The Lectures on Faith

[deacon blues]

I have been drawn to the Lectures on Faith lately. Lecture 6 tells us we have to be willing to sacrifice anything and everything in order to have faith unto salvation. I'm suspicious of Joseph Smith's motives for disseminating such ideas. I recalled religious leaders such as Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, and David Koresh, who emphasized obedience and sacrificing everything, even their followers lives. I recognize that Joseph Smith did not go as far as those other leaders, but, I feel that leaders who demand unconditional obedience could very possibly be motivated (consciously or unconsciously) by power.

All in all Lectures on Faith seems to be problematic in dozens of ways.

[LaMachina]

Honest question: Did Jesus ask anything different?

[Corsair]

Honest question: Did Jesus ask anything different?

Yes, that's a really good question. Jesus absolutely asked us to obey the Two Great Commandments in Matthew 22:36-40

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, *Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.*

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, *Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.*

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

I would propose that while this leaves out a lot of possible detail, it still contains enough depth to entail study for a lifetime. I am bothered by the additional commandments coming from Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, David Koresh, Ellen White, Mary Baker Eddy, Charles Taze Russel, *and many others*. Each of these leaders will claim that they are speaking for Jesus Christ, but it's always a matter of faith to depend on them as the official source of divine instruction.

[Palerider]

Honest question: Did Jesus ask anything different?

Yes, that's a really good question. Jesus absolutely asked us to obey the Two Great Commandments in Matthew 22:36-40

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, *Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.*

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, *Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.*

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

I would propose that while this leaves out a lot of possible detail, it still contains enough depth to entail study for a lifetime. I am bothered by the additional commandments coming from Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, David Koresh, Ellen White, Mary Baker Eddy, Charles Taze Russel, *and many others*. Each of these leaders will claim that they are speaking for Jesus Christ, but it's always a matter of faith to depend on them as the official source of divine instruction.

Plus #1

Excellent and thoughtful response here Corsair. For those who believe that God does exist and that Jesus was His Son, giving everything that one has (when it is requested) isn't necessarily a bad thing. The problem comes in making sure that it is God doing the requesting and not Joe Schmoe. I believe that God has a way of telling us directly through our conscience when, if ever, that time has arrived. Extreme sacrifices usually require extreme conditions and heartfelt communication.

In general I think God would prefer that we all be able to live out our lives dealing as best we can with the challenges life presents and loving our neighbor as ourselves.

[Emower]

Lecture 6 tells us we have to be willing to sacrifice anything and everything in order to have faith unto salvation.

I would say that what this says above is significantly different from what Jesus said below:

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, *Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.*

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, *Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.*

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

I would propose that while this leaves out a lot of possible detail, it still contains enough depth to entail study for a lifetime.

There is alot of interpretation about what Jesus meant, what he expects, what loving your neighbor means, to study for a long while as corsair noted and provide room for different beliefs. That is helped along when Jesus isn't standing in front of you handing you the cool-aid telling you to drink dammit.
What Joseph was doing was demanding complete fealty while not even having revealed what he wanted people to do yet in a lot of cases. That is what doesnt pass the sniff test for me.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Isn't there speculation that Sidney Rigdon is the more likely author of the LOF? Some of the flowery prose in there sure seems more like him.

[deacon blues]

When LoF went into the D&C all three of the first presidency signed off on it including Joseph.

[Jeffret]

When LoF went into the D&C all three of the first presidency signed off on it including Joseph.

The "Lectures on Faith" were the doctrine part of the Doctrine and Covenants.

[Palerider]

When LoF went into the D&C all three of the first presidency signed off on it including Joseph.

Yep, I think leadership and apologists would love to assign the LoF strictly to Sydney but I'm pretty sure as "author" Joseph had his hand in the mix.

It certainly puts the lie to his having such a detailed and informative First Vision in 1820....

[deacon blues]

Yeah, the LoF are documented proof that the Mormon concept of God evolved. Another thing about the LoF. I remember Elder Oaks talking about how the LDS church has no obligation to tell both sides of Mormon History. The fact that they emphasize and demand total obedience also means they have a moral obligation to give total disclosure of Mormon history, warts and all. I think Consig addresses this in his Radio Free Mormon post.

[Palerider]

Even realtors make an attempt at full disclosure. And since we're talking about covenants (contracts) as they say...."the Devil's in the details"....literally.

Speaking of the temple, what person in their right mind would agree to a covenant/contract BEFORE they knew what it entailed and what their obligations were?

[deacon blues]

I recall being uncomfortable with making the final temple covenant "to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" instead of to Jesus Christ himself. When 19 year old me first heard it, it didn't sit right with me. Later I figured out that Joseph Smith wrote it, and that it was really a crafty way to solicit loyalty to himself. I suspect Joseph learned much during his money digging days about motivating and obligating people's loyalty.

[Corsair]

I recall being uncomfortable with making the final temple covenant "to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" instead of to Jesus Christ himself. When 19 year old me first heard it, it didn't sit right with me. Later I figured out that Joseph Smith wrote it, and that it was really a crafty way to solicit loyalty to himself. I suspect Joseph learned much during his money digging days about motivating and obligating people's loyalty.

That really bothered me when I first when through the temple. And this was only the final float in the bizzare parade of the suicide pantomime, naked initiatory, and overall funny outfits. I can accept a commitment to Jesus and the best principles of His gospel. But it was a final plot twist to pledge all that I possess to the Corporation of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[deacon blues]

Honest question: Did Jesus ask anything different?

Good point. According to the Gospels Jesus did require loyalty to himself over loyalty to family. That makes me uncomfortable. Especially since some of the promised rewards are delayed to the next life. I feel more comfortable with loyalty to a principle such as Truth or Love than I do with loyalty to a person. I’m currently in a bit of flux. Think I’ll go read the parable of the birds.

[Hagoth]

The fascinating thing about the LoF is that they were once cannon and doctrine but if you taught them in Gospel Doctrine today you'd be silenced so quickly it would make your head spin.

[Abinidied]

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

There is a punctuation error in this scripture. There should be a comma after 'commandments' which would make the word 'hang' mean something else in a literal sense. I think lynching prophets is rather harsh, although commanding Samson to kick some donkey off the Philistines by killing a thousand of them with the jawbone of an ass to convince the world Samson had some nether Godly powers seems a bit over-kill. Or how about commanding Emma to accept polygamy or be eternally damned? Seems to be a harshier thing to do than lynching a few prophets.

I would propose that while this leaves out a lot of possible detail, it still contains enough depth to entail study for a lifetime. I am bothered by the additional commandments coming from Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, David Koresh, Ellen White, Mary Baker Eddy, Charles Taze Russel, *and many others*.

I would add Denver Snuffer to this list. Talk about timing. OK. I will. It's rather miraculous (or convenient) that Denver single handedly stepped in to gather up the chickens as a hen gathereth her eggs (scripture quote) (and I don't think I nailed that scripture quote exactly). At a time when church members are leaving in droves, it amazes me that a 'prophet' has risen up to replace the tribal needs of these lost and often very alone souls and sell books.

I realize this moves the discussion off the lectures on faith, and I expect I've rattled some Snufferite cages in process, but I couldn't help responding in this way having just listened to close to 10ish hours of Snufferites testifying of their new prophet who I know a lot of high ranking LDS tbm's would love to lynch . . . which seems pretty harsh, so read this metaphorically rather than literally and it's mostly a fun jab rather than some deeply disturbing commentary. Personally, I am ambivalent and hold no animosity toward this opportunistic man. I see him as no different than the other countless GA's that have cashed in on the spiritually vulnerable who readily bought and continue to buy up vast quantities of boring books by GA's that confirm their already deeply imbedded biases and to whom I also pledged my allegiance for sixty years by buying the same said books.

[wtfluff]

Speaking of the temple, what person in their right mind would agree to a covenant/contract BEFORE they knew what it entailed and what their obligations were?

Millions of persons as a matter of fact. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of folks who frequent this message board are included in those millions.

[Palerider]

Speaking of the temple, what person in their right mind would agree to a covenant/contract BEFORE they knew what it entailed and what their obligations were?

Millions of persons as a matter of fact. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of folks who frequent this message board are included in those millions.

Exactly...and that's what is so cultish about the church. Convince everyone that you'll lose your family for eternity if you don't participate in the ordinances and then at the appointed hour you realize you would have to refuse in front of all your endowed family and friends that you have trusted your entire life. Total psychological coercion.

But in the real world, you know, that one where the fantasy that is mormonism gets compartmentalized, only an idiot or very naive person would sign up without reading the contract first.

[Emower]

I remember Elder Oaks talking about how the LDS church has no obligation to tell both sides of Mormon History.

Which talk is this?

[Reuben]

I remember Elder Oaks talking about how the LDS church has no obligation to tell both sides of Mormon History.

Which talk is this?

Here's one: Reading Church History, CES Symposium on the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History, 16 August 1985.

http://www.scottwoodward.org/Talks/html ... story.html

Balance is telling both sides. This is not the mission of official Church literature or avowedly anti-Mormon literature.

He goes on to give good examples of balance.