Journal Of Discourses

[Chronos]

Enough with the personal attacks.

~Chronos

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

MormonMason has found some areas. Charles C. Rich had a big issue with the steno report of the "adam god" discourse in volume one, as per his copy of the JD in the Church archives.

[HiJolly]

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.

I think it would be appropriate to say that the JoD is GENERALLY accurate and therefore GENERALLY representative of the views and beliefs of those who spoke. But I don't think you are wanting to use the text in a manner warranted by GENERAL accuracy and acceptance.

Thus, the disconnect.

HiJolly

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]Charles C. Rich had a big issue with the steno report of the "adam god" discourse in volume one, as per his copy of the JD in the Church archives.

Transcript and/or source speaking about this (if you have one)?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Transcript and/or source speaking about this (if you have one)?

I need to see if I can't get a photograph of said page, I only know of the marginal note due to the research of Mark E. Peterson, who reviewed the sermon as contained in Rich's copy of JD.

[Bob Crockett]

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.

Stenography is a suspicious skill. I deal wth and hire stenos all the time. In this day of computerization, I think they err about 3 to 5% on a per page basis, and the errors increase the longer the stengography goes on without a break.

Moreover, the JoD contains talks that were not stenographically recorded. The King Follett Discourse comes to mind.

There are significant differences between the transcripts of the John D. Lee trial, for excample.

I think it was Elden Watson who indicated to me that the famous Adam God lecture at 1:50 is missing an entire paragraph.

The brethren did not edit and review the Journal of Discouses as the talks were given. They edited and reviewed the talks for publication in the Deseret News, usually, but given the fact that many of them -- Brigham Young especially -- were not much into reading, I wonder exactly how much editing really went on.

I have strong doubts about the quality of the editing during the 1880s when the brethren were underground.

And then there's publisher, George Watt and the chief stenographer. Excommunicated for the Godbeite heresy.

When the Church approved the publication, I don't think it was an attestation as to contents.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think it was Elden Watson who indicated to me that the famous Adam God lecture at 1:50 is missing an entire paragraph.

Charles Rich saw a large discrepancy in that sermon, according to Mark Peterson, but I need to see if I can check Rich's copy of the discourse.

[Bob Crockett]

Charles Rich saw a large discrepancy in that sermon, according to Mark Peterson, but I need to see if I can check Rich's copy of the discourse.

I believe that Elden Watson worked for Peterson.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I believe that Elden Watson worked for Peterson.

Excellent. I wonder what the odds are that I will be able to see the book in question if I make a trip to the archives.

[wanderer]

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!

They are the words of our prophets. We don't need anyone to specifically tell us that they have weight, measure, value, etc. The entire premise of the religion is the utter acceptance of the words and the teachings of a LIVING prophet. No if's, and's, or but's. It is automatically "officially approved" because it is the teachings of the prophets. Why is it that we call into question the reliability of the transcribers of the JoD but we think that JS got basically every word of the BoM right? Sure, he was allegedly inspired, but I'm thinking perhaps God wants the teachings of his prophets to get recorded pretty accurately.

It makes ZERO sense to me that God would go to the trouble of calling a prophet to speak for him, inspire him to say certain things, and then "allow" for a misprepresentation of those things to be made, causing the Saints to one day basically disregard entire portions of their talks simply because we don't think it jives with what we want to believe now.

Of course this brings us full circle to the Bible. Please don't take it there. Let's limit this to the BoM and the JoD.

[Doctor Steuss]

They are the words of our prophets. We don't need anyone to specifically tell us that they have weight, measure, value, etc. The entire premise of the religion is the utter acceptance of the words and the teachings of a LIVING prophet. No if's, and's, or but's.

[...]

"We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything that they were told to do by those who preside over them, if they knew it was wrong: but such obedience is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God...would despise the idea. Others in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves."

The Millenial Star volume 14, number 38, page 593.

[wanderer]

So wanderer,

What really is the problem?

My problems are many.

I am questioning my faith.

I am questioning my faith based on the words and actions of our past and present prophets of the church, which this entire religion rests upon. I don't want perfection, but I want it to jive.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

I am questioning my faith based on the words and actions of our past and present prophets of the church, which this entire religion rests upon. [...]

And here I though this entire religion rested upon Christ...(?)

[selek]

They are the words of our prophets.

Actually- you don't know that. As has been pointed out repeatedly, they are stenographies, and are historically suspect. For all that they claim to be, there is no evidence that they are accurate recordings of our Prophets words. Generally accurate, perhaps, but not fool proof and not infallible.

We don't need anyone to specifically tell us that they have weight, measure, value, etc.

Actually, we do. Brigham Young himself set up the test for that, and the JoD fails it. We can rely on the excerpts that are referenced in modern sources, but we cannot accept the entirety of the JoD as anything other than a collection of other people's recollections of what the prophets said.

The entire premise of the religion is the utter acceptance of the words and the teachings of a LIVING prophet.

Actually, the entire premise of the MORMON faith is the resurrection and atonement of Jesus Christ. We lean on modern prophets for our understanding, but the Church has been very explicit- these men are not infallible and we and we alone are responsible for our testimonies.

No if's, and's, or but's. It is automatically "officially approved" because it is the teachings of the prophets.

I gotta call BS on this one. First, you don't know that they are the actual teachings of the Prophets- you merely assume they are. Second, there is no such standard anywhere promulgated by the Church.

CFR, wanderer- give me an example anywhere, where a Church authority has said that everything that passes the Prophet's lips is automatically scripture.

Why is it that we call into question the reliability of the transcribers of the JoD but we think that JS got basically every word of the BoM right? Sure, he was allegedly inspired, but I'm thinking perhaps God wants the teachings of his prophets to get recorded pretty accurately.

I'm smelling a lot of troll here, how's bout you? First and foremost, even Joseph didn't claim his translation was perfect- he acknowledged that there might be errors and those errors were his. Second, the oft-touted anti-MO claim of thousands of revisions to the BoM gives the lie to your assumption.

Third, Joseph was translating through divine agency and intervention, rather than sitting in a field or a chapel taking notes while someone else spoke.

It makes ZERO sense to me that God would go to the trouble of calling a prophet to speak for him, inspire him to say certain things, and then "allow" for a misprepresentation of those things to be made, causing the Saints to one day basically disregard entire portions of their talks simply because we don't think it jives with what we want to believe now.

So you do subscribe to the un-biblical, illogical, and anti-Mormon presumption that prophets are more than mortal men. That is clearly your problem, and not the Church's. The Church has never suggested that our prophets, apostles, and leaders were anything other than imperfect men doing the best they could despite their imperfections.

Normal Latter-day Saints understand this.

Of course this brings us full circle to the Bible. Please don't take it there. Let's limit this to the BoM and the JoD.

Bottom line, the Journal of Discourses are someone else's recollections and notes on what the Prophets said. They do not have the imprimatur of the Church, nor have they been vetted by the original authors, and we know there are issues with the accuracy of the records.

That is an extremely faulty premise upon which to attack the Church or deliberately undermine one's own testimony.

[Bob Crockett]

It makes ZERO sense to me that God would go to the trouble of calling a prophet to speak for him, inspire him to say certain things, and then "allow" for a misprepresentation of those things to be made, causing the Saints to one day basically disregard entire portions of their talks simply because we don't think it jives with what we want to believe now.

Of course this brings us full circle to the Bible. Please don't take it there. Let's limit this to the BoM and the JoD.

It doesn't work the way you think it does. You have fallen into a Mormon facsimile of the Bible is inerrant doctrine. Your view is that nothing the Brethren pronounce should ever be inconsistent. Trust me, you'll find inconsistencies within every General Conference, much less between the JoD and what is said today.

In Acts we read that Peter had to be told three times in a vision that the Gentiles were entitled to the Gospel, and still he doubted but then understood in his relationship with Cornelius. In Galatians 2 Paul calls him a "false brother" for not adhering to the prior revelation Peter had received. These particular passages have troubled theologians for years, as it shows human weakness manifested in the holder of the keys.

Doctrine is not understood by reading it on a piece of paper -- any piece of paper. John 7:17 (must do the will of Father to truly understand). Unlike the teachings of our EV brethren, the Bible teaches that the gospel is understood by the Holy Spirit, also by "power," meaning the priesthood, as well as the "word." I Thess. 1:5.

[structurecop]

And here I though this entire religion rested upon Christ...(?)

I think wanderer here has made up his mind. He has two choices, pretty much -- he can shift his understanding of revelation and what comprises official teachings or he can lose his faith.

If he clings to his previous (erroneous) understanding, I think his choice is clear.

I think he should watch the Mormon Stories podcast of Dr. Ted Lyon to get a better understanding of the inner workings of Church leadership as a good starting point.

[gadianton]

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.

Not to mention the inconvenient truth that many of the discourses therein are quite troubling.

[selek]

Not to mention the inconvenient truth that many of the discourses therein are quite troubling.

Don't you mean "when interpreted out of context and through the lenses of both modern narcissism and political correctness"?

I thought you did.

[wanderer]

And here I though this entire religion rested upon Christ...(?)

That's what I used to think too...but more and more I see the church teaching about the church, and less about the messages and teachings of Christ.

[Doctor Steuss]

That's what I used to think too...but more and more I see the church teaching about the church, and less about the messages and teachings of Christ.

You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -Mahatma Gandhi.

[selek]

That's what I used to think too...but more and more I see the church teaching about the church, and less about the messages and teachings of Christ.

Beeeeep... beeeep... beeeep...

The TEW (Troll early warning) system is now activated...

We are under a troll warning condition. A troll has been spotted in your area.

Please heed the following emergency troll baiting procedures:

1. Do not respond to the Troll, that will only encourage it.

2. Report the Troll to the moderating team using the report function.

3. Prepare for Troll ejection in 3... 2... 1...

Be on the look out for angry sock puppets which sometimes follow Troll ejections.

Thank you and now back to your regular broadcast discussion...

Beeeeep... beeeep... beeeep...

wanderer, your last comment is so laughable as to put Phyllis Diller and Bill Cosby to shame.

You are a fraud, a tool, and a troll. I may have to find CQUIRK and apologize................

[wanderer]

Btw, just to clarify, I am not a man. I don't know where that assumption came about, but I am in fact, female.

And I have not made my mind up, not in the least! I am just allowing my mind to go as far to one side of the arguments as I'm willing to take them.

Yes, the LDS church is based on the life and messages of Jesus Christ. However, sometimes it's difficult to go to church and find that. It's "the prophet said" or "the brethren say" all the time. I am more interested in the messages of Christ and the teachings contained in the Bible and BoM that deal more directly with that. Much of the lessons and talks I hear (and give) at church have so much more to do with "the church" than anything else.

It NEVER occured to me that JS might not have been a true prophet until recently. I have spent months afraid to let that thought go anywhere but the deepest corner of my mind. I've been very afraid to study it and determine what I believe. My lifelong church membership has left me with the impression of following the prophets and the words of the prophets. It has not been my experience to question their words. It has not been my experience to analyze whether or not we think their words were recorded accurately. We take a lot of this on faith, right? The same problems can exist with Biblical scripture that probably exist with LDS scripture. Inaccurate translation, interpolation, etc. But I don't feel qualified to determine when/where that is happening. I don't feel anyone on this board is qualified to do that. None of us knows the exact truth.

But I've come to one conclusion for myself:

If God is going to choose a prophet to be responsible for His Kingdom on this earth, then God will choose someone worthy of the job. And if I can't trust that is happening, I can't trust the entire premise.

The only way I can test that is to read and study and listen to the words of the prophets. No problem with the current prophets, right? They hardly ever say anything controversial or new. But then I look at the older prophets and I find myself thinking HUH? But if I question it, there is a neat and tidy answer that basically just says: a) he didn't mean that it wasn't recorded accurately c) we don't have the full story here. I am struggling with accepting that.

I am trying very hard to maintain my faith. But I am wrestling with it, believe me.

[wanderer]

Beeeeep... beeeep... beeeep...

The TEW (Troll early warning) system is now activated...

We are under a troll warning condition. A troll has been spotted in your area.

Please heed the following emergency troll baiting procedures:

1. Do not respond to the Troll, that will only encourage it.

2. Report the Troll to the moderating team using the report function.

3. Prepare for Troll ejection in 3... 2... 1...

Be on the look out for angry sock puppets which sometimes follow Troll ejections.

Thank you and now back to your regular broadcast discussion...

Beeeeep... beeeep... beeeep...

wanderer, your last comment is so laughable as to put Phyllis Diller and Bill Cosby to shame.

You are a fraud, a tool, and a troll. I may have to find CQUIRK and apologize................

Hey, I state my feeling and I get called names?

Is that not a legitimate feeling to express on this board or something? I didn't read that in any of the rules/regulations.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

I am trying very hard to maintain my faith. But I am wrestling with it, believe me.

I wish you the best of luck on your journey. If you end up unable to make the paradigm shift that seems to be necessary here as you go through these theological â??growing pains,â? hopefully you wonâ??t end up losing your spirituality along with your faith.

[selek]

Hey, I state my feeling and I get called names?

Is that not a legitimate feeling to express on this board or something? I didn't read that in any of the rules/regulations.

You don't get stomped on for expressing legitimate feelings, you get stomped on for making baseless accusations so ludicrous as to endanger recent hernia patients.

If, on the remote chance you are sincere, I wish you the best of luck and God's grace on your journey.

By the by, Cinepro (certainly no friend to LDS orthodoxy) hit the nail on the head for you in the second post of this interminable thread.

On the other hand, your entire premise in this thread is based on a false assumption and backed up with accusations that there's something wrong with the Church instead of yourself.

That, and the unfounded and unrealistic allegations you keep making are causing me to be skeptical and suspicious, to say the very least.

The only way I can test that is to read and study and listen to the words of the prophets. No problem with the current prophets, right? They hardly ever say anything controversial or new. But then I look at the older prophets and I find myself thinking HUH? But if I question it, there is a neat and tidy answer that basically just says: a) he didn't mean that it wasn't recorded accurately c) we don't have the full story here. I am struggling with accepting that.

You forgot a critical one that no Latter-day Saint would discount. Have you tried prayer, wanderer? Have you asked Heavenly Father to intercede on your behalf, or are you merely setting yourself up as an authority on what God would and would not do and how his prophets should think and behave?