they already possess faith and have progressed beyond basic doctrine but the widespread condemnation of the LDS (“even all”) shows it is not so.
The RLDS church broke away from the LDS church and was formally organized in 1860. In 1897, they removed the Lectures from their canon saying, “The materials in these pages (being simply outlines of the Lectures given in a strictly local situation to a class of elders) had lost much of their relevance to the circumstances of the church over half a century later.” It is bold to assume that what God commanded for His restoration is no longer relevant. The doctrine of faith is never irrelevant.
Believing we can outgrow or improve what God revealed endangers our soul, but such as been the tendency of men throughout time. “The learned fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries boast that the wise and noble who shunned the primitive church are now safe in a bosom of a Christian society which preaches and practices things that would have frightened off the rude converts of an earlier day . . . Modern churchmen duly shudder at the thought of being ‘at the mercy of the primitive church, its teachings, its life, its understanding,’ and congratulate themselves on having outgrown” it. Embracing reformation and revised policy, doctrine, and ritual brought the demise of many covenant people.
“That cunning plan of the evil one” encourages us to believe we are secure even as we do not hearken to what God commanded and “set it aside, supposing they know of themselves” (2 Nephi 9:28). The RLDS reversed their decision in 1952 because of the historical value of the Lectures. The Lectures
dealt with basic principles and assumptions by which the Saints could acquire true faith, and by the expression of such faith develop in spiritual truth and power to commune directly and openly with God.
We cannot be given further knowledge until our faith is successfully tried, yet many willingly dismiss the very doctrine needed to attain it. In other words, rejecting the Lectures demonstrates ignorance of the Gospel itself. The faithful seek truth wherever it may be found. Being neither a naïve nor primitive attempt to understand faith, the Lectures present sound eternal principles that testify of the way to Him. The Lord tests us to see if we will honor all that He reveals.
And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them.
And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation. Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying, I will try the faith of my people. (3 Nephi 26:9–11)Today “most members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not acquainted with the text of the Lectures on Faith, though many may recognize excerpts that are occasionally quoted.” After removing the Lectures, the depth of understanding or emphasis on the saving doctrine of faith has never occupied a predominant position in LDS teachings. This cannot please God.
Without faith it is impossible for men to be saved; and as God desires the salvation of men, he must, of course, desire that they should have faith; and he could not be pleased unless they had. (LF 7:7)Without faith, we cannot receive greater things. Treating His word lightly prevents us from being true and faithful. Lightly means to not heed or consider its importance. Christ rebuked Pharisees for taking sacred things lightly. “Wo unto you . . . for ye pay tithe . . . and have omitted the weightier things of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith. These ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone” (JST Matthew 23:20). Men are “weighed according to their light” (1 Enoch 43:2) so omitting weightier things has eternal consequence. “Wo unto them who shall do these things away” (Moroni 10:26).
The Lectures were to help perfect their ministry but many failed to see their worth. They are “a rich source of doctrinal treasures couched in clear and powerful language. One can drink as deeply from them as he has a mind to.” Their removal from LDS curriculum speaks volumes about how thirsty we are for His word and how deeply we want to drink.
Jesus said, I took my stand in the midst of the world and in flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they came into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world empty. (Gospel of Thomas 28:1–3)“The rebellious dwell in a dry land” (Psalm 68:6) but few recognize a famine of His word is among them, dismissing faith while thinking we already have its power. If we refuse to hear Him, He will cease speaking to us. The days will come that the Lord “will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord” (Amos 8:11). “They shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord,” but they “shall not find it” and will “faint for thirst” (Amos 8:12–13). A sign of God’s displeasure, a famine of hearing the words of God, also translated “an end to divine revelation” (Amos 8:11, NetBible), prefigures a physical famine in the land.
“Coming to God, asking, receiving, heavens open, visions, etc. are done away because of unbelief.” That no new revelations or visions have been recorded in LDS scripture for an entire century confirms a famine is real. It is no coincidence the last canonized revelation was in 1918, just prior to rapid modifications to ordinances, scripture, garments, and doctrine. The 1920s marked much change, progress, and achievement for the LDS, as they supposed. In 1920, apostle George Richards, along with a committee of other apostles, oversaw a revised edition of the Book of Mormon. The Doctrine & Covenants was also modified. In 1921, the Lectures on Faith were removed from scripture. Alterations continued the following year as Richards submitted many changes to ordinances which he considered to be a “splendid accomplishment.” Around this time, the holy garments, auxiliary and priesthood organizations, the endowment, and other details were significantly modified.
Faith is “the first principle in revealed religion” (LF 1:1). Without revelation, there is no faith in the Lord. Vanity ministers without revelation, a powerful indictment against the condemned. “Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near” (Isaiah 55:6). Refusing light perpetuates sin and iniquity, eventually bringing judgments that result in mourning and devastation. When the awful reality sets in, “they shall go with their flocks and with their herds to seek the Lord; but they shall not find Him; he hath withdrawn himself from them” (Hosea 5:6). “I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face” (Hosea 5:15).
My people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge: and their honorable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst. Therefore hell hath enlarged herself and opened her mouth without measure. (Isaiah 5:13–14)Those spirits watered with lies and parched for lack of truth “shall be destroyed.” The righteous recognize the famine among them and declare, “O God, thou art my God; early will I seek thee: my soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is” (Psalms 63:1).
To admit we lack faith requires humility and realizing our true condemned condition, something most refuse to believe. Because faith is an ordinance, and a change of ordinances ties to changes in priesthood, dismissing faith impacts priesthood. Changing our understanding of the doctrine of faith changes our access to the priesthood, but comprehending faith increases our ability to attain it.
Many assume the doctrine of Christ is whatever their church or priests teach but faith finds no place in religions that have only a form of godliness. The LDS have redefined the doctrine of Christ and denied faith as an ordinance. The Lectures’ removal may have been both a catalyst for, and result of, de-emphasizing the doctrine of Christ and its ordinances. We are warned that Satan will “lead them away to believe that the doctrine of Christ [is] a foolish and a vain thing” (3 Nephi 2:2). Neglecting the doctrine of faith assures that the doctrine of Christ will not be preserved. “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God” (2 John 1:9).
Since Christ’s doctrine is meant to bring us into His presence, we might measure how well His doctrine is preserved by how often these truths are taught or these experiences had. In 1994 the First Presidency admitted, “We have a responsibility to preserve the doctrinal purity of the Church. We are united in this objective,” but Jesus warned that saying and doing can be two different things. In 1835, it was said, “The people of this church were weak in faith compared to the ancients . . . Your ordination is not full and complete until God has laid His hand upon you. We require as much to qualify as those who have gone before us. God is the same.” But in 2014, LDS First Presidency member Dieter Uchtdorf declared a personal manifestation of Christ is no longer necessary. “You do not need to see the Savior, as the Apostles did, to experience the same transformation.” This belief contradicts scripture.
With leadership’s approval, apostle Bruce McConkie similarly said a personal relationship with Christ is not only unnecessary, but “improper and perilous.” Man reviles against God by saying “in his heart, Thou wilt not require it” (Psalm 10:13). Much different was David’s faith as he declared, “When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, Lord, will I seek” (Psalm 27:8).
The doctrine of Christ’s appearing was not revered in Helaman’s day either. Unbelievers declared, “We know [this teaching] is a wicked tradition which has been handed down unto us by our fathers, to cause us that we should believe in some great and marvelous thing which should come to pass, but not among us.” This doctrine was ascribed to “the cunning and the mysterious arts of the evil one,” such that many called it “a wicked tradition” that would “keep us in ignorance.” His gospel remained “some great mystery” to them. Such delusions “did the people imagine up in their hearts, which were foolish and vain; and they were much disturbed, for Satan did stir them up to do iniquity continually . . . that he might harden the hearts of the people against that which was good and against that which should come” (Helaman 16:20–22).
Refusing to seek counsel from God, they relied on others. Asking God for truth was not a consideration for they only needed to believe their leaders. Their lack of faith is further attested to by their wanting to “witness with our own eyes that they are true” (Helaman 16:20), but faith is “hoped for and not seen” (Ether 12:6).
The doctrine of faith cannot be any less relevant today than it was for Joseph, Abraham, Abel, Enoch, and others who rent the veil to receive exaltation. Without faith, we cannot glorify God.
Joseph experienced the way to God. Have we received the same divine experiences as him? Have we received the greater revelations and truths promised if we are faithful? If not, perhaps we should not be so quick to dismiss or discard the foundational doctrine of faith that God commanded Joseph be taught to those not yet perfected in their ministry.
Remember, “the great blessing that God has promised to the faithful of the Church of Christ” is “a visit from the heavens to honor us with his own presence.” Do we believe Him? If we have not experienced it, our faith is not full. It is surprising that professed believers reject the opportunity to bring the Lord ever-so-near. Obtaining such a marvelous blessing is worthy of all effort and sacrifice. This was the greatest desire of David’s heart: “One thing have I desired of the Lord that I will seek after: that I may . . . behold the beauty of the Lord and to inquire in his temple” (Psalm 27:4). To see His face is an ordinance, the glorious reward of faith. If such ordinances are no longer necessary, God would be a God who changes, but He is not. Therefore, seeing His face is the privilege and purpose of mortality, His gift to the faithful. If we do not have this knowledge, more faith is needed.
It shall come to pass that every soul who (1) forsaketh his sins and (2) cometh unto me, and (3) calleth on my name, and (4) obeyeth my voice, and (5) keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am. (D&C 93:1, numerals added)It may seem impossible for church-going people to reject His gospel, but to reject is to forget, abandon, despise, not know, disregard, or simply to not choose it. Not preaching the godly doctrine of faith, and especially failing to access its power, prevents us from having or becoming true prophets, even if we hope they are among us. True prophets are commissioned to “denounce sin and foretell its punishment . . . [and] above all, to be a preacher of righteousness. When the people had fallen away from a true faith in Jehovah, the prophets had to try to restore that faith and remove false views about the character of God and the nature of the Divine requirement.” Lectures on Faith were designed to do this.
Holy prophets walked the path to sanctification, received their calling from God, and are endowed with His power and spiritual gifts, including prophecy. Being called a prophet does not assure the gift of prophecy. All who claim to be a prophet but do not have experiential knowledge of Christ are false prophets. Do today’s ‘prophets’ testify of truths that lead to actual knowledge of God? Are they seers who actually see with the eye of faith and understand this critical component of salvation? Can they translate what scholars cannot? Do they preach the way to receive divine experiences and encourage our pursuit of such glorious things? If not, we remain condemned and in darkness.
Faith in Christ removed darkness from the minds of Lamanites once they chose to believe Him. “Repent and cry unto the voice, even until ye shall have faith in Christ . . . and when ye shall do this, the cloud of darkness shall be removed from overshadowing you” (Helaman 5:41). A willingness to examine their beliefs prepared them for greater truths. Filled with joy as a marvelous pillar of fire encircled them, “they saw the heavens open and angels came down out of heaven and ministered unto them . . . and they were bidden to go forth and marvel not, neither should they doubt” (Helaman 5:48–49) because doubt destroys faith.
“Where doubt and uncertainty is, there faith is not, nor can it be” (LF 6:12). It is not enough to just “go forth,” for many strange roads lead away from His true path. Go “forth unto Him” (3 Nephi 17:9) for acceptance, holiness, completeness, and perfection—blessings only He can bestow. “Doubt and faith do not exist in the same person at the same time” (LF 6:12). Doctrine that claims reforms are a prerogative or right of leadership is error carefully disguised as faith, but it is doubt. As the enemy of faith, doubt discourages pursuit of divine knowledge. The greatest threat to doubt is knowing we can commune with and see God.
And the Lord said unto [the brother of Jared], Believest thou the words which I shall speak? And he answered, Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth and canst not lie. And when he had said these things, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him and said, Because thou knowest these things, ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you. Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. (Ether 3:11–14)Without “the testimony of Jesus,” we have neither right nor claim to celestial glory, so God greatly desires all receive the power of faith, to “be perfected in their ministry” and fulfill His covenant.
The Lectures “provided instruction necessary for those who were preaching and gathering the elect to Zion, thereby facilitating the redemption of Zion.” Since Zion is not here almost two centuries later, there is an ever-increasing need today for these foundational principles to be understood and taught with great diligence.
For footnotes and references, click HERE.