Journal Of Discourses

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

Sort of. The Church isn't making efforts to systematically go through all these discourses and say "this accords with out teachings today, this doesn't. This is actual doctrine, this isn't." We are, fortunately and unfortunately, given more freedom than that.

Few members of the Church of Jesus Christ have time (or perhaps even the interest) to read all 1,438 sermons given between 1854 and 1886. It should be noted that many of these discourses were not "general conference addresses" as we understand today. Additionally, the JD has suffered in reputation due to more speculative ideas expressed by some early Church leaders. These speculations are often quoted by critics of the Church as bona fide Mormon doctrine. The Journal is largely a product of its time; a Utah Territory, a struggling and growing Church, where politics, religion, ethics, standards, counsel, among other things were all mixed together.

The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine (LDS.org, Gospel Topics: The Journal of Discourses, accessed November, 2007).

Because Church membership generally is encouraged to give priority to the Standard Works (the LDS canon of scripture including the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) the JD has taken on somewhat of an apocryphal status. That being said, I am reminded of the counsel given to the prophet Joseph Smith when he asked if the Apocrypha should be included in his inspired translation of the Bible:

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha--There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.

Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.

Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;

And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;

And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited…(D&C 91).

Truly, for me, reading the JD by the "light of the Spirit" has been beneficial; the sermons reveal interesting, uplifting information, and give us insight into what the early Saints might have heard over the pulpit. Sometimes there are teachings that are very foreign to me, but I feel the truth in them. Other times there are things I am regretful to read. These moments are greatly outnumbered by the good stuff, though. I started a blog to document my favorite findings within the JD, I want to express my faith in the restored gospel by emphasizing the scriptural and socially relevant selections from the JD, which go largely unnoticed compared to any strange or irreverent things found therein.

For more:

http://lifeongoldplates.blogspot.com/

[LifeOnaPlate]

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....

Beats me, but again, this is a two-edged sword.

This would sadly prevent using something like Brigham's tongue-in-cheek introduction of the "Mormon Creed, viz. 'Let every man mind his own business.'"

On the other hand, it prevents some of the more interesting teachers from finding the odder speculations and proclaiming them as the word of God.

[structurecop]

On the other hand, it prevents some of the more interesting teachers from finding the odder speculations and proclaiming them as the word of God.

Like "When the prophet speaks, God speaks"?

[cksalmon]

Out of the more than 1500 recorded discourses of Brigham Young, it's interesting that something that only occured in about 20 (less than 1% -- and only loosely in some of those) is what stood out to you the most.

Perhaps you should jump ahead to Volume 13 of the Journal of Discourses (in particular pages 311-312). It might help clarify Brigham's words... maybe.

But, this teaching stood out quite starkly to BRM, too. BRM labeled this particular BY teaching as a 'deadly heresy' (#6 of his 7), a heresy sponsored by none other than Satan himself.

When a past LDS prophet (Brigham Young, no less) is implicitly accused (by a later LDS apostle) of believing and teaching a damnable heresy inspired by Satan himself, I think it's worthy of notice, Stu.

McConkie ridiculed this belief by putting words in the mouths of BY's doctrinal defenders: "'We will follow those who went before,' they say. And having so determined, they soon are ready to enter polygamous relationships that destroy their souls."

Believing what BY taught re: Adam-God was, for BRM, tantamount to believing in the legitimacy of polygamy, which was officially condemned by the LDS church only a half century+ or so prior.

What strikes me as noteworthy is not the relatively-few times this teaching is mentioned, but that a past Prophet, Seer, and Revelator of the LDS faith is implicitly condemned as teaching a deadly heresy perpetuated by Satan.

Of course, BRM was only an apostle, not a prophet. Maybe he was wrong. But his statements do postdate BY's, so maybe he was right. Who knows?

One answer I've come across is that God allows heresy to infiltrate his true church as a means of testing. That strikes me as an ad hoc solution.

"Why did an LDS prophet teach a deadly heresy, perpetuated by Satan?"

"Because God allowed it as a means to test the faithful."

Without that answer, one is just left with the conclusion that BY taught deadly heresy as truth.

You know?

Chris

[structurecop]

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

Here are the contents of the pamphlet that came with my JoD:

Journal of Discourses

Delivered by BRIGHAM YOUNG

etc...

Andrew Jenson, Assistant Church Historian, gives this description:

"'Journal of Discourses' was a publication classed as one of the periodicals of the Church, containing discourses delivered by the General Authorities of the Church and others. The arrangement of these sermons was such that the publication was more like so many books instead of separate volumes of a magazine.

"The 'Journal of Discourses' was commenced in 1854, when George D. Watt, the first man baptized by divine authority in England, and who possessed ability as a stenographer, was appointed by President Brigham Young to report and publish sermons delivered by the leaders of the Church and others. The periodical was published semi-monthly, somewhat irregularly, however, but each number consisted of a 16-page octavo sheet, published in Liverpool, England. Twenty-six volumes were published altogether, each volume containing 24 numbers, or 376 pages with an index and preface. The last volume (Vol. 26) closes with May 17, 1886. Complete sets of the 'Journal of Discourses' are now very scarce, although separate volumes can be obtained from private individuals, or at second-hand bookstores" (Encyclopedic History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, page 378.)

--------------------------------------------------------------

Every Latter-day Saint should take this opportunity of owning the written record of remarkable teachings from the great servants of the Lord. To the clear and vigorous expostion of Latter-day Saint doctrine is added the unmistakeable authority of divine inspiration.

Elder John A. Widtsoe, of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, who used the "Journal of Discourses" exclusively as source material for his book "Discourses of Brigham Young," said:

"This book was made possible because Brigham Young secured stenographic reports of his addresses. As he traveled among the people, reporters accompanied him. All that he said was recorded. Practically all of these discourses (from December 16, 1851 to August 19, 1877) were published in the JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, which was widely distributed. The public utterances of few great historical figures have been so faithfully preserved.

"The discourses, from which this volume has been culled, were spoken extemporaneously. The excerpts here presented came from his lips under the inspiration, at the moment, of the power that guided his life. The consistency of the views presented, from the first to the last discourse, would be astounding, were it not for the fact that he clung constantly for interpretation to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as he had been taught it by the Prophet Joseph Smith." (Preface to Discourses of Brigham Young.)

-------------------------------------------------------------

President Brigham Young once declared: "I say now when they, my sermons, are copied and approved by me they are as good as scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read Revelations, read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God. Also, I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the Celestial Kingdom of God as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. I have never preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call it scripture.

Excerpts from teh Prefaces to the "JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES."

George Q. Cannon, Vol. 8:

"The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector of 'the light that shines from Zion's hill."

Joseph F. Smith, Vol. 8:

"We regret that the circulation of the Journal of Discourses is so limited. Its importance would warrant a thousand-fold greater extension of this work. We anticipate a time, not distant in the future, when a copy of the present volume will be more precious than gold. It is even now almost impossible to obtain a complete series."

William Budge, Volume 19:

"It is impossible to give monetary value to the prast volumes of this publication, and the best evidence that they are appreciated, is to be found in the fact that they are sought alike by non-members as well as by members of the Church, and in contrast with many works of greater pretensions, book-stalls are searched in vain for even solitary copies."

Brigham Young, Jr., Volume 11:

"The Journal of Discourses is a vehicle of doctrine, counsel, and instruction to all people, but especially to the Saints. It follows, then, that each successive volume is more and more valuable as the Church increases in numbers and importance in the earth, and its doctrines become more abundantly developed and are brought into practical exercise by His peculiar people. Every step of its advancement is fraught with the greatest possible importance to the human family.

"No saint can afford to do without these precious precepts until they are able to exemplify them in their daily lives and conversation."

George Q. Cannon, Volume 9:

"The Journal of Discourses goes forth to the world as another record corroborating those already extant, bearing the same testimony to the immutable principles of salvation which they have borne, and giving additional light upon many points concerning the salvation of this generation on which they are silent. All men can be profited by perusing its pages and pondering over the words of truth and salvation as they flow in beautiful simplicity and power from the mouths of the Living Oracles.

"That this Volume may go forth and fill its destined mission, and remain an imperishable memento of God's kindness and his desire to save His erring children, is the prayer of the Editor."

------------------------------------------------------------

Seems like George Q. Cannon is referring to himself as "Editor" here. General Authorities gave their blessing in the preface of every volume. They undoubtedly had an opportunity to review the contents before sending it to England.

[Lachoneus]

President Brigham Young once declared: "I say now when they, my sermons, are copied and approved by me they are as good as scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read Revelations, read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God.

Where does it say that Brigham Young approved each of his discourses?

[Mudcat]

Was there ever a time when the JD were considered authoritative?

I am speculating, but is it possible that under outside criticism of <snippets> of the JD that LDS have, in response, thrown the baby out with the bathwater?

From what I have read of the post, it seems there is an undercurrent that the JD are unreliable to a degree and therefore excluded from canon. I may be making an assumption. My apologies if so and I stand to be corrected if I have mistated.

But, In light of my perception(and it may be clouded), how could a document that has undergone a transcription from the source, through one individual (a trusted professional stenographer), cause it to be excluded from your canon. Based upon the allegations of the imperfections of the multiple translations of the Bible, that is included in your canon, how can you refute the JD?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[structurecop]

Where does it say that Brigham Young approved each of his discourses?

Doesn't him saying it imply that he approved it?

[Lachoneus]

Doesn't him saying it imply that he approved it?

Nope. Read the quote again.

President Brigham Young once declared: "I say now when they, my sermons, are copied and approved by me they are as good as scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read Revelations, read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God.

Note that he had to approve them after they were copied.

He also once said,

Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve.

13 JD 95

He can't correct a sermon until it has been copied and presented to him for review.

[structurecop]

Nope. Read the quote again.

Note that he had to approve them after they were copied.

He also once said, 13 JD 95

He can't correct a sermon until it has been copied and presented to him for review.

Okay, based on this, would you say the contents of the Journal of Discourses were:

A. Always read and approved by General Authorities

B. Sometimes read and approved by General Authorities

C. Rarely read and approved by General Authorities

D. Never read and approved by General Authorities

[Mudcat]

Was there ever a time when the JD were considered authoritative?

I am speculating, but is it possible that under outside criticism of <snippets> of the JD that LDS have, in response, thrown the baby out with the bathwater?

From what I have read of the post, it seems there is an undercurrent that the JD are unreliable to a degree and therefore excluded from canon. I may be making an assumption. My apologies if so and I stand to be corrected if I have mistated.

But, In light of my perception(and it may be clouded), how could a document that has undergone a transcription from the source, through one individual (a trusted professional stenographer), cause it to be excluded from your canon. Based upon the allegations of the imperfections of the multiple translations of the Bible, that is included in your canon, how can you refute the JD?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

bump

[LifeOnaPlate]

bump

The LDS Canon has never included the Journal of Discourses.

[wanderer]

I appreciate all the help, but I'm afraid that I'm more confused than ever. I'll keep reading and I'll keep soldiering forward, but my list of concerns is growing and my apprehension strengthening. I know we're not supposed to read literature that is not "faith promoting" but I have to get an opposing viewpoint from somewhere. At some point in my life (like now) I have to branch out from the warm comfy blanket of my religion and decide if it makes sense to me or not. Unlike many of you, I've never had a mind-blowing spiritual witness to get me through the tough places. And its not for lack of trying. But after watching the PBS documentary awhile back these alarm bells started sounding in my head and it prompted me to start investigating. I am at a point where I'm almost afraid to dig any further because I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave the church if I do.

Here's what troubles me most about the posts in this thread:

It seems that we will listen to the modern prophets like Kimball or Hinkley and lap up every word like kittens drinking milk. We don't sit here and say, "well he just said that as a man, not a prophet." But with the outdated prophets we feel comfortable deciding when they were and when they weren't speaking as a prophet. We feel that we can more accurately discern what they meant because the modern prophets have come along and "cleared things up" for us.

So what happens in another 100 years or so when the current prophet reveals that garments were just a made up invention of JS? Just looking at a radical example...I know that won't happen. Especially because the current prophets don't reveal anything that we don't already know. They seem to take a much safer lay of the land than the first ones did.

But back to the JD, I still find it troubling that people are 'ok' with the oddball comments made by the early prophets. To me, just because they are few and far between doesn't give me much solace. And I worry about the attitude that I'm expected to adopt in order to accept this. It seems I need to accept that there may be errors in translation or misrepresentations on one hand, but the same mouths will tell me that I have to believe every good word that the same prophet spoke in the same sermon. Doesn't make sense.

[Lachoneus]

But back to the JD, I still find it troubling that people are 'ok' with the oddball comments made by the early prophets.

I find the conclusion that these statements are "oddball" rather interesting. Who among us has sufficient understanding to make this conclusion?

For example, on the issue of Adam see here.

[wanderer]

I find the conclusion that these statements are "oddball" rather interesting. Who among us has sufficient understanding to make this conclusion?

For example, on the issue of Adam see here.

If you follow that line of reasoning, then we have to assume we don't have enough knowledge to make any conclusions regarding the church or any of its doctrines. I realize that faith in any religion requires a certain amount of trust and a willingness to disregard common sense at times. However, it seems that for every strange or incoherent or oddball thing about the church, I'm just patted on the head and told, "we just don't have the knowledge" or "that hasn't been revealed." That seems overly convenient to me. I am skeptical of there being an explanation for everything, or if there isn't, an explanation for why there isn't an explanation! What is the harm in saying, "yes, this troubles me as well."

[cdowis]

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

That church no longer exists. It was replaced by another group who took over its assets.

[LifeOnaPlate]

That church no longer exists. It was replaced by another group who took over its assets.

The religion exists, though.

If you follow that line of reasoning, then we have to assume we don't have enough knowledge to make any conclusions regarding the church or any of its doctrines. I realize that faith in any religion requires a certain amount of trust and a willingness to disregard common sense at times. However, it seems that for every strange or incoherent or oddball thing about the church, I'm just patted on the head and told, "we just don't have the knowledge" or "that hasn't been revealed." That seems overly convenient to me. I am skeptical of there being an explanation for everything, or if there isn't, an explanation for why there isn't an explanation! What is the harm in saying, "yes, this troubles me as well."

Did you get my pm?

[Lachoneus]

However, it seems that for every strange or incoherent or oddball thing about the church, I'm just patted on the head and told, "we just don't have the knowledge" or "that hasn't been revealed." That seems overly convenient to me.

If we had the knowledge then it wouldn't be "oddball" would it? Seems rather logical to me. We tend not to understand what we do not understand. Over the last 50 years I have learned that knowledge is not free.

[Doctor Steuss]

But, this teaching stood out quite starkly to BRM, too. BRM labeled this particular BY teaching as a 'deadly heresy' (#6 of his 7), a heresy sponsored by none other than Satan himself.

Wellâ?¦ you know how I feel about BRMâ??s list of heresies (especially since I believe [and surprisingly, thereâ??s a new â??openness theologyâ? that quasi-teaches the same] that G-d is indeed increasing in knowledge). But, the question then becomes, is the heresy what Brigham taught, or what people 99% of the time interpret him to have taught?

When a past LDS prophet (Brigham Young, no less) is implicitly accused (by a later LDS apostle) of believing and teaching a damnable heresy inspired by Satan himself, I think it's worthy of notice, Stu.

I agree that itâ??s worthy of notice that BRM may have misunderstood BYâ??s words. And itâ??s also worthy of notice that BRMâ??s dogmatism had a problem with it. But, I still donâ??t think that BY was necessarily teaching what people assume he was teaching (as taking his discourses as a whole seem to negate the strict Adam=G-d the Father interpretation). I agree that Adam=G-d the Father probably needs to be denounced; however, I donâ??t think thatâ??s what Brigham was teaching (and even if he wasâ?¦ it didnâ??t seem all that important as it only occupied less than 1% of his sermons).

[â?¦]

Believing what BY taught re: Adam-God was, for BRM, tantamount to believing in the legitimacy of polygamy, which was officially condemned by the LDS church only a half century+ or so prior.

Believing what BRM thought that BY taught re: Adam-God was bad. As Iâ??ve been delving into it a bit more over the last few weeks (and Iâ??ve still got a long way to go), BYâ??s opinions regarding this may indeed be â??heretical,â? but they donâ??t appear to me to be the strict Adam-G-d the Father interpretation that many get out of the handful (and itâ??s a small handful) of references.

What strikes me as noteworthy is not the relatively-few times this teaching is mentioned, but that a past Prophet, Seer, and Revelator of the LDS faith is implicitly condemned as teaching a deadly heresy perpetuated by Satan.

Iâ??m not convinced he was teaching what BRM (and 99+% of others) attributes to him.

Of course, BRM was only an apostle, not a prophet. Maybe he was wrong. But his statements do postdate BY's, so maybe he was right. Who knows?

Wellâ?¦ we all know that BRM was wrong more than once.

One answer I've come across is that God allows heresy to infiltrate his true church as a means of testing. That strikes me as an ad hoc solution.

Well, G-d did let Judas infiltrate His true Church.

"Why did an LDS prophet teach a deadly heresy, perpetuated by Satan?"

"Because God allowed it as a means to test the faithful."

Without that answer, one is just left with the conclusion that BY taught deadly heresy as truth.

You know?

I get what youâ??re saying, but as Iâ??ve been working on this lately, Iâ??m not convinced that BY was teaching the â??heresyâ? that people attribute him with. I admit that Iâ??m only about 5%-10% into where I will need to be in order to form a definitive opinion, but thus far I donâ??t see the black-and-white heresy that has been laid at his feet.

Then again, perhaps he did indeed teach it in that wayâ?¦ which leaves one with the question: Whoâ??s eternal salvation was lost because of it?

Hope youâ??re well my brother (and enjoying that fancy smarty-pants book),

Stu

[structurecop]

That church no longer exists. It was replaced by another group who took over its assets.

Well then he could become a Fundamentalist. Or Ba'hai.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Wellâ?¦ you know how I feel about BRMâ??s list of heresies (especially since I believe [and surprisingly, thereâ??s a new â??openness theologyâ? that quasi-teaches the same] that G-d is indeed increasing in knowledge). But, the question then becomes, is the heresy what Brigham taught, or what people 99% of the time interpret him to have taught?

I agree that itâ??s worthy of notice that BRM may have misunderstood BYâ??s words. And itâ??s also worthy of notice that BRMâ??s dogmatism had a problem with it. But, I still donâ??t think that BY was necessarily teaching what people assume he was teaching (as taking his discourses as a whole seem to negate the strict Adam=G-d the Father interpretation). I agree that Adam=G-d the Father probably needs to be denounced; however, I donâ??t think thatâ??s what Brigham was teaching (and even if he wasâ?¦ it didnâ??t seem all that important as it only occupied less than 1% of his sermons).

Believing what BRM thought that BY taught re: Adam-God was bad. As Iâ??ve been delving into it a bit more over the last few weeks (and Iâ??ve still got a long way to go), BYâ??s opinions regarding this may indeed be â??heretical,â? but they donâ??t appear to me to be the strict Adam-G-d the Father interpretation that many get out of the handful (and itâ??s a small handful) of references.

Iâ??m not convinced he was teaching what BRM (and 99+% of others) attributes to him.

Wellâ?¦ we all know that BRM was wrong more than once.

Well, G-d did let Judas infiltrate His true Church.

I get what youâ??re saying, but as Iâ??ve been working on this lately, Iâ??m not convinced that BY was teaching the â??heresyâ? that people attribute him with. I admit that Iâ??m only about 5%-10% into where I will need to be in order to form a definitive opinion, but thus far I donâ??t see the black-and-white heresy that has been laid at his feet.

Then again, perhaps he did indeed teach it in that wayâ?¦ which leaves one with the question: Whoâ??s eternal salvation was lost because of it?

Hope youâ??re well my brother (and enjoying that fancy smarty-pants book),

Stu

Well stated.

[cksalmon]

I get what youâ??re saying, but as Iâ??ve been working on this lately, Iâ??m not convinced that BY was teaching the â??heresyâ? that people attribute him with. I admit that Iâ??m only about 5%-10% into where I will need to be in order to form a definitive opinion, but thus far I donâ??t see the black-and-white heresy that has been laid at his feet.

...

Hope youâ??re well my brother (and enjoying that fancy smarty-pants book),

Stu

I'm okay, but the book is great! I use it all the time.

With regard to your response, I'd say that you're just too darn reasonable.

I'd be very interested (as you find the time and inclination to work it out) to hear what conclusions you eventually come to.

My best to you, Stu.

Chris

[MormonMason]

The JD has been quoted over and over again in official and semi-official Church documents.

And various other works such as Dante's Inferno and the Apocrypha have been cited in official and semi-official Church documents. That does not give those sources canonical status. The JD were NEVER given canonical status and were NEVER part of the canon.

What proof have you that the Church has tried to distance itself from it?

Nowhere did I say that the Church was distancing itself from for JD. All I said was that from what I have read and from what I remember, the Church denied publishing the JD. That is not distancing from them; it is merely stating a fact. They were published as a private enterprise. The Church also published many of the same talks in the Desert News.

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.

Many of the talks were stenographed in shorthand, by hand on paper. Watt did not use a stenography machine, which had not yet been invented. If the stenographer got distracted so that a word or phrase were missed, that would be an omission. If the person writing the shorthand wrote characters a little more sloppily than usual (usually because of fatigue or taking time to re-dip the pen in ink before the invention of ball-point pens), the characters could be misread. If the stenographer wrote the entire thing down verbatim, virtually without without error, if the eyes skipped one of more words or one of more sentences as would sometimes happen when transcribing manuscript into print, text would go missing in the printed version. All of these things can tend to cause errors of various types. All of these types of errors I have seen.

The evidence I have seen shows all these sorts of transcribing problems, not the least of which is the interpretation of punctuation, which was not as well developed at that time as it is now. Misplaced punctuation can sometimes alter the meaning of a passage of text. I have seen evidence of this in the Book of Mormon manuscripts, printed texts, and in those of the Journal of Discourses, in both longhand and shorthand documents.

As I said, if I manage to find my notes and research on the subject I would be glad to share a few items with everyone here. Until then, you will have to study the manuscripts for the Journal of Discourses for yourself. But, given that you twisted my words above, I am not sure I could trust you not to twist what you found in going over the manuscripts and comparing these with what was published elsewhere were you to share it with us.

[structurecop]

The LDS Canon has never included the Journal of Discourses.

George Q. Cannon, Vol. 8:

"The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector of 'the light that shines from Zion's hill."

[Doctor Steuss]

George Q. Cannon, Vol. 8:

"The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector of 'the light that shines from Zion's hill."

Further proof for the fallibility of the standard works.

Suh-weet!

(Take that BRM!)