Ariarates Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 So here's an interesting question: how does one properly cite the Journal of Discourses Harvard Style?In BYU Studies, I found the following citation:Journal of Discourses. 26 vols. London: Latter-day Saints Book Depot, 1855-86.My old Infobase Library uses the following citation:Journal of Discourses. Edited by George D. Watt, et al. 26 vols. Liverpool: F. D. Richards, et al., 1854-1886.Any other suggestions? Link to comment
LeSellers Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 My old Infobase Library uses the following citation:Journal of Discourses. Edited by George D. Watt, et al. 26 vols. Liverpool: F. D. Richards, et al., 1854-1886.Infobases' position notwithstanding, I disagree with this and do not know how to address the problem. Brother Watt did not "edit" the JOD, he wrote it. He did, we must acknowledge, get the vast majority of his material from the Brethren, so it was not his "original work", but neither was it anyone else's in a literal sense. And that is why the Journal cannot be regarded as wholly reliable. Lehi Link to comment
cdowis Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Infobases' position notwithstanding, I disagree with this and do not know how to address the problem. Brother Watt did not "edit" the JOD, he wrote it. I prefer the word "transcribed". "Wrote it" implies authorship. Link to comment
Bob Crockett Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) But he was the editor in every technical sense of the word. He received a commission from the FP to prepare this work and this is how he got paid. He collected the sermons and then published them. He didn't author them. I agree that they aren't all that reliable. Elden Watson analyzed the famous first Adam God sermon (circa 1:50) and demonstrated that there are paragraphs missing. Edited July 3, 2011 by rcrocket Link to comment
Ariarates Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 I've settled on this:Watt, G.D. et al., eds. (1854-1886). Journal of Discourses. London: Latter-Day Saints’ Book Depot. I checked all the first pages and counted more than 4 editors, hence the "et al." (HS says to use et al. in case there are more than 4 authors/editors). There are usually two places of publication: Liverpool + the then current GA's name, and London: LDS Book Depot. The latter remains the same throughout all 26 volumes (although the depot's address changed quite often).I think Watt et al. qualify as editors even though they call themselves reporters because they clearly edited the text.So there you have it, the correct way to cite the JoD Harvard style. Link to comment
erichard Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 ...I agree that they aren't all that reliable. Elden Watson analyzed the famous first Adam God sermon (circa 1:50) and demonstrated that there are paragraphs missing.Others have analyzed the ideas of Elden Watson and can demonstrate that there is something missing in his thinking.Richard Link to comment
Bob Crockett Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Others have analyzed the ideas of Elden Watson and can demonstrate that there is something missing in his thinking.RichardOh? And who and where with respect to the sermon at JD 1:50. I've followed him for years and he's generally reliable although gets pissed off when yo misspell his name. Link to comment
erichard Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Oh? And who and where with respect to the sermon at JD 1:50. I've followed him for years and he's generally reliable although gets pissed off when yo misspell his name.You win. We should not go OT talking about a person's weaknesses.Do you have a link to where EW analyzes the "circa JD 1:50" discourse and determines there are paragraphs missing?Richard Link to comment
Recommended Posts