Some three
years ago (2017), retired BYU professor Noel Reynolds gave
an interview regarding his research about the authorship of the Lectures on
Faith. While not all of his findings were convincing to me, I think the gist of
his main thesis, that the Prophet Joseph Smith was not the main author of the
lectures, is probably mostly accurate. His notions that they reflect the
teachings of Sidney Rigdon who reflected the teachings of Alexander Campbell
(an 1830s Protestant reformist), is less convincing to me (nor do I think we
should assume Campbell’s teachings were all false). But much of Reynolds’
research seems to have some validity and therefore value, and such
contributions, even if partially flawed, are generally welcome.
However, in
one regard, he said some things in the interview that were not accurate and
showed that he had not researched at least one portion of his presentation very
well. This is not a big deal and I don’t overly fault him for missing the mark,
but I have decided to take occasion to do some correcting. (Part of the reason
I do so is because in the last year I have heard a couple of prominent names
voice criticisms of Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s statements on certain matters
where, again, they showed a lack of knowledge.) It is in regards to Elder
McConkie’s views that Professor Reynolds showed some ignorance. This becomes
more clear almost every time President Russell M. Nelson speaks to the Church
about the ongoing status and future of the Restoration.
The issue
at hand relates to what should be defined or categorized as part of the restoration
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; more specifically, written
texts. Professor Reynolds said: “He [Elder McConkie] seemed to have an
enthusiasm that was fed by having more and more things [inspired writings] be
part of the Restoration. I have to admit that I come from a different
mentality, which is being skeptical and watching out for people who are trying
to import things into the Restoration that really aren’t part of it.”
Well, to be
blunt, who is this normally fine scholar to position himself as the one who
does the determining of what texts are part of the restoration and what are
not? (Right now, while of a different stripe, we have liberal/progressive
semi-believing historians and dissident feminists trying to get section 132
tossed from the Doctrine and Covenants; it won’t happen, and they reveal their
true colors as lack-faiths, but they delight in trying to alter church doctrine
to reflect modern society’s values).
For readers
who are unaware, Elder McConkie once sought, through proper channels, and as a
member of the Scriptures Publications Committee, to have additional inspired
texts added to the standard works. He was successful with two items (D&C
137 & 138) but others were not approved for inclusion, although a mock-up
Pearl of Great Price with them all in it was created as a review example in the
late 1970s. Those writings are named
and briefly explained by Elder McConkie:
We
should be aware that there are approved and inspired writings that are not in
the standard works. These writings also are true and should be used along with
the scriptures themselves in learning and teaching the gospel. Next to the
standard works five of the greatest documents in our literature are—
1.
The “Wentworth
Letter.” (See History of the Church, 4:535–41.) Written by
the Prophet Joseph Smith, it contains an account of the coming forth of the
Book of Mormon, of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas, of the organization
of the Church in this dispensation, and of the persecutions suffered by the
early Latter-day Saints. The thirteen Articles of Faith are part of this letter.
2. Lectures
on Faith. These lectures were prepared by and under the
direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith and were taught by him and by others in
the School of the Prophets. The Prophet said they embraced “the important
doctrine[s] of salvation” (Preface to D&C, 1835 ed.; reprint, Independence,
Mo.: Herald House, 1971). [also see here]
3. The
Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency
and the Twelve. (See James R. Clark, comp., Messages of
the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6
vols. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965–75], 5:26–34; see also 5:23–25.) This
exposition sets forth the status and relationship of the Father and the Son,
shows those ways in which Christ is the Father, and through its various
recitations lays to rest the false and heretical view that Adam is our Father
and our God.
4.
The “King
Follett Sermon” and the “Sermon in the
Grove.” (See History of the Church, 6:302–17; 6:473–79.)
These two sermons, one in thought and content, set forth the doctrine of the
plurality of Gods and of becoming joint heirs with Christ. They show that man
may become as his Maker and reign in celestial exaltation forever.
5.
“The
Origin of Man,” by the First Presidency of the Church. (See Clark, Messages
of the First Presidency, 4:200–206; see also 4:199.) This inspired
writing sets forth the official position of the Church on the origin of man and
therefore impinges on the evolutionary fantasies of biologists and their fellow
travelers. As might be expected, it arouses great animosity among intellectuals
whose testimonies are more ethereal than real.
[Originally
Elder McConkie also included some items from the JST that are now found in the
footnotes and appendix of the Bible.]
On a side
note, I include the fact that Elder McConkie desired to add a couple more
“articles” to the Articles of Faith, giving them as follows: “[14] We believe
that God has restored in these last days the fulness of his everlasting gospel
to prepare a people for the coming of the Son of Man, and that this gospel
shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all people, and then
shall the end come. [15] We believe in a premortal life, in eternal marriage,
in salvation for the dead, in the resurrection of the just and of the unjust,
in eternal judgment, and in kingdoms of glory in the eternal worlds” (A New
Witness for the Articles of Faith, chap. 2). Some academics and scholars
might think preparation of such new articles bold, but to the inspired mind,
they are a natural fit and make complete doctrinal sense.
And on
another side note, I point out that Elder McConkie’s fifth item, as given
above, in relation to “The Origin of Man” document, is exactly as described and
is under attack by BYU biologist evolutionists and others today. There is even
a forthcoming (January) number of BYU Studies Quarterly being prepared
to specifically marginalize and misinterpret it, in hopes of pushing evolution as
the means God used to create Adam and Eve. His explanatory words about such
efforts are so very meaningful.
Professor
Reynolds’ skepticism may have had some value in the ancient Council of Nicea,
but his desire to guard or wall-up the on-going restoration of the gospel
contradict Elder McConkie’s teachings. Our flagship exhibit is the magnificent Proclamation
to the World recently created by the First Presidency and Quorum of the
Twelve Apostles and read to the world by President Nelson on the bicentennial
of the first vision at the 2020 April Conference. To quote one sentence from
therein: “We gladly declare that the promised Restoration goes forward through
continuing revelation.” Those following President Nelson’s ministry closely know
he has received much written revelation, though the specific wording has not
been shared with the Church.
Let not the
skeptic seek to halt the flow of inspiration to the prophets and apostles; instead,
let light and knowledge poor down upon the faithful. I can happily join with
Reynolds in his desire to keep uninspired apocryphal books (see
D&C 91) from entering our open canon, but I take greater pleasure in
joining with Elder McConkie in delighting in inspired texts, whether included
in the standard works or not: “The gospel we have received is the gospel of
God, and in the full and eternal sense it includes all truth, most of which has
yet to be revealed or discovered. Providentially we have received the saving
truths and ordinances, but an eternal fulness yet remains to come forth as soon
as we are able spiritually to receive it.”
I cannot
express how strongly I recommend readers either reading or listening to Elder
McConkie’s inspired address “The Doctrinal
Restoration,” (or audio
version here) given to CES and BYU personnel in 1984, just 10 months or so
before he passed away. It is the finest exposition on the subject extant in the
Church, period, and frankly, it contradicts Professor Reynolds’ views on this
subject. All one need do to compare and conclude such is true for themselves is
to listen to each in turn, portions of the interview by one and the address by
the other.
Now, in
fairness to Brother Reynolds, we are not averse to further examination of his conclusions,
which he has presented in more than one paper[1]
and in which he states, as above recited, that Sidney Rigdon is the main author
of the Lectures on Faith and that in fact, Joseph Smith was against them:
I
couldn’t find any evidence that Joseph had ever used anything from the
lectures. On the contrary, Sidney Rigdon when he left the church in 1844 and
went back to Pittsburgh and organized his own church and published the Lectures
on Faith, he had a clear sense of ownership and of its value was not shared by
Joseph or other church leaders.
I
know some writers have tried to defend the Lectures on Faith saying that they
do reflect Joseph Smith’s early teachings. I haven’t found that very convincing.
What is striking is the strong correlation with some of the Campbellite
doctrine. Sidney Rigdon had been involved with Alexander Campbell before he
became a convert to Mormonism. One of the most egregious examples is in lecture
number five, which actually says that there are two people in the Godhead, the
father and the son, and that Jesus shared the mind of God and that sharing is
what the Holy Ghost is, not a separate being. Anybody can look in lecture five
and there it is. Historians of American religion call that binitarianism. It’s
been argued back and forth.
The
fact that that’s in there has made it easy for anti-Mormon critics to say that
Joseph Smith’s understanding of the Godhead evolved considerably and changed
over time before it became what we teach in the church today. Joseph very
clearly states in Nauvoo … he said, “I have never taught anything but Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost.” I read that statement by Joseph in Nauvoo as denying that
he’s the one that was teaching that binitarian doctrine in Kirtland. But others
have tried to find another way around that.
Such is a quoted
summary by Reynolds from the interview. As one might expect, BYU Religion
Professor (and son of Elder McConkie) Joseph Fielding McConkie, was one who fully
harmonized with his father in the notion that Joseph Smith had great influence
in the creation of the Lectures. He wrote:
Doctrinal
works, like doctrinal teachers, never enjoy a shortage of critics. Certainly
this has been the case with the Lectures on Faith over the years. Perhaps
because the lectures did not enjoy the immunity accorded to scripture— much of
which is more difficult to understand or defend than anything in these seven
lectures—it was felt best to drop them from inclusion in a book accepted as
canon. Given, however, that the purpose of this work is to acquaint the reader
with the natural development of Latter- day Saint theology, it would be a
serious oversight not to include the lectures here. Indeed, they are a most
instructive document, and, in the judgment of the writers, those few matters
viewed by some as stumbling stones become, when polished by a thoughtful second
or third look, rather bright and precious gems of truth.
A
matter of some moment among particular critics of the lectures is that of
authorship. Critics seem to feel that a word, a phrase, a thought, an idea that
did not fall directly from the pen or lips of the Prophet cannot be approved by
him, nor is it to be trusted by us. This idea is a little strained. It is
similar to arguing that only the prophet should address the Saints at
conference. From the beginning of the Restoration, Joseph Smith was quick to
establish the idea that neither man nor woman was to serve without counselors
and that the order of heaven was that the Church be governed by councils. That
Joseph Smith was not the sole author of the Lectures on Faith but that they
were written by a committee over which he presided seems quite compatible with
that order. Let it suffice to say that the doctrinal ideas found in the
lectures trace back to Joseph Smith; others helped in their expression; the
final approval of all that was written rested with him.
It
has also been argued that the ideas in these lectures are Protestant in tone
and that, at least in some instances, they represent a concept of God which
Joseph Smith would in the coming years throw off. In fact, each of the lectures
centers on one or more basic ideas that are directly offensive to traditional
or historical Christian theology. And one of the important roles played by the
lectures in the early years of the Church's history was to distance Latter-day
Saint theology from doctrines rooted in either Protestantism or Catholicism.
(McConkie & Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration, chap. on
Lectures on Faith).
Such is the
son’s defense of his father’s teachings about the lectures. Although I have
read Reynolds’ papers on the subject, along with other items and the above
defense, I am not in a position to put forth some kind of final judgment on the
question of authorship. On examining what the Church itself has published about
authorship, I find some disagreement and hedging. I can quote Elder
McConkie’s view, opposed by Reynolds (in relation to one paragraph in the
Lectures): “In my judgment, it is the most comprehensive, intelligent, 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.” A powerful
statement indeed; one worth pondering—considering who said it.
This
language brings up another issue that is also involved in this whole question
of the lectures and of the restoration—even if something didn’t originate with
Joseph Smith, is it yet true? Does it convey important inspired truths and knowledge
to the receptive heart? Evidently Elder McConkie thought the Lectures on Faith
did just that, no matter their authorship. Readers can judge for themselves on
this question. (I don’t get too worked up over it, other than to be aware of
the issue and able to present some organized thoughts on it.)
On the
larger question, brought up by Professor Reynolds, of whether we should limit
the restoration, we now have President Russell M. Nelson
answering that question in address after talk after sermon after article.
Reynolds must eat his words here; the Prophet has given no leeway for
argument—much more revelation is to come and is coming all the time.
In one of
the most inspired articles I have ever been blessed to read in a church
magazine, the
prophet wrote:
I
cannot speak of the Restoration in tempered tones. This fact of history is
absolutely stunning! It is incredible! It is breathtaking! How amazing is it
that messengers from heaven came to give authority and power to this work?
Today,
the Lord’s work in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is moving
forward at an accelerated pace. The Church will have an unprecedented,
unparalleled future. “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, … the things which God
hath prepared for them that love him” (1 Corinthians 2:9; see also Doctrine and
Covenants 76:10).
Remember
that the fulness of Christ’s ministry lies in the future. . . .
Surely
inspired texts, whether canonized or not, from the past, present, and future,
are part of this marvel we call the restoration. One hopes that even academics
and scholars will unite with this doctrine and marvelous future and accept the
continuing light that comes to us because of the on-going restoration.
[1]
Noel B. Reynolds, “The Authorship
Debate concerning Lectures on Faith: Exhumation and Reburial,” in The Disciple as Witness…, eds., Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry,
and Andrew H. Hedges (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000), 35).
No comments:
Post a Comment