Discussing the Lectures on Faith, Introduction

The Lectures on Faith is one of my favorite books.

I was introduced to the Lectures sometime before my mission, and even though it took me a few read-throughs before I understood them, they became a wonderful source of inspiration and clarity concerning Faith. I even had them with me on my mission, since they're technically still on the approved list(1). It helped me so much out in the field, too. I've never understood Faith better than after studying these Lectures.

I've noticed since then how difficult they can be to understand due to the language they use. My childhood was such that I was exposed to older styles of English frequently, from Benjamin Franklin's autobiography, to Jane Austen, to even Shakespeare. Because of this, it's a little easier for me to wrap my head around the "scripture-speak" in these Lectures. But on the other hand, I forget that the things I read aren't as obvious to others as I think they are to me.

John Taylor and Albert Einstein are both credited with saying something like "If you can't teach something simply enough for a child to understand, you don't understand it yourself." I have no doubt that the Lectures on Faith could have been understood by a child in Joseph's day (I mean, just look at this standard 8th-grade test from 1912), but with the changing times, we just don't understand the same things anymore. And if I can't explain them at a level those around me can understand, do I really understand them? I seriously consider that I don't, and that whatever I think I understand is either delusion or merely scratching the surface of what Joseph offered.

With that in mind, I wanted to attempt something here. I want to try breaking down the Lectures on Faith into simpler language, going paragraph by paragraph if possible, in order to clarify them a little more. I want to help people (myself included) break through their misunderstanding of these more antique phrases, and see more clearly what Joseph Smith was teaching.

Having said that, I don't want to take too many liberties. Joseph Smith put in months and months of effort and labor into writing and editing these Lectures, even focusing on them more than the rest of the revelations in the book; he had a whole committee working on the revelations, while he worked on that one project (from the Joseph Smith Papers). How can I change what he said? How can I accurately "translate" his words if I'm not fluent in the Language he spoke? I'm nowhere near his level, so anything that strays into changing his meaning will not only be unhelpful, but even harmful. After all, as Joseph said, "I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief" (TPJS, p. 374); note the use of "unbelief," rather than "disbelief." (2)

Therefore, to those who find these blog posts, please don't just assume these thoughts are facts! Ask the Lord Jesus Christ if these are accurate definitions. Study the Lectures yourself, and see if these things I write actually make sense. Use these things as a starting point if they help, but do not take them as an end in themselves. If you come to different understandings, let me know in the comments! Like I said in the new blog intro, I'm just one light, one wavelength in a spectrum, but the more I learn--and, consequently, the more I'm able to teach and share--the closer that wavelength approaches white, or full and complete, light.

It's my testimony that the teachings shared in these seven lectures can unlock our minds if we let them, opening up the possibilities available to us, and allowing the Gospel of Jesus Christ to properly unfold and expand in our minds by removing the restrictions we place upon it. If we let them. As much as I've let them teach me, that much have I better understood Faith, and how to exercise it. They have pulled me out of the depths of despair, reminding me of who God really is, and what He truly offers to me. They've given me courage to act in what I don't know yet, and enlightened my mind in better understanding the nature of God. In these and many other ways, they have made a profound difference in my life, and I hope to share that with as many as will read this.

Thanks in advance. It probably won't be regular uploads, but I'll do what I can. Stay tuned for part 1!

Intro | Preface
Lecture 1: 1 |  2-9 | 10-11 | 12-17 | 18-24

Footnotes:
1. Some may dispute this, but here's my reasoning: When they were first introduced to the church, they were the first portion of the then-new Doctrine and Covenants, given with the express purpose (written in the first lecture's first paragraph) of being "designed to unfold to the understanding the doctrine of Jesus Christ" (emphasis added). To me, that means it was given as the "doctrine" portion of the "Doctrine and Covenants" when the book as a whole was sustained as scripture. So if it's part of the Doctrine & Covenants, and if the Doctrine & Covenants are part of the Standard Works, and if the Standard Works are allowed on the mission, then the Lectures on Faith are certainly allowed. Besides, even though it's not in our scriptures, it never went through the "un-sustaining" process, and can therefore still serve as the doctrine of our faith. But whether that's an accurate view or not, Elder McConkie described the Lectures this way: "It is, in effect, Eternal scripture; it is true" (McConkie, The Lord God of Joseph Smith). If they have the same effect as the rest of the "Eternal scripture" I hold as sacred, I'll consider them as scripture indeed, whatever else may be said about them. And, as scripture in either sense, they would be allowed on the mission.

2. "Unbelief," I've begun to realize, doesn't mean the same thing as "disbelief." From the context of the Book of Mormon, "unbelief" seems to refer more to "believing the wrong things." As an example, take Alma 32: When Alma begins his allegory, he uses the phrase "if you do not cast [the seed] out by your unbelief." If you "disbelieved" that a planted seed was good, you would just not care for it, water it, or nourish it. You'd just leave it alone. But if you believed it was a bad seed, or a weed, then you would cast it out. It's not because you stopped believing in the seed, but specifically because you believed it was a bad seed. It's due to your "unbelief," that false belief about the seed you planted, that the seed was removed.