Lost Mormon Scripture Found!

 If you have read my other articles you might think this is some kind of parody piece. That is not the case. This article is really going to talk about lost Mormon Scripture. Read on to find out about real lost Mormon scripture found!

The Doctrine part of Doctrine & Covenants has been lost since 1921 when it was removed from the cannon. It was known as Lectures on Faith. Some of you may have heard of it or at least heard quotes from it like, " A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation."

The Lectures on Faith authorship is unclear but it is believed that most of it was written by Sidney Rigdon with help and approval of Joseph Smith. Bruce R McConkie said of the Lectures of Faith, "In my judgement, it is the most comprehensive, 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."

With members wanting to get more scripture and having canon that is not scripture (Song of Solomon) why would we take scripture out of our cannon?  Joseph Fielding Smith gave the following reasons.

a. They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.
b. They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.
c. They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
d. It was thought by James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission 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.

Let us look at each of these points. First what does it matter if they were received as revelation by Joseph Smith? We have other scripture that is not his revelation. Also what counts as revolution? If the Holy Ghost inspired it then isn't that a form of revelation? The Bible Dictionary says, "Latter-day revelation identifies scripture as that which is spoken under the influence of the Holy Ghost." Only problem is it was written not spoken but they also say in the Bible Dictionary, "The word scripture means "a writing" and is used to denote a writing recognized by the Church as sacred and inspired. This had been part of that until 1921 and you could still say it is with McConkie's earlier quote. Also was the Bible Dictionary received as revelation by the prophet Joseph Smith if that is a determining factor I supposed we should throw it out too.

Do scriptures have to be elusively doctrine? Is scripture not allowed to expound on principles? We will look at this a little more as we get to the last point.

Until we have a fulness of the Gospel will be ever have complete teachings? We have teachings that were from earlier and later new revelation was added but we do not remove the old revelation. If we have to have the complete teachings before we have scripture we won't have anything at all.

Not disagreeing here. It can be a bit confusing. But why not just put it in our scripture somewhere else? Just let it be it's own thing like the Pearl of Great Price or Joseph Smith History? Removing it completely seems unnecessary.

Not mentioned by Joseph Fielding Smith but the committee was they were, "lessons prepared for use in the School of the Elders, conducted in Kirkland, Ohio, during the winter of 1834-35; but they were never presented to nor accepted by the church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons." First what does it matter if they are just theological lessons? Why remove perfectly good theological lessons from canon. More importantly scholars find this reasoning odd since they were accepted in 1835 in General Conference. So did they just not have the Internet to quickly find out oh yeah we forgot almost a 100 years ago the church did do the thing we just said they didn't sorry forgot about that we were not there after all.

Many scholars believe one of the main reasons is the change in the view of God. The Lectures on Faith mention God is a personage of Spirit while we latter learn in D&C 130:22 that God has a body of Flesh and bones which is tangible. This might seem wrong but if you read the Lectures on Faith you learn this works but I won't give you the answer to this so easily if you want to know how read the thing and figure it out.

With McConkie's glowing review you should fill encouraged to read the Lectures on Faith if you want to read some lost scripture. It does offer some good things. I think that it offers the most when you understand things that most members no longer know. The church used to teach things that it no longer teaches. They are still true and pat of our theology but we don't spend the time or effort teaching them. Part of the reason is the church became a convert church and decided it needed to focus on the needs of converts who didn't have the same needs as those whose families had been members all their lives. So focuses switched. Those that do know some of the arcane theological concepts will get more from the Lectures on Faith. I think there are more and more members who do understand these things and hopefully some our my readers.

So what do you think? Did you know about them before? If so have you read them? Should the Lectures on Faith by added back? Do we need them? Are they and good? Do you want to read them? Let us know.

If you want to read them you can find them free online here:

Lectures

or buy them from my affiliate link here:


Amazon

Find out when new articles are up by following here or on Instagram