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?

Lectures on Faith: Preface

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

The Lectures on Faith, as the first part of the book of Doctrine and Covenants, contains the preface to the entire Doctrine and Covenants within it. It begins:

"Dear brethren:

"We deem it unnecessary to entertain you with a lengthy preface to the following volume, but merely to say, that it contains in short, the leading items of the religion which we have professed to believe."

So first off, this book as published contains the leading, or foremost and first, items and beliefs of the religion "we have professed to believe." The use of "we," at minimum, refers to the signers at the bottom: Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. At this point, this was the First Presidency, with Joseph as President, Oliver as Assistant to the President, Sidney as First Counselor, and Frederick as Second Counselor. However, after the Doctrine and Covenants were sustained (see the Joseph Smith Papers Website, pages 263-265, for the details of the sustaining), the use of "we" then referred to all the members of the church. They accepted the following volume as the leading points of the religion they all professed to believe.

"The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them into the following book."

Did you catch that? It was a small part of the paragraph, but Joseph and the others said these lectures embraced "the important doctrine of salvation." With such a doctrine as salvation, the word "important" seems like an understatement, yet salvation is apparently what these lectures discuss.

So, how important is salvation?

How important is it to study everything available relating to salvation?

"The second part contains items or principles for the regulation of the church, as taken from the revelations which have been given since its organization, as well as from former ones."

This nicely describes our current Doctrine & Covenants, taken from various revelations given to the church. However, from how it's described here, it almost seems like this part plays second banana to the first part, the one that discusses salvation. Granted, they still contain important truths--Section 76, on the three degrees of glory, had already been received by this point--but the main purpose of that half was for "the regulation of the church."

As a side note, having owned a replica copy of the 1835 Doctrine & Covenants, I've noticed some differences in its organization (which can also be found in the Joseph Smith Papers). The Lectures on Faith were first in the book, and were even set in a larger font than the Revelations portion that followed. This seems like an odd formatting decision, unless the Lectures really were considered the more prominent half of the book. Perhaps, the Doctrine which the latter Commandments were based upon?

Continuing, "There may be an aversion in the minds of some against receiving any thing purporting to be articles of religious faith, in consequence of there being so many now extant;" That can be seen today, with people who don't want to be held down by a structure of beliefs. It's a rather Protestant (non-Catholic)  belief, even though each Protestant religion has their own creeds "which a man must believe or be asked out of their church" (TPJS, pg. 288). However, that wasn't the case with these. The writers explain, "but if men believe a system, and profess it was given by inspiration, certainly, the more intelligibly they can present it, the better." This seems to be a layered comment. As quoted in the previous post, John Taylor and Albert Einstein both said, basically, anyone who can't clearly teach a precept doesn't understand the precept they teach. If that's true, then since this book was given to help believers present (teach and explain) what they believe, perhaps the underlying purpose of this book was to help believers understand what they believe. These precepts aren't given as doctrinal boundaries within which a member must stay or else be cast out; rather, they're given to assist in understanding, to make the doctrine clear, and to provide power in inviting others to experience the same.

Returning to the aversion argument, they say "It does not make a principle untrue to print it, neither does it make it true not to print it." Writing is an imperfect practice, the result of filtering our thoughts through our collection of available words to express those thoughts. An incomplete or inadequate vocabulary may greatly limit our ability to express our thoughts. But still, the act of writing and recording is vital to us, according to the scriptures (For example, see 3 Nephi 23). Perhaps, like the fulfillment of Samuel the Lamanite's prophecies, these precepts needed to be recorded for a wise purpose in God, in addition to the support for the saints mentioned above.

Continuing, "The church viewing this subject to be of importance, appointed, through their servants and delegates the High Council, your servants to select and compile this work." So the church, through the High Council, appointed Joseph Smith and the rest to compile this book. That's actually an interesting turn of phrase. When we, in modern times, think of "the church," we often think of the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, the Seventy, or a combination of them all. Hence the term "Church-approved," and the question "What has the Church said about [topics like homosexuality or certain "deep doctrines"]." But back in Joseph's time, according to this line, "the church" apparently referred to the members, since "the church" directed the First Presidency to do this work, specifically through the High Council. This view is reflected in a revelation from 1829: "Behold, this is my [Christ's] doctrine--whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church" (D&C 10: 67-68, emphasis added). It's an odd flip, going from the members directing the work to the leadership directing the work; I wonder when that changed?

Continuing, "Several reasons might be adduced in favor of this move of the Council, but we add only a few words. They knew that the church was evil spoken of in many places--its faith and belief misrepresented, and the way of truth thus subverted. By some it was represented as disbelieving the bible, by others as being an enemy to all good order and uprightness, and by others as being injurious to the peace of all governments civil and political."

So here we have the complete purpose of this book: 1) To properly represent the faith and belief of the church (those who "repenteth and cometh unto me[Christ]"), and make straight the path of truth once again; 2) To show they do, in fact, believe the Bible--nearly all the scripture references in the Lectures on Faith are from the Bible, and many of the revelations in the next half clarify the Bible; 3) To show the church welcomes and embraces "all good order and uprightness;" and 4) To show the church upholds "the peace of all governments civil and political." To me, I can see the Lectures fulfilling the first two, and the following revelations fulfilling the last two.

"We have, therefore, endeavored to present, though in few words, our belief, and when we say this, humbly trust, the faith and principles of this society as a body." If nothing else, this book--the Lectures and the revelations combined--represented Joseph Smith's beliefs, as well as the beliefs of the rest of the Presidency. Of course, the rest of the church at the time sustained the book as well, so they considered it to be their belief as well.

"We do not present this little volume with any other expectation than that we are to be called to answer to every principle advanced, in that day when the secrets of all hearts will be revealed, and the reward of every man's labor be given him." The signers, Joseph included, testified that they expected to answer to God for everything written in this book. They essentially testified, with God as their witness, to the sincerity and truthfulness of the precepts herein. It's a pretty serious testimony.

They close with this statement: "With sentiments of esteem and sincere respect, we subscribe ourselves your brethren in the bonds of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." Then the First Presidency and one of the Twelve Apostles signed it. In that way, this letter is similar in structure to the letters that we get in Sacrament meeting, when the General Authorities have important messages to send to the entire Church body. We're familiar with most of the book they refer to in this letter, but the first section (the Lectures) maybe not so much. That's where the next several entries will come in.

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.