Intro | Preface
Lecture 1: 1 | 2-9 | 10-11 | 12-17 | 18-24
"In presenting the subject of faith (the importance of which is touched upon in the previous post), we shall observe the following order:
"First, Faith itself--what it is;
"Secondly, the object on which it rests; and
"Thirdly, the effects which flow from it.
"Agreeably to this order we have first to show what faith is." (v. 2-6)
Not much explanation needed there; basically saying this is the intended outline for the rest of the lectures: What faith is, what it needs to be based upon, and what happens when it is correctly exercised. Here, we get into the definition of Faith:
"The author of the epistle to the Hebrews, in the eleventh chapter of that epistle and first verse, gives the following definition of the word faith: 'Now faith is the substance [assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.' From this we learn, that faith is the assurance which men have of the existence of things which they have not seen; and the principle of action in all intelligent beings." (v. 7-9)
(Side note: It's interesting that Joseph says "the author of the epistle to the Hebrews," rather than simply naming Paul as the author. I don't know whether that's a change in who wrote the epistle, or whether "the author of the epistles" is just the traditional way to refer to Paul, but that's a topic for another time.)
Joseph Smith's discussion (translation?) of Hebrews 11: 1 makes a lot more sense. He expands the first half of the verse, explaining that "faith is the assurance which men have of the existence of things which they have not seen." Rather than faith being a substance, or a thing you receive, faith is explained to be a firm belief--one you are assured of, confident in, and certain to receive (synonyms of "assurance"). However, this firm belief must also be acted on, which is where the second half of the verse comes in.
Gathering evidence nowadays consists mostly of finding other people's research and experiences (usually via internet), and finding more of it than another person often means you win. Personal experiences (also known as "anecdotes") are diminished in this system, because they are considered too subjective or personal, and lack the necessary research. However, in order to really know something for yourself, you need to experience it yourself. Until then, all the experience in the world that others find is merely theory for you. And while it's possible for you to teach your theory as if it were experience, it won't have the same depth and gravity as it would if you truly knew something, and can be easily dismantled by opposing arguments. (The Lectures go deeper into the difference between Faith and Knowledge later on, so I'll come back to this.)
Joseph Smith taught this repeatedly in his ministry, especially when people were "depending on the Prophet (himself), hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves" (TPJS, p. 238). To the contrary, he taught very early on--displayed in the second publication of the Evening and Morning Star, the early Church's newspaper--that "it is your privilege to purify yourselves and come up to the same glory [as the Prophets' examples given in scripture], and see for yourselves, and know for yourselves" (Ibid., p. 13, emphasis added). Joseph here is giving an assurance that something we have not yet seen truly does exist (revelation, gifts from God, etc.), and it's by personal actions (purifying yourself) that you receive the irrefutable evidence that he was correct (seeing for yourself and knowing for yourself). This is why Faith is "the principle of action in all intelligent beings:" because you 1) believe something can be obtained, 2) desire it strongly enough to do something about it, and 3) act in the best and most correct way to generate or arrive at the desired outcome.
Paul said this is the definition of faith. Joseph Smith explained what Paul meant. And by combining the two, we have a simple definition of what faith is. If any one of these parts were removed, it wouldn't be faith any more. If you didn't believe your outcome was obtainable, even if you desired it more than anything else, you would eventually lose your desire against the opposition that comes, and then lose hope. If, on the other hand, you believed it could be obtained and acted on that, but didn't desire it strongly enough, you could again be crushed under the inevitable opposition, and again lose hope. And if you believed and desired enough, but never acted . . . well, nothing would happen. That one's pretty obvious. All three parts have to be in play for this mindset to be called faith.
As a side note, three is often considered a sacred number: completeness, supremacy, and perfection are all derived from the three and/or the triangle in many cultural beliefs (Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe, chapter 3). In Hebrew traditions specifically, the third letter--which was used as the third number as well--symbolized balance between opposites, and contained the promise of a Mediator, since it comes after the first letter (the Creator) and the second letter (the Creation) to serve as a harmonizer between the two. Or, in other words, to unite the two and bridge the gap, so they can be At One again. Earth rises up, and Heaven condescends, and are enabled to meet because of the point around which all things center. It's beautiful symbolism.
Now that this Lecture has explained how important Faith is, as well as what Faith is, Joseph next discusses where Faith is, and how often it is exercised by us all--sometimes without even realizing it.
Thursday, May 30, 2019
Sunday, May 5, 2019
Lectures on Faith 1: 1
Intro | Preface
Lecture 1: 1 | 2-9 | 10-11 | 12-17 | 18-24
Beginning at verse 1:
"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."
What is "revealed religion"? It seems to mean religion through revelation, sourced from God, as opposed to religion from another source.
Actually, before that, what is religion?
Looking at an 1828 dictionary app, which would have been the type of dictionary Joseph Smith and his contemporaries knew and understood, it says the word "religion" comes from the Latin religio, meaning to bind anew. Bind, bond, and bound are all words that relate to covenants, so religion in this sense usually meant binding yourself to obeying God's will for you. In organized religion, this is done through specific practices handed down through the generations, originating from one who reached God directly. On the other hand, "revealed religion" seems to match more closely to Joseph Smith's experience, of approaching God personally, and living his live in a way that pleased God according to Joseph's own conscience. While they seem different at first, the question remains: is it impossible for an organized religion to be a channel for one to receive this "revealed religion" Joseph spoke of? Looking at both the scriptures and the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it doesn't seem impossible after all. But there's a specific way to go about it.
In Joseph Smith's time, every other religion had "creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church" (TPJS, p. 288). These practices and traditions correlate with what he was told by Christ about them: "they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof" (JS-H 1: 19). So this tradition of teaching by man's philosophies seems to have become the source for the other religions of the time, even ones which had once been led by revelation--this, of course, has spilled over into our day with few changes.
This distinction between religion via revelation, and religion via tradition or scholarly debate, has continued throughout the ages to today. In fact, I imagine this is also an issue within the LDS church itself. It wouldn't be the first time for some among the Lord's "Chosen people" to miss the mark. As a stark example, it was an issue for Israel at the time of Christ for active Jewish believers to be more devoted to traditions than to revelation, so much so that some couldn't recognize their Lawgiver for the law. Problem is, they didn't even recognize their own blindness. And since human nature hasn't changed much in the last 2000 years, I believe it's still in our nature to struggle with accepting revelation over tradition.
History tends to repeat itself, so history like this makes me wonder: how many active members of the LDS church likewise trust in traditions more than revelation, and don't even realize it? How many members are trusting in "the arm of flesh," and thereby cursing themselves (2 Nephi 4: 34)? And on the other hand, how many are fulfilling "the duties devolving upon themselves" as Joseph Smith taught (TPJS, p. 238), and heeding President Nelson's (frequently repeated) advice to receive personal revelation and spiritually survive the times ahead (April 2018 conference, Sunday morning)? Something to think about.
So Faith is the first principle of revealed religion, or in essence, revelation itself.
Faith is also "the foundation of all righteousness."
In the Book of Mormon, the phrase "fountain of all righteousness" is used three times, and in Ether, the phrase is interpreted thus: As Christ teaches Moroni of what will happen in our time, He said "Behold, I will show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me--the fountain of all righteousness" (Ether 12: 28). Christ is the "Fountain of all righteousness," while Faith is the foundation of all righteousness. In this verse, Faith is the first trait listed, so it makes sense that Faith is the foundation that prepares us to receive the Fountain of all Righteousness.
Right in the first part of the first sentence, we have Faith described as 1) the fundamental principle of revelation and 2) the foundation for receiving Christ. That's why it "necessarily claims the first place in a course of lectures which are designed to unfold to the understanding the doctrine of Jesus Christ." That's twice these Lectures have been referred to as teaching doctrine: once in the preface (see the previous post), and once in the first paragraph of the first lecture. This adds credibility to the idea that these Lectures were intended as the Doctrine part of the "Doctrine & Covenants."
As a personal note, I love the phrase "unfold to the understanding." It brings to mind a flower, particularly a rose: it's still a pretty red dollop of color when it's new, but it gradually grows, unfolding petal after petal, until it's a beautifully intricate flower. The phrase also reminds me of the Buddhist teachings behind the lotus flower: its ascent above the mud it grows within, unfolding and blossoming in the sunlight, is a symbol of enlightenment and transcending the world to approach the light. These topics are reflected and expounded upon in D&C 76, 88, and 93, among others. It's a beautiful process they outline.
These lectures are designed to unfold "the doctrine of Jesus Christ" to our understanding. So what is the doctrine of Jesus Christ? Does He have a specific doctrine He teaches, in addition to the other precepts, teachings, and principles?
There's at least one teaching that matches this description. After His resurrection, Jesus Christ taught the Nephites at Bountiful many things, but one of the first (even before He repeated the Sermon on the Mount for their sake) was teaching about His doctrine. It's in 3 Nephi 11, right after He ordained His disciples to baptize--actually, re-baptize--the Nephites (verses 24-28). This is already getting long, so to summarize, He delivers it within a sort of double-chiasm, beginning, centering, and ending with "This is my doctrine":
"All men, everywhere, [are] to repent and believe in me. And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God. . . . And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God" (v. 32-33, 38).
That's all. It's pretty simple, right? And yet it's the same doctrine Joseph mentioned in the preface, which he referred to as the "important doctrine of salvation." Could this simple doctrine be all salvation consists of?
In a way, yes.
If you don't 1) repent, 2) believe Christ in what He says--from the scriptures, latter-day prophets, and personally to you--3) get baptized as a consequence of believing Christ, and 4) become like a little child, can you obtain salvation?
Do any of the future ordinances, teachings, or even deeper doctrines preclude these basic steps, or make them irrelevant? Or is it more like what Paul said (when correctly translated): "Therefore, not leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection"? (JST Hebrews 6: 1)
Every other detail of the gospel comes to you as you follow these first principles, or this doctrine of Christ; after all, you can't receive more unless you continue to believe Christ and obey Him, just as these principles outline. Baptism is the first action that comes from believing Christ, but if you truly believe Him, there will be more actions to take--those future ordinances, those deeper teachings to obey, sacrifices to make, and so forth. These future steps are unfolded unto you line upon line, as a blossoming lotus. And, because they only come as a result of believing (and thus, obeying) the Lord Jesus Christ, they are directly contained within this seemingly simple doctrine.
By this process, the doctrine of Christ, when unfolded to the understanding, becomes salvation to the beholder. And the intention of these Lectures, as stated in the first paragraph, is to unfold the doctrine of Christ to our understanding--therefore, to unfold salvation to us. And they intend to do so by giving you, the reader, a proper foundation for revelation, and to prepare you to approach the Lord Jesus Christ; in other words, by explaining Faith. Because Faith, when understood and acted upon properly, leads to these outcomes and eventually to salvation. (see, e.g. Moroni 7).
Because Faith is the foundation of revelation, and also foundational for approaching Christ, it must be the first thing discussed in these lectures, because these lectures intend to unfold the doctrine of Christ, which is the important doctrine of salvation, to your understanding.
These lectures are suddenly becoming very, very deep, reaching into cosmic and eternal themes. How far does this rabbit-hole--or perhaps, this ladder--go?
Lecture 1: 1 | 2-9 | 10-11 | 12-17 | 18-24
Beginning at verse 1:
"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."
What is "revealed religion"? It seems to mean religion through revelation, sourced from God, as opposed to religion from another source.
Actually, before that, what is religion?
Looking at an 1828 dictionary app, which would have been the type of dictionary Joseph Smith and his contemporaries knew and understood, it says the word "religion" comes from the Latin religio, meaning to bind anew. Bind, bond, and bound are all words that relate to covenants, so religion in this sense usually meant binding yourself to obeying God's will for you. In organized religion, this is done through specific practices handed down through the generations, originating from one who reached God directly. On the other hand, "revealed religion" seems to match more closely to Joseph Smith's experience, of approaching God personally, and living his live in a way that pleased God according to Joseph's own conscience. While they seem different at first, the question remains: is it impossible for an organized religion to be a channel for one to receive this "revealed religion" Joseph spoke of? Looking at both the scriptures and the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it doesn't seem impossible after all. But there's a specific way to go about it.
In Joseph Smith's time, every other religion had "creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church" (TPJS, p. 288). These practices and traditions correlate with what he was told by Christ about them: "they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof" (JS-H 1: 19). So this tradition of teaching by man's philosophies seems to have become the source for the other religions of the time, even ones which had once been led by revelation--this, of course, has spilled over into our day with few changes.
This distinction between religion via revelation, and religion via tradition or scholarly debate, has continued throughout the ages to today. In fact, I imagine this is also an issue within the LDS church itself. It wouldn't be the first time for some among the Lord's "Chosen people" to miss the mark. As a stark example, it was an issue for Israel at the time of Christ for active Jewish believers to be more devoted to traditions than to revelation, so much so that some couldn't recognize their Lawgiver for the law. Problem is, they didn't even recognize their own blindness. And since human nature hasn't changed much in the last 2000 years, I believe it's still in our nature to struggle with accepting revelation over tradition.
History tends to repeat itself, so history like this makes me wonder: how many active members of the LDS church likewise trust in traditions more than revelation, and don't even realize it? How many members are trusting in "the arm of flesh," and thereby cursing themselves (2 Nephi 4: 34)? And on the other hand, how many are fulfilling "the duties devolving upon themselves" as Joseph Smith taught (TPJS, p. 238), and heeding President Nelson's (frequently repeated) advice to receive personal revelation and spiritually survive the times ahead (April 2018 conference, Sunday morning)? Something to think about.
So Faith is the first principle of revealed religion, or in essence, revelation itself.
Faith is also "the foundation of all righteousness."
In the Book of Mormon, the phrase "fountain of all righteousness" is used three times, and in Ether, the phrase is interpreted thus: As Christ teaches Moroni of what will happen in our time, He said "Behold, I will show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me--the fountain of all righteousness" (Ether 12: 28). Christ is the "Fountain of all righteousness," while Faith is the foundation of all righteousness. In this verse, Faith is the first trait listed, so it makes sense that Faith is the foundation that prepares us to receive the Fountain of all Righteousness.
Right in the first part of the first sentence, we have Faith described as 1) the fundamental principle of revelation and 2) the foundation for receiving Christ. That's why it "necessarily claims the first place in a course of lectures which are designed to unfold to the understanding the doctrine of Jesus Christ." That's twice these Lectures have been referred to as teaching doctrine: once in the preface (see the previous post), and once in the first paragraph of the first lecture. This adds credibility to the idea that these Lectures were intended as the Doctrine part of the "Doctrine & Covenants."
As a personal note, I love the phrase "unfold to the understanding." It brings to mind a flower, particularly a rose: it's still a pretty red dollop of color when it's new, but it gradually grows, unfolding petal after petal, until it's a beautifully intricate flower. The phrase also reminds me of the Buddhist teachings behind the lotus flower: its ascent above the mud it grows within, unfolding and blossoming in the sunlight, is a symbol of enlightenment and transcending the world to approach the light. These topics are reflected and expounded upon in D&C 76, 88, and 93, among others. It's a beautiful process they outline.
These lectures are designed to unfold "the doctrine of Jesus Christ" to our understanding. So what is the doctrine of Jesus Christ? Does He have a specific doctrine He teaches, in addition to the other precepts, teachings, and principles?
There's at least one teaching that matches this description. After His resurrection, Jesus Christ taught the Nephites at Bountiful many things, but one of the first (even before He repeated the Sermon on the Mount for their sake) was teaching about His doctrine. It's in 3 Nephi 11, right after He ordained His disciples to baptize--actually, re-baptize--the Nephites (verses 24-28). This is already getting long, so to summarize, He delivers it within a sort of double-chiasm, beginning, centering, and ending with "This is my doctrine":
"All men, everywhere, [are] to repent and believe in me. And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God. . . . And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God" (v. 32-33, 38).
That's all. It's pretty simple, right? And yet it's the same doctrine Joseph mentioned in the preface, which he referred to as the "important doctrine of salvation." Could this simple doctrine be all salvation consists of?
In a way, yes.
If you don't 1) repent, 2) believe Christ in what He says--from the scriptures, latter-day prophets, and personally to you--3) get baptized as a consequence of believing Christ, and 4) become like a little child, can you obtain salvation?
Do any of the future ordinances, teachings, or even deeper doctrines preclude these basic steps, or make them irrelevant? Or is it more like what Paul said (when correctly translated): "Therefore, not leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection"? (JST Hebrews 6: 1)
Every other detail of the gospel comes to you as you follow these first principles, or this doctrine of Christ; after all, you can't receive more unless you continue to believe Christ and obey Him, just as these principles outline. Baptism is the first action that comes from believing Christ, but if you truly believe Him, there will be more actions to take--those future ordinances, those deeper teachings to obey, sacrifices to make, and so forth. These future steps are unfolded unto you line upon line, as a blossoming lotus. And, because they only come as a result of believing (and thus, obeying) the Lord Jesus Christ, they are directly contained within this seemingly simple doctrine.
By this process, the doctrine of Christ, when unfolded to the understanding, becomes salvation to the beholder. And the intention of these Lectures, as stated in the first paragraph, is to unfold the doctrine of Christ to our understanding--therefore, to unfold salvation to us. And they intend to do so by giving you, the reader, a proper foundation for revelation, and to prepare you to approach the Lord Jesus Christ; in other words, by explaining Faith. Because Faith, when understood and acted upon properly, leads to these outcomes and eventually to salvation. (see, e.g. Moroni 7).
Because Faith is the foundation of revelation, and also foundational for approaching Christ, it must be the first thing discussed in these lectures, because these lectures intend to unfold the doctrine of Christ, which is the important doctrine of salvation, to your understanding.
These lectures are suddenly becoming very, very deep, reaching into cosmic and eternal themes. How far does this rabbit-hole--or perhaps, this ladder--go?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)