Journal Of Discourses

[gtaggart]

Sorry, I had to laugh at this one. If the church published early "conference talks" I bet many of the same problematic teachings and statements would be in circulation.

Sorry, I had to laugh at this one. I bet that if we were to bet that if the church published early "conference talks," we'd, at best, only be speculating that there would be many of the same problematic teachings and statements in circulation.

[wanderer]

I understand that revelation is ongoing. What I don't understand is how BY could get something so important SO wrong. I'm not talking about a minor concept here. I'm talking about something majorly important...the very identity of God. I have to believe that either BY was just making a guess about something and putting it out there (which calls other things he said into question as well) or that God decided it was okay for the Saints to be taught one thing for awhile and then later one he'd clarify and/or rectify the situation.

And just because he only said it a few times doesn't negate the fact that he said it. You can't unring a bell.

And unfortunately, this is just one piece of the pie that I feel unraveling for me right now.

[wanderer]

Yes, "Prophets speak for God"..but not always. This is a tenet of our faith. If you are believing that a Prophet is somehow different from other men and they should be infallible and always speak for God, then you are too rigid in your thinking and you need to ease up.

I don't believe that every time they open their mouths they speak for God. However, I believe that if they are speaking in an official capacity (ie giving a talk), then we should be able to trust that what they are saying is what God would have us hear. Especially if the words they are saying could lead us astray to believe things that are untrue.

You are definitely on sandy ground if you are going to demand that everything a Prophet says must be from God himself. This is not what the church teaches..We believe in continuing Revelation. The church is a dynamic organization. The saints change, the world changes.

Got that. But does this mean that core doctrinal concepts change? Didn't JS say that a man had to have three wives to get into the CK? Certainly the church doesn't still teach this. But it seems pretty cut and dried to me. Yet another example of a prophet speaking his own opinion and teaching it as God's word? Why am I the only one who sees this as problematic? Terribly so.

This is a blessing as well as a challenge of having a living Prophet. There are a number of things that are no longer believed, taught or practiced by the present day church-not just Adam God theory.

WHY? That's my problem.

If you see it as the church "picks and chooses" what it wants to teach, then you don't really have a testimony of the doctrine of continuing revelation.

I believe that God's truth is God's truth. I believe that if God is going to choose a person to speak for him on this earth, then he will direct that person to speak the truth. He won't direct that person to speak things that give the wrong meaning or understanding of truth. If this person is teaching things that aren't true, then I thought we are taught that the prophet would be "removed" before he would lead us astray. So I guess there are just varying degrees of leading the Saints astray?

That's where you need to start--you need to gain a testimony of this principle. You also need cultivate the gift of discernment so that you can gain a testimony of what the Prophet teaches and not see it only as picking and choosing.

The best advice I can give you is go back to the basics. You need to read your scriptures and gain a testimony of the teaching within, then read the Journal of Discourses.

So in other words, read it only after I can read it with the attitude of absolute acceptance?

I think your difficulty is that you want your messages all neat and tidy--and your leaders to have no weaknesses, but that's not how God works. We are expected to pray for and cultivate the gift of discernment so that we can understand the voice of God and be able to separate it from the voice of man.

I do want it to be neat and tidy. The church teaches us that it's neat and tidy. The church teaches in no uncertain terms that our prophet speaks for God. I don't see or read any disclaimer in the SS and RS manuals that say: "Warning: some of this may not be the word of God." We are taught to trust the words and teachings of the prophet. And yet, so many of the past doctrines (serious things) have fallen by the wayside. I can want it neat and tidy and still understand that our prophets aren't perfect. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. It seems bizarre to me that this doesn't bother more people than it does.

I appreciate the ongoing dialogue. I am trying to sort all of this out and its tough.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Didn't JS say that a man had to have three wives to get into the CK?

Nope.

What'd you think of my blog?

[Lachoneus]

Correction: It was transcribed by official recorders of the Church, reviewed by Brigham Young, his counselors, and the apostles, then published.

CFR. I have never yet seen any proof that Brigham Young or any General Authority reviewed the discourses before publication.

Then I read in Journal of Discourses that Brigham Young taught the Saints that Adam was God and various other things that the modern church does not follow.

CFR. You have misunderstood what Brigham Young taught.

What I don't understand is how BY could get something so important SO wrong. I'm not talking about a minor concept here. I'm talking about something majorly important...the very identity of God.

Why do you think your understanding of what Brigham Young taught is correct and that what Brigham Young taught was wrong? I have spent a lot of time reading Brigham Youngâ??s discourses and am convinced that very few people have a correct understanding of what Brigham Young taught on this point. For example, start with Moses 1:34 and then read President Youngâ??s discourse of 28 December 1845 which is not in the Journal of Discourses (see, The Nauvoo Endowment Companies 203-207).

[John Larsen]

Many will tell you that prophets are men when acting like men and prophets when acting like prophets. From the written record of the Church, it is clear that they can't tell the difference. This should give anyone pause.

John

[John Larsen]

CFR. I have never yet seen any proof that Brigham Young or any General Authority reviewed the discourses before publication.

Letter from the First Presidency preface to The Journal of Discourse:

LETTER FROM THE FIRST PRESIDENCY:

Great Salt Lake City, Utah Territory, June 1, 1853

Elder Samuel W. Richards, and the Saints abroad.

Dear Brethrenâ??It is well known to many of you, that Elder George D. Watt, by our counsel, spent much time in the midst of poverty and hardship to acquire the art of reporting in Phonography, which he has faithfully and fully accomplished; and he had been reporting the public Sermons, Discourses, Lectures, &c., delivered by the Presidency, the Twelve, and others in this city, for nearly two years, almost without fee or reward. Elder Watt now proposes to publish a Journal of these Reports, in England, for the benefit of the Saints at large, and to obtain means to enable him to sustain his highly useful position of Reporter. You will perceive at once that this will be a work of mutual benefit, and we cheerfully and warmly request your co-operation in the purchase and sale of the above-named Journal, and wish all the profits arising therefrom to be under the control of Elder Watt

BRIGHAM YOUNG,

HEBER C. KIMBALL

WILLARD RICHARDS

First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Please note:

"...by our counsel..."

"...which he has faithfully and fully accomplished..."

John

[MormonMason]

I understand that revelation is ongoing. What I don't understand is how BY could get something so important SO wrong. I'm not talking about a minor concept here. I'm talking about something majorly important...the very identity of God. I have to believe that either BY was just making a guess about something and putting it out there (which calls other things he said into question as well) or that God decided it was okay for the Saints to be taught one thing for awhile and then later one he'd clarify and/or rectify the situation.

And just because he only said it a few times doesn't negate the fact that he said it. You can't unring a bell.

And unfortunately, this is just one piece of the pie that I feel unraveling for me right now.

Jeremiah in essence called God a liar and thought of him as unreliable. That also is getting the nature of God wrong--in a major way. So far as Brigham Young was concerned, the most that he was doing was attributing to God a deed which he did not do, if that was what he was doing. Even that is debatable as there are instances where Brigham Young stated doctrinal teachings that are precisely what they are today.

What I find of interest is Brigham Young's repeated insistance during this same time period that the Saints get the Spirit so that they would know whether he spoke the truth or not and would know when he preached the truth and when he did not. Several times he spoke in conferences and told the Saints to get the Spirit because they never could know otherwise whether or not he might teach the people lies that they may be damned.

I have read the Journal of Discourses (and have a set sitting on my shelves) and the troublesome passages are but few compared to the size of the corpus. There are times when the General Authorities mispoke and had slips of the toung while speaking. Most talks were not written down beforehand at that time. See Journal of Discourses 6:29 for an example of the slip of the tongue on the part of Heber C. Kimball. Note the name of the person who appeared first in restoring the priesthood.

Beware of Amasa Lyman's talks, though. He was excommunicated for his views that have been published in the Journal of Discourses. In addition, there are talks in the Journal of Discourses that were mispublished and some of these can be seen when comparing the same talks as published in the Deseret News.

[Lachoneus]

Letter from the First Presidency preface to The Journal of Discourse:

Please note:

"...by our counsel..."

"...which he has faithfully and fully accomplished..."

John

John, where in this quote does it say that the Brethren reviewed and approved the discourses? Endorsing Watt's skill in phonography has nothing to do with reviewing and approving the discourses? Sorry, but you are way off track.

[MormonMason]

Letter from the First Presidency preface to The Journal of Discourse: ...

Please note:

"...by our counsel..."

"...which he has faithfully and fully accomplished..."

John

Interesting quote that, but the evidence is that there are mistakes in publication and misprints in a number of places notwithstanding. The Journal of Discourses were published in England, where it was a little harder for the General Authorities of the Church to look them over until publication. Remember also that Amasa Lyman was excommunicated for apostasy and for views that he taught, remarks which also appeared in the Journal of Discourses.

Here is an example of a misprint that occurred in the Journal of Discourses, in volume 12:

I was going to post examples of where talks in the Journal of Discourses do not agree with those published in the Deseret News but I misplaced my notes and do not know where I put them. Guess I will have to look for them...

[John Larsen]

Interesting quote that, but the evidence is that there are mistakes in publication and misprints in a number of places notwithstanding. The Journal of Discourses were published in England, where it was a little harder for the General Authorities of the Church to look them over until publication. Remember also that Amasa Lyman was excommunicated for apostasy and for views that he taught, remarks which also appeared in the Journal of Discourses.

Here is an example of a misprint that occurred in the Journal of Discourses, in volume 12:

I was going to post examples of where talks in the Journal of Discourses do not agree with those published in the Deseret News but I misplaced my notes and do not know where I put them. Guess I will have to look for them...

2 Things:

Difference between the JD and the Deseret News are only significant if the Deseret News is a more authoritative source than the JD. I don't think you have made that case yet.

Secondly, can you demonstrate that any of these misprints are doctrinally significant? Typos and misprints are to be found in practically every publication however that does not invalidate the work as correctly representing the views of the authors.

John

[structurecop]

CFR. I have never yet seen any proof that Brigham Young or any General Authority reviewed the discourses before publication.

It's in the pamphlet that came with my set of the JoD.

[MormonMason]

2 Things:

Difference between the JD and the Deseret News are only significant if the Deseret News is a more authoritative source than the JD. I don't think you have made that case yet.

Secondly, can you demonstrate that any of these misprints are doctrinally significant? Typos and misprints are to be found in practically every publication however that does not invalidate the work as correctly representing the views of the authors.

John

In my notes a number of them were of doctrinal import. That is why I am trying to figure out what happened to my notes on the subject. They were supposed to be in a box but the box that was supposed to contain the notes and supporting documentation is gone missing. So far I am missing three boxes of stuff since my recent moves. I am not happy about that because it took a lot of work to detail what I found. I do not want to have to do it all over again.

As to the Deseret News being more authoritative, I would say that it was more authoritative than the Journal of Discourses simply for the fact that it was the official Church Newspaper of the time and because it was the Church press used for official publication of various things such as various editions and printings of the scriptures.

[Lachoneus]

It's in the pamphlet that came with my set of the JoD.

Please give us the text of what is said. As I previously stated, "I have never yet seen any proof that Brigham Young or any General Authority reviewed the discourses before publication." To date, that is still true.

[wanderer]

Nope.

What'd you think of my blog?

I did go to your blog, however, I haven't read everything there.

And you're correct. I didn't find any information about JS saying that it takes three wives to get to the Ck. I did find this, however, written by JFS:

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blesssing [blessing] promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part-and is good so far as it goes-and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor [therefore], and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it."

Now I suppose the "rational" answer here is that this was only true while polygamy was on the earth. But if we are to have polygamy in the CK, then I wonder if it will be true there as well?

I am so confused!!

[structurecop]

Please give us the text of what is said. As I previously stated, "I have never yet seen any proof that Brigham Young or any General Authority reviewed the discourses before publication." To date, that is still true.

I'll give you the text as soon as I have access to it... I am at work at the moment.

[LoudmouthMormon]

I am the Gospel Principles teacher in my ward right now, and I recently taught a lesson on the prophets. In that lesson, I read/taught that prophets speak for God. That as they act in their official capacity, their word is basically scripture. I learned that these men were chosen by God to serve Him on this earth. If that is "rigid" thinking, then I call me guilty.

Hi from a fellow GP teacher.

When I gave the lesson on Prophets, I included the following:

Now, brethren, I want to make it very clear that I am not prophesying, that I am not predicting years of famine in the future. But I am suggesting that...[gave a talk on self-sufficiency and the dangers of debt].

- Gordon B. Hinckley, in a Priesthood session General Conference address given in 1998.

Lesson to learn: By the Prohpet's own admission, something said by him over the pulpit during General Conference is NOT a prophecy.

We hope that you will use the May edition of the Church magazines as a text for your family home evenings, to review that which has been spoken in this conference. What has been said by each of the speakers represents his or her prayerful attempt to impart knowledge that will inspire and cause all who have heard it to stand a little taller and be a little better.

-President Hinckley's closing remarks of April 2007 Conference

Lesson to learn: There's a HUGE difference between Inspired/Revealed Truth and a "prayerful attempt to impart knowledge". Every member of the 1st presidency spoke in that conference, and a bunch of Apostles too. They're all Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.

Wanderer, I urge you to look at two aspects of your belief.

1) What do you believe?

2) Why do you believe it?

If you can identify #1, but not #2 - then regard it as suspect. No matter how closely held the belief is, if you can't cite scripture and verse, if you don't have a good common sense answer for why you believe it, then put it in the category of "stuff that may not be true".

This is what maturing and growing looks like, brother! Go forth firm and confident!

LM

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]I did find this, however, written by JFS:

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blesssing [blessing] promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part-and is good so far as it goes-and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor [therefore], and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it."

[...]

Source?

[Lachoneus]

Source?

Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blesssing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part—and is good so far as it goes—and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith, he very naturally shrank, in his feelings, from the responsibilities thereby imposed upon him; foreseeing, as he did in part, the apparently insurmountable difficulties in the way of establishing it, in the face of the popular opinion, the traditions and customs of many generations, the frowns, ridicule, slander, opposition and persecutions of the word. Yes, this man of God, who dared to meet the opposition of the whole world with bold and fearless front, who dared to dispute the religious authority and accumulated learning and wisdom of the age—who dared everything for the truth, and shrank not even from the sacrifice of his own life in testimony of his divine mission, shrank, in his feelings, from the weight of the responsibility of inaugurating and establishing this new innovation upon the established customs of the world. But he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him; and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that doctrine.

20 Journal of Discourses 29 (7 July 1878)

[Olavarria]

WANDERER

Personally, I love the Journal of Discourses, warts and all. Frankly, I think they were right 99.9% of the time, but there are alaways those outlyers, the .001% that is error.

â??I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.

( Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe [1954], 135.)

I believe there is a problem in the Church, with some people, in that they think that when it comes to following the bretheren all they have to do is sit back, listen to what they say, dont think at all and obey.

That might work if your in primary; but I dont think it is beneficial when you are an adult.

Do I follow the bretheren? Yes. Why? Because I follow Brother Brigham's teaching. In the end, my salvation has nothing to do with Gordon B. Hinckley but it has everything to do with Heabvenly Father,Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.

The Prophets are a resource for us to use in following the path of God, but they are not God.

Can the President of the Chruch lead the Church astray? No.

Plural marriage(institution and abandonment), the priesthood ban etc, the lfiting of the priesthood ban. I believe that was all divinly inspried though we may not understand why the Lord would command/permit that.

I think Dallin H. Oaks said it best:

"...It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we're on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.

...I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking.

...Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies." Dallin H. Oaks, Interview with Associated Press, in Daily Herald, Provo, Utah, 5 June 1988.

Alot of what is in the JoD is speculation or thinking aloud. I miss those days. Nowadays, you can hardly get the bretheren to speculate openly on anything; I blame that on the hard hearted vipers who try to catch them in their words.

My suggestion to you is:

1) Focus your study on the standard works and use talks(past and modern) as study aids.

2)Ask your Heavenly Father if these men are Prophets or not? Listen.

3)Start to accept the fact that Prophets are not perfect and niether are you. Try to be as merciful in judging them and their words as you want the Savior to be with you and your words come judgement day.

"

Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blesssing [blessing] promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part-and is good so far as it goes-and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor [therefore], and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it."

Now I suppose the "rational" answer here is that this was only true while polygamy was on the earth. But if we are to have polygamy in the CK, then I wonder if it will be true there as well?

I am so confused!!

I personally dont have a problem with polygamy in the CK. I dont think anyone in the CK is walking around with their arms folded, pouting, "no fair".

Then I read in Journal of Discourses that Brigham Young taught the Saints that Adam was God and various other things that the modern church does not follow. If BY was giving an address to the Saints, I'm assuming we can trust what he says. I assume that God is leading his words with inspiration. Afterall, I can't imagine someone who can literally speak with God can't be thoroughly trusted to speak his words accurately.

The modern church doesnt follow? As far as I know the Church rejects the Adam-God theory tought by the "fundamentalist" and idea that Adam-Michael,father of Cain and Abel is the sire of Christ and God to whome we pray. That is hogwash and something Brigham Young didnt teach.

As for the true understanding of Adam-God: Book of Abraham + Endowment.

These might be interesting:

"I have reflected much concerning the family of the grandfather and father of Joseph the Prophet. Their family connections were very extensive; and it has been a subject of deep regret to me that there were so few in that large circle who have been valiant for the truth since the death of the Prophet. Still I do not know but that Joseph had quite as many of his connections valiant for the truth, in proportion to their number, as Jesus had; for Jesus had many brothers and sisters, and the most of them were opposed to him, and continued so during the greater part of their lives. I used to think, while Joseph was living, that his life compared well with the history of the Saviour; though the most of father Joseph Smith's family have believed and obeyed the Gospel, and have lived their religion in a good degree. Many of them are not here. Some of them I have known in the Eastern States that never have gathered with us. But the old stock are pretty much dead, and I do not know but what all of them are. Father John Smith was the last one, in this Church, of the brothers of father Joseph Smith; and he died, and is buried here. Grandmother Smith lived in Kirtland a short time after she gathered. "[Journal of Discourses, Vol.5, p.97, Brigham Young, August 2, 1857, emphasis added]

There is hardly ever a commandment given to any person or persons before whom a temptation is not placed to decoy them, if possible, from an obedience to that commandment. Our parents in the garden of Eden had had but little experience in this world; and it seemed that they must have a trial corresponding with the experience and knowledge they had of things as they were. The instruction of Father Adam was, "of all the trees in the garden thou mayest eat, excepting one; and in the day thou eatest of that, thou shalt surely die." The Lord said, Adam and Eve, you may enjoy yourselves; but there is one tree I command you that ye shall not eat of; for in the day that ye do, ye shall surely die." [JD 5:16, Orson Hyde, June 14, 1857]

This brings to my mind the vision that Joseph Smith had, when he saw Adam open the gate of the Celestial City and admit the people one by one. He then saw Father Adam conduct them to the throne one by one, when they were crowned Kings and Priests of God. I merely bring this up to impress upon your mind the principles of order, but it will nevertheless apply to every member of the Church. [JD 9:41, Heber C. Kimball, March 17, 1861]

The world may in vain ask the question, "Who are we?" But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God whom we serve. Some say, "we are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of. [JD 13:311-312, April 17, 1870]

That argument that says they are men and therefore fallible doesn't wash with me. I realize they are going to be imperfect. But I think that God would be capable of finding someone who would be able to impart his messages accurately. And if God is really talking to this person, where is there any room for error? If God told me what I was supposed to tell someone else, something that their salvation depended on, you'd better believe that I'd say it right. The first time. And every time. And I'm much more flawed and sinful than a lot of people.

Which begs the questian, how is supposed to be teaching you? The prophet or the Holy Ghost?

I believe that God's truth is God's truth. I believe that if God is going to choose a person to speak for him on this earth, then he will direct that person to speak the truth. He won't direct that person to speak things that give the wrong meaning or understanding of truth. If this person is teaching things that aren't true, then I thought we are taught that the prophet would be "removed" before he would lead us astray. So I guess there are just varying degrees of leading the Saints astray?

I would like to see how something tought in the 1800's , but deemphasized today lead anyone astray.

I

do want it to be neat and tidy. The church teaches us that it's neat and tidy. The church teaches in no uncertain terms that our prophet speaks for God. I don't see or read any disclaimer in the SS and RS manuals that say: "Warning: some of this may not be the word of God." We are taught to trust the words and teachings of the prophet. And yet, so many of the past doctrines (serious things) have fallen by the wayside. I can want it neat and tidy and still understand that our prophets aren't perfect. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. It seems bizarre to me that this doesn't bother more people than it does.

I appreciate the ongoing dialogue. I am trying to sort all of this out and its tough.

I think it boils down to the pradigm that you are using. You want Prophets to be perfect, while they are at the pulpit.

If you give up that idea, problem solved.

[rameumptom]

I would suggest we consider the definition of Doctrine, as given on the Church's website:

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp...0004e94610aRCRD

SALT LAKE CITY 4 May 2007 Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.

The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined.

The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context (see here and here), and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:

* Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four â??standard worksâ? of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

* Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Churchâ??s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: â??The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.â?

* Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being. In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges. According to the Articles of Faith, â??We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.â?

* Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwide humanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, â??By their fruits ye shall know them.â?

* Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.

* Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions. For example, Latter-day Saints generally view being born again as a process of conversion, whereas many other Christian denominations often view it as a conversion that happens in one defining moment. Sometimes what some may consider an argument or dispute over doctrine is really a misunderstanding of simple differences in terminology.

Journalists, academics and laymen alike are encouraged to pursue their inquiries into the Church by recognizing the broad and complex context within which its doctrines have been declared, in a spirit of reason and good will.

[unquote]

Basically, not everything in the JoD is doctrine. Brigham Young liked to speculate and take the teachings to the very edge/fringe, in order to see where it would take us. Given he had a captivated audience of Mormons, he didn't care to think about how his speculations would be taken in future times. He did the same thing in exciting/inflaming the Saints against federal troops and immigrates that were passing through, so that he indirectly influenced the tragedy at the Mountain Meadows.

You'll note that modern prophets, aware of our presence in the world, and not just in Utah, have strongly tightened down the focus that the General Authorities and other leaders have in teaching. We all are now to just "teach the doctrines of the gospel." And above, we can note that we should pay particular attention to core doctrines.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Beware of Amasa Lyman's talks, though. He was excommunicated for his views that have been published in the Journal of Discourses.

I have found much of Elder Lyman's remarks thus far to be beneficial, uplifting, and supported by the Spirit and the scriptures. Granted I am only to volume 4, but thus far, I really love Elder Lyman, who was posthumously restored to his church membership and office of apostle.

Interesting quote that, but the evidence is that there are mistakes in publication and misprints in a number of places notwithstanding. The Journal of Discourses were published in England, where it was a little harder for the General Authorities of the Church to look them over until publication. Remember also that Amasa Lyman was excommunicated for apostasy and for views that he taught, remarks which also appeared in the Journal of Discourses.

Here is an example of a misprint that occurred in the Journal of Discourses, in volume 12:

I was going to post examples of where talks in the Journal of Discourses do not agree with those published in the Deseret News but I misplaced my notes and do not know where I put them. Guess I will have to look for them...

Excellent stuff, MM.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I did go to your blog, however, I haven't read everything there.

And you're correct. I didn't find any information about JS saying that it takes three wives to get to the Ck. I did find this, however, written by JFS:

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blesssing [blessing] promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part-and is good so far as it goes-and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor [therefore], and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it."

Now I suppose the "rational" answer here is that this was only true while polygamy was on the earth. But if we are to have polygamy in the CK, then I wonder if it will be true there as well?

I am so confused!!

Would you expect salvation while rejecting God's commands? Were you commanded to practice plural marriage?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Excellent stuff, everyone. I really like the thread.

[PacMan]

Letter from the First Presidency preface to The Journal of Discourse:

Please note:

"...by our counsel..."

"...which he has faithfully and fully accomplished..."

John

John Larsen,

How in the world do you honestly consider the commissioned stenographies (which no one is going to challenge) equal to the brethren "editing" and approving the JoD prior to publication? Sorry pal. Generally speaking, they had much more to do...that's why they hired....'Editors.'

And another anti hits the dust.

PacMan