Journal Of Discourses

[structurecop]

Further proof for the fallibility of the standard works.

Suh-weet!

(Take that BRM!)

Not to mention the fallibility of GA's opinions on the standard works.

(Take that, guy who stormed out of my GD class!)

[MormonMason]

...What is the harm in saying, "yes, this troubles me as well."

Because it doesn't? I many years ago was troubled by this kind of thing but had to contend with revelations to myself and visions, as well as all those truths to which I had been given divine confirmation through the Spirit. Fact is, light comes to us from God, but it must come through men. Sometimes, for various reasons, this light comes filtered and distorted through the same men. There is a quote I would like to share with you which is pertinent, especially in light of the fact that Jeremiah called God a liar and thought of him as unreliable in even scripture.

We must not regard the Bible as an absolutely perfect book in which God is Himself the author using human hands and brains only as a man might use a typewriter. God used men, not machinesâ??men with like weakness and prejudice and passion as ourselves, though purified and ennobled by the influence of His Holy Spirit; men each with his own peculiarities of manner and dispositionâ??each with his own education or want of educationâ??each with his own way of looking at thingsâ??each influenced differently from another by the different experiences and discipline of his life. Their inspiration did not involve a suspension of their natural faculties; it did not destroy their personality, nor abolish the differences of training or character; it did not even make them perfectly free from earthly passion; it did not make them into machinesâ??it left them men.

Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries, and their indignation against oppression and wrongdoing sometimes breaking out into desire of revenge. This would not surprise us in the least in other good men who were, we knew, striving after God and righteousness. It surprises us in the Bible because of our false preconceptions; because it is in the Bible we do not expect the actors to be real and natural; because of our false theory of Verbal Inspiration we are puzzled when the divine is mingled with the human. We must learn that the divine is mingled with the human.

We cannot draw a line between the divine and the human. We cannot say of any part, 'This is divine,' or 'That is human.' In some parts, as the Gospels, there is more of the divine; in others, as the Chronicles, more of the human. It is as a mine of precious ore where the gold is mingled with the rock and clayâ??the ore is richer in one part than another, but all parts in some degree are glittering with gold. It is as sunlight through a painted windowâ??the light must come to us coloured by the mediumâ??we cannot get it any other way. In some parts the medium is denser and more imperfect, in others the golden glory comes dazzlingly through. It is foolish to ignore the existence of the human medium through which the light has come; it is still more foolish to ignore the divine light, and think that the tinted dome is luminous itself, that the light of heaven has only come from earth. Both must be kept in mindâ??the divine and the humanâ??if the Bible is to be rightly understood.

(Rev. J. R. Dummelow, ed., A Commentary On The Holy Bible [1966, New York: Macmillan] cxxxiv-cxxxv)

The same applies, in my opinion, to prophets both ancient and modern, in scripture both ancient and modern, and in the other writings containing the words of the modern prophets. There are other quotes I could give but this one I have given above is one of the best.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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 investigation will reveal a difference between Cannon's reference to standard works and the current notion of Standard Works.

[MormonMason]

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."

Nice quote but irrelevant. What Cannon thought of them is irrelevant to what stance the Church has taken on them. Here is another one, related in meaning:

...the hymn book, as a new edition, containing a greater variety of hymns, will be shortly published or printed in this place, which I think will be a standard work" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 164; bold emphasis mine).

Yet, the hymnbook never became part of the four standard works (or, at that time, the three standard works). What, then, did Joseph Smith mean? What, then, did his contemporaries mean? The term standard work carried a different sense at that time and even the term is used outside of the Church to refer to "a work of recognized excellence."

Of course, other meanings of the term can and have been used elsewhere and are used in the sense in which we now use them to refer to the four standard works, which definitions are "a work that serves a basis of weight, measure, value, comparison, or judgment" and "a work that is officially approved."

We must determine the meanings of the words from the context and from the historical records. Show me where in any General Conference the Journal of Discourses was canonized as one of the standard works in the same sense in which the four standard works have been canonized. Examples can be found in the publications of the Church and in the records of General Conferences for each of the books of scripture in the four standard works, from the Bible to the Pearl of Great Price, have been officially recognized and canonized.

Nowhere have I ever seen anything like that for the Journal of Discourses. Nowhere have I seen the Journal of Discourses referred to as a work that either "is officially approved" or "serves as a basis of weight, measure, value, comparison, or judgment." If such a reference exists surely it would be a good thing to have us see it. Surely, we must begin at once carrying a set of them with us to Church with our scriptures. Or, perhaps the Church can publish them officially as a microprint edition we can read with a special magnifying glass to make them easier to carry!

So, lacking that from the historical evidence and the usage, we must discard all meanings but the first, which is "a work of recognized excellence." I freely acknowledge the Journal of Discourses in this sense, in spite of their problems. This is why the Church uses portions of them in various Church publications while discarding other portions. The vast majority of them are useful because they are precisely in line with current doctrines of the Church. Only a handful of portions are not. For the most part, the work is "a work of recognized excellence" to us. But, this does not mean that they were ever canonized as were the four standard works. They were not.

Attempts to present quotes as that from Cannon above are attempts at twisting the meaning of the words from the original and historical sense, even if unknowingly. Please bring forward official sources that state that the Journal of Discourses were canonized and were part of the postulated "five" standard works. We are waiting...

[LifeOnaPlate]

I need to throw in I really like the Journal of Discourses.

[MormonMason]

I need to throw in I really like the Journal of Discourses.

As do I.

[structurecop]

Attempts to present quotes as that from Cannon above are attempts at twisting the meaning of the words from the original and historical sense, even if unknowingly. Please bring forward official sources that state that the Journal of Discourses were canonized and were part of the postulated "five" standard works. We are waiting...

I am fully aware the JoD weren't canonized. The Ensign is also not canonized. That does not change their importance during their respective time periods. I really don't understand the attempts to undermine the importance of the sermons contained in the JoD. What we should be looking into is how those specific doctrines and speeches were perceived and how binding those pronouncements were on the membership at that time. How we view them 100+ years later is really irrelevant. If they were a part of the belief structure and religious experience of 19th century Saints, and if they do accurately reflect the opinions of 19th century General Authorities, it is something that warrants further attention and investigation.

I've seen a lot of well-poisoning and deflection rather than facing the controversial topics head-on.

[John Larsen]

Lectures on Faith was never uncanonized. I don't think canonization is the end all be all source of Mormon Doctrine.

John

[Doctor Steuss]

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

I definitely will. I read an article a while back (I believe it was BCSpace that introduced me to it, although I believe it may have actually been a different paper he referred me toâ?¦ my memory sucks) that more-or-less propositioned that BY was teaching that G-d the Father physically sired Adam in the Garden of Eden. This, however goes contradictory to the belief that Jesus is the â??only begotten in the flesh.â?

Itâ??s been kind of confusing thus far given the fact that â??Eloheimâ? didnâ??t necessarily receive its static definition of â??G-d the Fatherâ? within the LDS nomenclature until later generations (1920-ish if memory serves). Compound that with the fact that I donâ??t have a physical copy of the JoD, and must instead get eye-strain online, and itâ??s been slow going -- his non-JoD sermons are also a bit harder for me to find.

The most compelling thing Iâ??ve found thus far is from JoD volume 1 (Iâ??ve been trying to stick to the time periods in which BY mainly taught what has been construed as the â??Adam-G-d theory/doctrine, as to avoid the possibility that he â??changed his mindâ? at a later dateâ?¦ which might not be all that bad of a possibility I suppose). In the July 24, 1853 discourse (donâ??t know the page number as I donâ??t like the BYU online version that gives the pages) he specifically states that G-d created Adam.

Hopefully eventually Iâ??ll have an overall opinion of what BY was teaching (even if it turns out that I discover for myself that he was indeed teaching that Adam=G-d the Fatherâ?¦ a possibility that I donâ??t want to discount) that I can kind of flesh out for you.

Hugs,

Stu

PS.

Iâ??m glad youâ??re making use of the book. Beyond the introduction, it was all gobbely-gook to me.

[Anijen]

Dr. Stuess writes;

Compound that with the fact that I donâ??t have a physical copy of the JoD, and must instead get eye-strain online, and itâ??s been slow going.

Mormonmason writes,

perhaps the Church can publish them officially as a microprint edition we can read with a special magnifying glass to make them easier to carry!

I bet in a future day palm pilot type scriptures and all handbooks, manuals, etc will be in them and that it will become a norm.

[MormonMason]

...

The most compelling thing Iâ??ve found thus far is from JoD volume 1 (Iâ??ve been trying to stick to the time periods in which BY mainly taught what has been construed as the â??Adam-G-d theory/doctrine, as to avoid the possibility that he â??changed his mindâ? at a later dateâ?¦ which might not be all that bad of a possibility I suppose). In the July 24, 1853 discourse (donâ??t know the page number as I donâ??t like the BYU online version that gives the pages) he specifically states that G-d created Adam.

...

That would be page 238. There are other passages which state the same thing in other volumes. I have been researching this issue for over 19 years, have a locked file-cabinet filled with the stuff, and still have not found enough to make a solid conclusion either way. There were various interpretations of what people thought Brigham Young said at the time that date to same period.

[MormonMason]

I bet in a future day palm pilot type scriptures and all handbooks, manuals, etc will be in them and that it will become a norm.

I used to do that. I carried an entire library of stuff to Church for use whenever I needed it. Unfortunately, I got tired of replacing the batteries all the time. Rechargeable batteries did not help, either, because of the time needed to recharge them and the fact that they did not last as long as regular batteries. And then they also had to be replaced after about a 1,000 or so charges. It is not as convenient as carrying the scriptures in print. Maybe someday battery technology will become better and make it more plausible and convenient.

[John Larsen]

That would be page 238. There are other passages which state the same thing in other volumes. I have been researching this issue for over 19 years, have a locked file-cabinet filled with the stuff, and still have not found enough to make a solid conclusion either way. There were various interpretations of what people thought Brigham Young said at the time that date to same period.

I think the most compelling evidence for Adam-God comes from the Journals of Wilford Woodruff. The references there are pretty unambiguous. Besides, it is an authoritative source since it has been used as the source for canonized scripture.

John

[MormonMason]

Lectures on Faith was never uncanonized. I don't think canonization is the end all be all source of Mormon Doctrine.

But, they were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants and are not binding upon the Church as are the four Standard Works of the Church. The Journal of Discourses, on the other hand, were NEVER canonized and NEVER considered binding upon the Church in the same way as are the four Standard Works.

Still waiting for references proving to the contrary...

I think the most compelling evidence for Adam-God comes from the Journals of Wilford Woodruff. The references there are pretty unambiguous. Besides, it is an authoritative source since it has been used as the source for canonized scripture.

And these are proof of...Wilford Woodruff's interpretation of Brigham Young's remarks. Other General Authorities interpreted the remarks differently.

[John Larsen]

But, they were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants and are not binding upon the Church as are the four Standard Works of the Church.

It is true they were removed, but I am unaware of any uncononization, officially or otherwise. As far as I know, they are still part of the cannon. There is a formal process for adding to the cannon, I don't think simply removing from the published edition can nullify that.

The Journal of Discourses, on the other hand, were NEVER canonized and NEVER considered binding upon the Church in the same way as are the four Standard Works.

True that. but it is still a good representation of the beliefs and teaching of Mormons and their leadership at that time even if it has fallen out of favor today. We have sufficiently gone over this point I think.

And these are proof of...Wilford Woodruff's interpretation of Brigham Young's remarks. Other General Authorities interpreted the remarks differently.

Wow, that's a slippery slope. To follow this to its logically conclusion, epistemologically no one can know Mormon doctrine at all. If that is the case, what good is it? Why have conference at all. If the scriptures are the only thing we need, we should just pack up the churches.

I am unaware of any contemporary General Authorities who interpreted Brigham differently. Can you please let me know what these are? Later, there were some that denied the doctrine, but I think it has been sufficiently shown that they were being disingenuous.

[Doctor Steuss]

That would be page 238. There are other passages which state the same thing in other volumes. I have been researching this issue for over 19 years, have a locked file-cabinet filled with the stuff, and still have not found enough to make a solid conclusion either way. There were various interpretations of what people thought Brigham Young said at the time that date to same period.

My kingdom for a day (or a couple of centuries) in your library.

Envy is my name.

[MormonMason]

I am fully aware the JoD weren't canonized.

Yet, you posted the quotation that you did in response to the comments I made about them not being canonized. Interesting.

The Ensign is also not canonized. That does not change their importance during their respective time periods. I really don't understand the attempts to undermine the importance of the sermons contained in the JoD.

They are important sources. I am not stating the contrary. I just want to make clear that the Journal of Discourses are not as they are made to appear as to their authority. They have nowhere near the authority of the four Standard Works of the Church as is misclaimed for them. I am glad that you admitted that.

What we should be looking into is how those specific doctrines and speeches were perceived and how binding those pronouncements were on the membership at that time. How we view them 100+ years later is really irrelevant. If they were a part of the belief structure and religious experience of 19th century Saints, and if they do accurately reflect the opinions of 19th century General Authorities, it is something that warrants further attention and investigation.

Yes, and I have done that to a degree. Others have done that as well to various degrees. Fact is, they did not have the importance of the scriptures. I have made that clear. Now as to specifics? Well, we know what people thought about some of the ideas contained in them. There were varying interpretations. In addition, references made to the so-called "Adam-deity" were rejected out of hand by many. In fact, an anti-Mormon writer who lived during that time period flat-out stated: "The mass of the Mormon people do not believe in the Adam-deity, but of them all, one only, Orson Pratt, has dared to make public protest against that doctrine" (T.B.H. Stenhouse, The Rocky Mountain Saints [1873, New York: D. Appleton and Co.], 492).

I've seen a lot of well-poisoning and deflection rather than facing the controversial topics head-on.

No, I do not see it that way. I only see it as establishing what the Journal of Discourses is not. It is not an authoritative source in the same sense that the scriptures are, no matter how many people these days try to say otherwise via various ways and means. As you admitted, they were never canonized and are not part of the standard works of the Church, and never have been in that sense.

[Yavanna]

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

I read this too. I think you forgot the most important part of this quote in the Ensign though. This was found in the "I have a question" Section of the magazine and the church has written for all to see:

Questions of general gospel interest answered for guidance, not as official statements of Church policy.

Can't use that to back up your claim that the church doesn't consider it to be doctrine when they say the answer to the question is not official either.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Can't use that to back up your claim that the church doesn't consider it to be doctrine when they say the answer to the question is not official either.

haha nice

[structurecop]

Now as to specifics? Well, we know what people thought about some of the ideas contained in them. There were varying interpretations. In addition, references made to the so-called "Adam-deity" were rejected out of hand by many. In fact, an anti-Mormon writer who lived during that time period flat-out stated: "The mass of the Mormon people do not believe in the Adam-deity, but of them all, one only, Orson Pratt, has dared to make public protest against that doctrine" (T.B.H. Stenhouse, The Rocky Mountain Saints [1873, New York: D. Appleton and Co.], 492).

No, I do not see it that way. I only see it as establishing what the Journal of Discourses is not. It is not an authoritative source in the same sense that the scriptures are, no matter how many people these days try to say otherwise via various ways and means. As you admitted, they were never canonized and are not part of the standard works of the Church, and never have been in that sense.

I've calmed down a little bit since my last posting (I was under the influence of caffeine last time) and I think we agree on the JoD a lot more than we disagree.

I think we can agree on a few specific points:

1. Contents of the JoD vary in importance and authority.

2. The JoD as a whole was considered an important publication by General Authorities and Church members but was not in any way canon.

3. The extemporaneous nature of some of the statements calls their accuracy into question.

4. Some of the topics which were published in the JoD impacted the lives and religious experience of 19th century Saints.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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 benefitedâ?¦(D&C 91).

[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

And let me restate MY thesis. You are unequivocally wrong! As stenographies, your arid faith in these representations are untenable. They cannot be deemed accurate unless it can be shown that they were edited and approved. Your disingenuous argument for someone to "provide...evidence" to the contrary is completely irrational. Where the burden of proof is yours to show their integrity (because Brigham Young himself set that standard), you cannot whimsically pass it off to the other party! If you want to stick to your guns, go ahead. Keep squirting...just make sure you finish in time for supper.

PacMan

[PacMan]

I think the most compelling evidence for Adam-God comes from the Journals of Wilford Woodruff. The references there are pretty unambiguous. Besides, it is an authoritative source since it has been used as the source for canonized scripture.

Disingenuous, irrational, and now logically incompetent? What you have done my friend is promulgated that wonderful fallacy called "affirming the consequent." You're being irrational again. If canonized scripture has that effect, then why isn't the whole "source" canonized. This shallow thinking is incredible...

PacMan

P.S. You probably think Huckabee's a conservative, huh?

[Hammer]

So wanderer,

What really is the problem?

[John Larsen]

Disingenuous, irrational, and now logically incompetent? What you have done my friend is promulgated that wonderful fallacy called "affirming the consequent." You're being irrational again. If canonized scripture has that effect, then why isn't the whole "source" canonized. This shallow thinking is incredible...

PacMan

P.S. You probably think Huckabee's a conservative, huh?

You have yet to show me where these stenograph were incorrect. There is evidence all around where the Church and Church authority has continued to quote from them and use them as a primary source. Your overstated insults add to the paucity of your case. When you can do something besides just throw insults, we can talk some more.