Journal Of Discourses

[wanderer]

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

I suppose in a way, yes I have been. I have been commanded to accept it as a truth and a principle of God and I have been commanded to accept that I may or may not practice it in the CK.

[John Larsen]

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.'

I don't equate the two, I just don't think that is a necessary standard. Look, the stenographers at the time were very skilled. There were used quite often in the Church and elsewhere. These accounts were published and accessed by the leadership at the time and they did not have issue with the accuracy of the reporting.

This claim that somehow the JD is of questionable provenance is a modern construction and not shared by the contemporaries of the Journal. The leaders at the time, and leaders since have treated the Journal as a reliable source and a faithful transmission of the conference addresses.

The JD has been continuously published by the Church and its publish arms since its inception, and surprising enough, has not been edited by the Church. That it wasn't printed in SLC doesn't make it any less authoritative. Especially since it was later published by the Church in SLC.

Furthermore, I think the argument that the JD cannot be considered authentic if you cannot find a statement laying out unequivocally that each talk was reviewed and edited by the brethren to be a bit of a stretch. By this standard, you could reasonable dismiss just about anything that has been put in writing. For example, can you prove such a thing for my May 1984 issue of the Ensign?

And another anti hits the dust.

PacMan

First of all, I am not "anti". Secondly, you self congratulation is a bit overstated.

John

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't equate the two, I just don't think that is a necessary standard. Look, the stenographers at the time were very skilled. There were used quite often in the Church and elsewhere. These accounts were published and accessed by the leadership at the time and they did not have issue with the accuracy of the reporting.

This claim that somehow the JD is of questionable provenance is a modern construction and not shared by the contemporaries of the Journal. The leaders at the time, and leaders since have treated the Journal as a reliable source and a faithful transmission of the conference addresses.

The JD has been continuously published by the Church and its publish arms since its inception, and surprising enough, has not been edited by the Church. That it wasn't printed in SLC doesn't make it any less authoritative. Especially since it was later published by the Church in SLC.

Furthermore, I think the argument that the JD cannot be considered authentic if you cannot find a statement laying out unequivocally that each talk was reviewed and edited by the brethren to be a bit of a stretch. By this standard, you could reasonable dismiss just about anything that has been put in writing. For example, can you prove such a thing for my May 1984 issue of the Ensign?

First of all, I am not "anti". Secondly, you self congratulation is a bit overstated.

John

I've seen things in the JoD that I disagree with, and that I believe disagrees with Church doctrine, that I don't attribute to incorrect stenographics. There is a reason leaders are or ought to be more calculated in what they say in conference, and in an "official capacity." In some ways this is sad, because we miss out on some speculations, etc. but as we can see, some people are upset when they realize our leaders have guesses, and areas where they, too, seek further light and knowledge.

[MormonMason]

...

The JD has been continuously published by the Church and its publish arms since its inception, and surprising enough, has not been edited by the Church. That it wasn't printed in SLC doesn't make it any less authoritative. Especially since it was later published by the Church in SLC.

...

The JD were not published by the Church. They were published as a private enterprise by G.D. Watt and associates.

[John Larsen]

The JD were not published by the Church. They were published as a private enterprise by G.D. Watt and associates.

Under direction and approval from the first presidency. See the letter above. Since they didn't pay him (well) for his services, this is how he was recompensed. That says nothing about the accuracy of his stenography.

John

[John Larsen]

I've seen things in the JoD that I disagree with, and that I believe disagrees with Church doctrine, that I don't attribute to incorrect stenographics. There is a reason leaders are or ought to be more calculated in what they say in conference, and in an "official capacity." In some ways this is sad, because we miss out on some speculations, etc. but as we can see, some people are upset when they realize our leaders have guesses, and areas where they, too, seek further light and knowledge.

Well said.

[MormonMason]

Under direction and approval from the first presidency. See the letter above. Since they didn't pay him (well) for his services, this is how he was recompensed. That says nothing about the accuracy of his stenography.

John

No. Not under the direction of the First Presidency. Watt learned his skills under their direction. The First Presidency requested that people purchase the published reports so that he could make living. There is nothing said in the letter about the First Presidency directing Watt to publish the discourses. It was Watt's idea and Watt did it all. The First Presidency recommended that people purchase them so he could make a living but there is nothing said about Church oversight no matter how much you protest to the contrary. From what I have seen even the Church has denied publishing them.

[cdowis]

Read the Book of Mormon.

Is it the word of the Lord? If not, get out. If it is, forget the rest of the stuff.

[structurecop]

Read the Book of Mormon.

Is it the word of the Lord? If not, get out. If it is, forget the rest of the stuff.

I don't think it's that simple. He could become RLDS.

[John Larsen]

Read the Book of Mormon.

Is it the word of the Lord? If not, get out. If it is, forget the rest of the stuff.

Get out of what?

[John Larsen]

No. Not under the direction of the First Presidency. Watt learned his skills under their direction. The First Presidency requested that people purchase the published reports so that he could make living. There is nothing said in the letter about the First Presidency directing Watt to publish the discourses. It was Watt's idea and Watt did it all. The First Presidency recommended that people purchase them so he could make a living but there is nothing said about Church oversight no matter how much you protest to the contrary. From what I have seen even the Church has denied publishing them.

The JD has been quoted over and over again in official and semi-official Church documents. What proof have you that the Church has tried to distance itself from it? You're splitting hairs about the origin, but you have not established that the books have any distortion of the views of the Church leaders at the time.

John

[PacMan]

I don't equate the two, I just don't think that is a necessary standard. Look, the stenographers at the time were very skilled. There were used quite often in the Church and elsewhere. These accounts were published and accessed by the leadership at the time and they did not have issue with the accuracy of the reporting.

Oh really? And you're the expert because you have such a reference? The fact is that Brigham Young made important distinction that he need to edit any of it to be considered doctrine. The fact was the Brigham Young WASN'T an editor. There were multiple, including his son. As a compilation of stenographed speeches, sure...they were fine. But that's all they were.

This claim that somehow the JD is of questionable provenance is a modern construction and not shared by the contemporaries of the Journal. The leaders at the time, and leaders since have treated the Journal as a reliable source and a faithful transmission of the conference addresses.

Better a modern construction that irrational exuberance. Thinking that stenographies are somehow air-tight, particularly in light of Brigham Young's own direction that he need to edit them himself, is irresponsible, and factually untenable.

The JD has been continuously published by the Church and its publish arms since its inception, and surprising enough, has not been edited by the Church. That it wasn't printed in SLC doesn't make it any less authoritative. Especially since it was later published by the Church in SLC.

Edited by the Church? Why? For anyone with an ounce of sense, they realize what they are...STENOGRAPHIES.

Furthermore, I think the argument that the JD cannot be considered authentic if you cannot find a statement laying out unequivocally that each talk was reviewed and edited by the brethren to be a bit of a stretch. By this standard, you could reasonable dismiss just about anything that has been put in writing. For example, can you prove such a thing for my May 1984 issue of the Ensign?

I said nothing about not considering authentic. The certainly are...authentic stenographies. But they're certainly not doctrinal stances of the church. And frankly, I don't care what you think is a stretch. Brigham Young set his own standard, and if you can't find some information that otherwise suggests that it was specifically edited and stamped w/ BY stamp of approval, you're up a most unfortunate creek.

And as far as your absurd parallel about the Ensign, if an article is "authored" by an individual, it is drastically different in nature from a stenography. Moreover, I don't know for sure, but I assume the Brigham Young died sometime before 1984.

First of all, I am not "anti". Secondly, you self congratulation is a bit overstated.

Anti or not...you're unequivocally wrong.

PacMan

[John Larsen]

Anti or not...you're unequivocally wrong.

PacMan

Let me restate my thesis for you PacMan. The JD is an accurate representation of the views of the Church leaders. I have yet to see anyone provide any evidence of the contrary.

john

[Calm]

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

Please note:

"...by our counsel..."

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

John

From the Ensign:

I’ve been reading the Journal of Discourses with a great deal of interest and pleasure, but I notice that they are not printed by the Church. Can you tell me how authoritative I should consider them to be?

Gerald E. Jones, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Aug. 1978, 31–32

Gerald E. Jones, director, LDS Institute of Religion, Berkeley, California Many queries come from students concerning these twenty-six volumes first published in England between 1853 and 1886. The original intent of their publication was to provide income for George D. Watt, their stenographer and publisher. Many Church members in England desired to read the sermons delivered by the General Authorities of the Church in Utah, and Brother Watt’s books filled that need. He obtained clearance from the First Presidency 1 June 1853. Addressed to Elder Samuel Richards, missionary printer in England, and to “the Saints abroad” this statement introduced volume one:

“Dear Brethren—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 hardships to acquire the art of reporting in Phonography [shorthand], which he has faithfully and fully accomplished; and he has been reporting the public Sermons, Discourses, Lectures 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 cooperation 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.” (Signed by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Willard Richards.)

The first four volumes were reported by Elder Watt, but after that other reporters are included—one a sister, Julia Young. Brother Watt reported through volume twelve, when David W. Evans became the prime reporter. He was followed by George W. Gibbs, a secretary to the First Presidency.

In considering the reliability of the Journal of Discourses, we should remember certain circumstances.

Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal, there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. There were occasions when the accuracy was questionable. The accounts were not always cleared by the speakers because of problems of time and distance. This was especially true during the persecution of the 1880s which finally forced the cessation of publication.

We should remember that the times were different then. A major concern of the early Saints was physical survival. Sermons often dealt with the practical problems of the time and so may seem quaint in our day, even if much of the advice is still valid.

Doctrinally, members of the Church were growing and learning. Most adults were converts who had to unlearn and relearn many doctrines. They were learning things which our children learn in Primary and Sunday School. Remarks were frequently impromptu. Close, friendly audiences frequently invited informal discussion of varied topics. There was occasional speculation about doctrines which have since been determined unimportant or even misleading.

The general membership of the Church has progressed in knowledge of gospel principles, which is as it should be. In our organizations, we have been taught the gospel for more than one hundred years now. Because of modern revelation and because of “line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept” progression, we have answers that were not yet given when the Journal of Discourses was published.

We also should be aware of priorities in our studies. It seems to me that we should first become very familiar with the four books of Scripture accepted as standard works. The words of our current living prophet are also most valuable for us in our time. The official statements of the First Presidency are standards for doctrine and practice in the Church. We should be familiar with the manuals and courses of study provided for us in our day. For further inspiration and instruction by the General Authorities, we can study general conference addresses, beginning with the most current and moving back in time.

Even after digesting these materials, some persons may still have time and inclination to peruse the Journal of Discourses. We can be grateful that records of the early sermons were kept to help us understand the growth of the Church and the testimonies of our early leaders. If we find the time to read them, however, we should avoid getting caught up in their uniqueness and should concentrate on the inspiring thoughts and experiences related to us by choice men.

Having taught seminary and institute classes for more than twenty years, I have tried to follow my own advice. Because I also love to read, I have read the scriptures many times, all of the general conference reports, and finally, all volumes of the Journal of Discourses.

Frankly, one of the main reasons I read the Journal of Discourses was so I could answer students’ questions about them with some knowledge of what they were about. Though I enjoyed reading them, gained some new insights, and was inspired by the spirit of the early brethren, except for the needs of students, there was no practical benefit that I could not have obtained from current conference talks with less effort, much greater clarity and more economy.

For me, the most pertinent discussion of gospel doctrines and answers to life’s problems and source of spiritual inspiration in today’s world comes from the standard works and our living prophets.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne...0004d82620a____

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Let me restate my thesis for you PacMan. The JD is an accurate representation of the views of the Church leaders. I have yet to see anyone provide any evidence of the contrary.

john

It mightbe... BUt it does not represent offical church doctrine.

[John Larsen]

It mightbe... BUt it does not represent offical church doctrine.

If that is true then Prophet Seers and Revelators do not represent Church Doctrine. Today we are told that we can depend on conference talks as Church Doctrine. The JD is a collection of conference talks. If conference talks today are valid and ones from before are not, can some please tell me what the cutoff year for official doctrine is?

John

[John Larsen]

From the Ensign: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne...0004d82620a____

That might be an interesting article if he could provide at least one example of something that fits his bill. As it is, it is a vague defense against a phantom menace. It seems the soul purpose is to provide plausible deniability.

John

[Calm]

The JD is a collection of conference talks

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/h...1877/jd_eom.htm

From the EoM:

Also see The Seer and Journal of Discourses article in the Accusatory Questions section for a discussion of whether this work constitutes official doctrine for the Church.

by Ronald G. Watt

The Journal of Discourses was a sixteen-page semimonthly subscription publication privately printed in Liverpool, England, in 1854-1886. It served as the printed word of THE CHURCH of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints, particularly for members who had no access to the Salt Lake City Deseret News. While the Journal most often published sermons of Church leaders, these speeches were not always considered to be official statements of doctrine. Many different kinds of speeches were printed, including the prayer given at the laying of a cornerstone of the Salt Lake Temple, a report of a high council court decision, a funeral sermon, and a plea for the defendant and the charge to the jury in a murder trial. In all, the collected Journal of Discourses contains 1,438 speeches given by fifty-five people, including Presidents of the Church, members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, members of the seventy, and sixteen other speakers. Brigham Young gave 390; John Taylor, 162; Orson Pratt, 127; Heber C. Kimball, 113; and George Q. Cannon, 111. Twenty-one people gave a single speech, and the rest gave from 2 to 66 speeches. The semimonthly issues have been bound into twenty-six annual volumes and are currently available in a lithograph reprinting "of the original edition."

The origin of the Journal of Discourses is tied to George D. Watt, an English convert baptized in 1837 by Heber C. Kimball. Before immigrating to the United States in 1842, Watt learned Pitman shorthand. He used this new skill in his adopted land to record the proceedings of conferences of the Church. He also recorded the trial of the accused murderers of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

After 1852 Watt transcribed Church conference addresses for the Deseret News. But because the News was not generally available outside central Utah and because Watt received little pay for his work, he proposed to publish privately and sell sixteen-page semiweekly issues of the Journal of Discourses containing selected sermons of the General Authorities. The sale of these to the Saints at large would enable Watt to earn a living with his shorthand skill. He was supported in this proposal by Brigham Young, who authorized him to print his sermons.

David W. Evans, also an English convert, an associate editor of the Deseret News, and the first violinist in the Salt Lake Theatre Orchestra, succeeded Watt as the main reporter to the Journal from 1867 to 1876. Another major reporter was George F. Gibbs, who was born in Wales and was the secretary to the First Presidency of the Church for fifty-six years. In all, twelve people reported sermons for the Journal of Discourses, including one of Brigham Young's daughters, "Miss Julia Young," who reported one of his speeches.

(See Daily Living home page; Church History home page; Church History 1844-1877 home page; Church Publications home page)

Bibliography

McConkie, Joseph Fielding, ed. Journal of Discourses Digest. Salt Lake City, 1975.

Watt, Ronald G. "Sailing the Old Ship Zion: The Life of George D. Watt." BYU Studies 18 (Fall 1977):48-65.

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 2, Journal of Discourses

Copyright

[LifeOnaPlate]

Get out of what?

My dreams and into my car?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My dreams and into my car?

Whoa!! LoaP that is a bit forward. Huhuhuhu. Home owners insurance. Huhuhuhu.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The JD has been quoted over and over again in official and semi-official Church documents. What proof have you that the Church has tried to distance itself from it? You're splitting hairs about the origin, but you have not established that the books have any distortion of the views of the Church leaders at the time.

John

The Church has somewhat distanced itself from JD, and rightfully so, as it contains speculations, temporal matters, funeral sermons, and other nondoctrinal sayings of early Church leaders. It has been a favorite source for critics of the Church who, I believe, greatly abuse it. It is sad that JD has slipped from view; for example, I don't see a nice, affordable paperback release of JD as I see for HC, CHC, and other multiple volume works. Granted, it is 26 volumes, and is thus larger. Church members, including Bruce R. McConkie, have published selections from the JD. Discourses of Brigham Young was largely dependent on JD. GospelLink contains the JD and is available at Deseret Book.

The Church leaders at the time gave Watt permission to print and sell the discourses. They did not have editorship of its final contents.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Let me restate my thesis for you PacMan. The JD is an accurate representation of the views of the Church leaders. I have yet to see anyone provide any evidence of the contrary.

john

Replace views with "views, ideas, speculations, etc."

[Calm]

That might be an interesting article if he could provide at least one example of something that fits his bill. As it is, it is a vague defense against a phantom menace. It seems the soul purpose is to provide plausible deniability.

John

At the very least, it's evidence that the Church is 'distancing' itself from the JofD and has been for quite some time, at least from having to deal with it as a whole work .

[LifeOnaPlate]

If that is true then Prophet Seers and Revelators do not represent Church Doctrine. Today we are told that we can depend on conference talks as Church Doctrine. The JD is a collection of conference talks. If conference talks today are valid and ones from before are not, can some please tell me what the cutoff year for official doctrine is?

John

I haven't found a cutoff year, but there was a decrease in more speculative dialog after the Orson Pratt/Brigham Young disagreements. Conflict still sprung up from time to time, and over the years things have become more smooth. I have found profound truths in the sermons given in all the years since the restoration began. So there isn't really a "cut-off year." Prophets can still speculate, apostles can still be incorrect sometimes.

[Calm]

I haven't found a cutoff year, but there was a decrease in more speculative dialog after the Orson Pratt/Brigham Young disagreements. Conflict still sprung up from time to time, and over the years things have become more smooth. I have found profound truths in the sermons given in all the years since the restoration began. So there isn't really a "cut-off year." Prophets can still speculate, apostles can still be incorrect sometimes.

Didn't someone say something about CES teachers not supposed to be using anything prior to a particular year unless it was as a source in a newer publication...and my memory says it was somewhere around 1950....