Journal Of Discourse

[DavidB]

Is the Church bound to everything contained in the Journal of Discourse?

Is everything in the Journal of Discourse Doctrine?

Is there any Doctrine in the Journal of Discourse?

If an official publication of the Church cites Journal of Discourses, does that exact portion of the JoD cited become Doctrine of the Church?

Do the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve establish Doctrine of the Church?

Are individual Saints duty bound to follow everything jot and tittle of the Journal of Discourse?

Can an individual Saint, rightly - that is without sinning - ignore those portions of the Journal of Discourses which have not been formally accepted by the First Presidency and Apostles.

Edited November 30, 2012 by DavidB

[T-Shirt]

Is the Church bound to everything contained in the Journal of Discourse?

No

Is everything in the Journal of Discourse Doctrine?

No

Is there any Doctrine in the Journal of Discourse?

Yes

If an official publication of the Church cites Journal of Discourses, does that exact portion of the JoD cited become Doctrine of the Church?

Usually

Do the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve establish Doctrine of the Church?

Yes

Are individual Saints duty bound to follow everything jot and tittle of the Journal of Discourse?

No

Can an individual Saint, rightly - that is without sinning - ignore those portions of the Journal of Discourses which have not been formerly accepted by the First Presidency and Apostles.

The Church has never stated precisely what is, and what is not doctrine, in the Journal of Discourses, you'll have to figure that out on your own.

[DavidB]

Is the Church bound to everything contained in the Journal of Discourse?

No.

Is everything in the Journal of Discourse Doctrine?

No.

Is there any Doctrine in the Journal of Discourse?

I would say very likely to Yes.

If an official publication of the Church cites Journal of Discourses, does that exact portion of the JoD cited become Doctrine of the Church?

I understand that some believe once the Church has published something, that publication becomes binding on the Church and if there are teachings in that publication, those teachings become Doctrine.

Do the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve establish Doctrine of the Church?

According to a press release they do, so I will say Yes.

Are individual Saints duty bound to follow everything jot and tittle of the Journal of Discourse?

No, see above, not everything in the Journal of Discourses is binding on the Church or individual members of the Church.

Can an individual Saint, rightly - that is without sinning - ignore those portions of the Journal of Discourses which have not been formerly accepted by the First Presidency and Apostles.

Yes. The Saints are bound to what we have agreed to follow. The Journal of Discourse has not been canonized by the First Presidency nor the Quorum of the Twelve nor the General Membership of the Church; such being the case we can ignore those portions which have not been formerly accepted by the First Presidency and Quorum of the twelve.

[CV75]

2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

The JOD is likewise profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. So those who benefit from it are the people of God, or inclined to be the people of God.

I'm sure it contains doctrine, but I'm just as sure that doctrine isn't the entire point. The entire point would be the same as for scripture: for a person of God to get out of it what he is ready to receive, as guided by the Spirit.

EDIT: since people are actually ansering each question, here's my 2 cents:

Is the Church bound to everything contained in the Journal of Discourse? NO

Is everything in the Journal of Discourse Doctrine? NO

Is there any Doctrine in the Journal of Discourse? YES

If an official publication of the Church cites Journal of Discourses, does that exact portion of the JoD cited become Doctrine of the Church? NO

Do the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve establish Doctrine of the Church? YES

Are individual Saints duty bound to follow everything jot and tittle of the Journal of Discourse? NO

Can an individual Saint, rightly - that is without sinning - ignore those portions of the Journal of Discourses which have not been formerly accepted by the First Presidency and Apostles. YES -- in fact, I can't remember reading much of anything from the JOD, and I sin less now than I ever did.

(Do you mean formally or formerly accepted?--former doctrine is always replaceable)

Edited November 30, 2012 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

Is the Church bound to everything contained in the Journal of Discourse?

Is everything in the Journal of Discourse Doctrine?

Is there any Doctrine in the Journal of Discourse?

If an official publication of the Church cites Journal of Discourses, does that exact portion of the JoD cited become Doctrine of the Church?

Do the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve establish Doctrine of the Church?

Are individual Saints duty bound to follow everything jot and tittle of the Journal of Discourse?

Can an individual Saint, rightly - that is without sinning - ignore those portions of the Journal of Discourses which have not been formally accepted by the First Presidency and Apostles.

If it's not in the standard works it's not doctrine.

But guess what- you get to decide that for yourself so why are you even asking??

[mfbukowski]

And since when is anyone here in a position to tell you what doctrine is or is not? Go ask your bishop, bishop.

[ControlFreak]

And since when is anyone here in a position to tell you what doctrine is or is not? Go ask your bishop, bishop.

Do bishops always correctly state what is doctrine?

I'd be surprised if most people agree that only standard works define doctrine...

[mfbukowski]

Do bishops always correctly state what is doctrine?

I'd be surprised if most people agree that only standard works define doctrine...

It's debatable as to whether or not there is ANY

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

And of course bishops don't always state correct doctrine- especially if there isn't any.

[DBMormon]

DavidB

Why did you answer your own question?

[ControlFreak]

It's debatable as to whether or not there is ANY

http://timesandseaso...ormon-doctrine/

And of course bishops don't always state correct doctrine- especially if there isn't any.

I agree with that. The definition of "doctrine" is tough to nail down.

I think the church was on the mark when it said that if it isn't said recently and repeatedly (newsroom statement?), don't hold us to it.

We recently discussed this in ward council, because the bishop got tired of everyone having off-topic lessons in church. (E.g.: How veganism is the higher law, anti-depressants/mental health medications are evil and won't allow you to feel the spirit, 1/3 of the host become recycled intelligence and try again...)

Bishop finally said if it wasn't taught again in the last 30 years, don't teach it in sunday school. I was pretty much in agreement with that.

[ControlFreak]

Is the reason I can't edit my posts because I'm still a trial member or something? Guess you'll all have to suffer my bad grammar and typos.

[DavidB]

Is the reason I can't edit my posts because I'm still a trial member or something? Guess you'll all have to suffer my bad grammar and typos.

yes

[Calm]

Usually

I would express it not as 'become doctrine' but rather it is now identified as one of the expressions of a particular doctrine.

[Calm]

And since when is anyone here in a position to tell you what doctrine is or is not? Go ask your bishop, bishop.

I think you are confusing DavidB with DBMormon

[Calm]

Is the reason I can't edit my posts because I'm still a trial member or something? Guess you'll all have to suffer my bad grammar and typos.

25 is the point of no return, as of this post you have three more to go.

[DBMormon]

I think you are confusing DavidB with DBMormon

confused me too!

[mathonihah]

Is the reason I can't edit my posts because I'm still a trial member or something?

It means that you have not yet been favored by the Gods!

[mfbukowski]

I think you are confusing DavidB with DBMormon

Aha! You are right! My apologies to all! Really messed up.- sorry

[Storm Rider]

I find so many questions quite strange. It is difficult at times for me to take some things serious; so often questions appear to be "baiting". Why would anyone think that the JD is where the doctrine of the Church is found? When did our members forget that they are responsible for gaining a testimony of truth? How often has it been taught that each member is responsible to listen, contemplate, and pray about what is said in General Conference? At times I can be rather flummoxed with what some members think or even believe. I realize as I write this how prideful it may sound and that many are just trying to live as close to the Spirit as possible. However, it is the very recognition that we are called to be disciples of Jesus Christ, first and foremost, that should answer so many questions. Prophets are not called to live our lives for us; their purpose is not to lead us about by the nose, to answer all our questions, and to ensure that we do not endure hardships. We are sons and daughters of God; He is our Master, our Teacher, and our Lord. This life is a trial provided that we may learn and demonstrate our desire to overcome the temptations of a carnal existence for the sublime, the holy, and the righteous.

[rongo]

I think people are often unclear about what Journal of Discourses is and isn't, and understanding this is part of the larger question of where JoD fits in as an authoritative source of doctrine. Here is an excerpt from the introduction of volume 1 of my JoD commentary series (sans footnotes):

Journal of Discourses is a 26 volume work of nearly 10,000 pages that contains material from Mormon Church leaders from 1851 to 1886 (with some earlier material from Joseph Smith). Although it has a certain mystique among interested Mormons and non-Mormons (those who refer to or quote from it), almost nobody has ever read any significant portions of it. Almost all knowledge or use of it is derivative; people quote from it based on others’ quotations from it, not from their own firsthand reading or experience with it . . .

. . . Journal of Discourses contains 1417 items, covering 9,776 pages. This total includes seven dedicatory prayers (Salt Lake Temple cornerstones, the Tabernacle, and the St. George and Logan temples), two court transcripts, nine 4^th of July orations, eight 24^th of July orations, two school opening orations, and a Christmas address to public works employees. 38 of the talks are funeral addresses, and 356 of the talks (25%) are General Conference addresses (including General Conference held in May for a few years and in venues other than Salt Lake City, such as Coalville, Logan, and Provo).

There are 53 individuals who appear in Journal of Discourses, including 22 who appear only once, and another 16 who gave less than 15 talks. This makes roughly 90% of the material in Journal of Discourses the work of the “Big 15.” Among the “Big 15,” it’s interesting to compare the number of talks with the number of pages each covered:

Number of talks Number of pages

1. Brigham Young 387 (27%) 2285 (23%)

2. John Taylor 166 (12%) 1325 (14%)

3. Orson Pratt 124 (9%) 1298 (13%)

4. George Q. Cannon 111 (8%) 924 (9%)

5. Heber C. Kimball 110 (8%) 517 (5%)

6. George A. Smith 78 (6%) 422 (4%)

7. Wilford Woodruff 67 (5%) 422 (4%)

8. Orson Hyde 49 (3%) 272 (3%)

9. Erastus Snow 47 (3%) 264 (3%)

10. Daniel H. Wells 38 (3%) 243 (2%)

11. Charles Penrose 29 (2%) 222 (2%)

12. Joseph F. Smith 24 (2%) 188 (2%)

13. Lorenzo Snow 21 (2%) 152 (1%)

14. Franklin D. Richards 20 (1%) 130 (1%)

15. Parley P. Pratt 15 (1%) 125 (1%)

The talks were recorded, with few exceptions, by trained stenographers who accurately reported what was said. . .

George D. Watt, a British convert (and the first person baptized in the British mission) was the primary stenographer, and he began the project of publishing collected sermons in volumes in the Church’s publishing center in Liverpool, England [then follows a list of stenographers and how many talks each was associated with] . . . 133 talks cannot be linked to a specific stenographer, and Joseph Smith’s King Follett Discourse was listed as reported by Willard Richards, Thomas Bullock, William Clayton, and Wilford Woodruff.

Talk venues ranged across the spectrum. While most occurred in various locations in Salt Lake City (various ward meetinghouses, the Bowery, the Old Tablernacle [adobe], the New Tabernacle, the Assembly Hall, Big Cottonwood Canyon, temple cornerstones, Heber C. Kimball’s home, Church historian’s office, the public square, the new theater, the council house, the social hall, Utah Territory District Court, and the Young Men’s Literary Association hall), locations in Illinois (Commerce and Nauvoo for Joseph Smith talks), Idaho (Cache Valley, Paris, and Rexburg), and even England (Sheffield; a church conference) are included. Within Utah, locations outside of Salt Lake City appear as venues for talks in Journal of Discourses: American Fork, Bear Lake, Beaver, Bountiful, Box Elder, Brigham City, Coalville, Ephraim, Farmington, Franklin, Grantsville, Hooperville, Hyde Park, Hyrum, Kaysville, Lehi, Logan, Manti, Mill Creek, Mount Pleasant, Nephi, Ogden, Paradise, Parowan, Payson, Provo, Richfield, Richmond, Springville, St. George, Tooele, Wellsville, and Willow Creek.

I think it's clear that "any and all things" that appear in Journal of Discourses cannot reasonably be claimed to be authoritative doctrine, simply based on the nature of what and when they were. Even the General Conference addresses are in the same boat as modern conference addresses: we do not believe that the Brethren are remote-controlled robots whose every thought and utterance when in the Conference Center stems from an "always on" high-speed connection to God. Even GC addresses, even from the Prophet, have to be evaluated on an individual basis based on the Holy Spirit, and this is actually what makes it so that the prophet can't lead the Church astray, not God somehow physically preventing or smiting the prophet from ever saying anything "wrong" at GC or at other times. From my paper on blind obedience/infallibility/prophet leading the Church astray (sans footnotes). Pay attention to the George Q. Cannon quote at the end (First Presidency member speaking in General Conference):

Church leaders have thus profoundly outlined an inherent and built-in defense against errant leaders leading the Church astray: if the members strive to follow the counsel to obtain personal confirmatory revelation, and enjoy the Spirit of the Lord, any falsehoods taught will “die on the vine” and not take root among the people. This is because the Church “is a living entity . . . composed of living entities,” all with freedom and independence of thought, ability to discern, and a mandate from God to know things for themselves:

"How do you know that your humble servant is really, honestly, guiding and counseling you aright, and directing the affairs of the kingdom aright? . . . How do you know but I am teaching false doctrine? How do you know that I am not counseling you wrong? How do you know but I will lead you to destruction? . . . Live so that you can discern between the truth and error, between light and darkness, between the things of God and those not of God, for by the revelations of the Lord, and these alone, can you and I understand the things of God . . . But to return to my question to the Saints, “How are you going to know about the will and commands of heaven?” By the Spirit of revelation; that is the only way you can know. How do I know but what I am doing wrong? How do I know but what we will take a course for our utter ruin?. . . But how do you know that I may not yet do wrong? How do you know but I will bring in false doctrine and teach the people lies that they may be damned? . . . If I were to preach false doctrine here, it would not be an hour after the people got out, before it would begin to fly from one to another, and they would remark, “I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right! What did Brother Brigham mean? That did not sound quite right, it was not exactly the thing!” All these observations would be made by the people, yes, even by the sisters. It would not sit well on the stomach, that is, on the spiritual stomach . . . It would not sit well on the mind . . . and I will defy any man to preach false doctrine without being detected; and we need not go to the Elders of Israel, the children who have been born in these mountains possess enough of the Spirit to detect it."

Church leaders are obviously keenly aware of the responsibility they carry and the very real possibility, approximating certainty, that their mortality and fallibility will introduce ideas and views that are not of God. President George Q. Cannon emphasized the need for Church members to diligently detect uninspired items in their counsel and to cling to the good and discard the bad:

"I hope what I have said may be blessed to your profit. If I have said any unwise thing, forget it. If I have said any improper thing, I hope it will pass from your minds, and that which is good, cling to you." (footnotes 33 and 34)

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/jones-mckay/well-nigh-as-dangerous

[DavidB]

A general consensus seems to be that what the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 have not established as Doctrine or binding on the Church is not Doctrine and not binding on members generally.

Therefore, individual members of the Church (who have not received personal revelation otherwise) may ignore those portions of the Journal of Discourses which have NOT been established as doctrine through [the] divine inspiration, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

*edit - to include NOT

Edited November 30, 2012 by DavidB

[DBMormon]

A general consensus seems to be that what the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 have not established as Doctrine or binding on the Church is not Doctrine and not binding on members generally.

Therefore, individual members of the Church (who have not received personal revelation otherwise) may ignore those portions of the Journal of Discourses which through divine inspiration, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together to establish doctrine.

I would agree except to say the responsibility and accountability falls on the individual to be in tune with the HG. He can not use he lack of being spiritually fed as an excuse

[rongo]

When you try to make a list of what has actually been "formally accepted by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles," it isn't a very big list. I have known members who have heterodox views on the Godhead and other things, but who believe in the Restoration (priesthood keys and visitations) as a tangible reality. They are just as much a member as I am ---- as long as they don't insist on teaching their heterodox views in Church settings.

There is not a whole lot one has to believe to be a member of the Church ----- as is often said, we are much more focused on orthopraxis (correct actions, behavior, and covenants) than orthodoxy (correct thinking or beliefs).

[DavidB]

Do you agree with the following:

individual members of the Church (who have not received personal revelation otherwise) may ignore those portions of the Journal of Discourses which have not been established as doctrine through [the] divine inspiration, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

[mfbukowski]

When you try to make a list of what has actually been "formally accepted by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles," it isn't a very big list. I have known members who have heterodox views on the Godhead and other things, but who believe in the Restoration (priesthood keys and visitations) as a tangible reality. They are just as much a member as I am ---- as long as they don't insist on teaching their heterodox views in Church settings.

There is not a whole lot one has to believe to be a member of the Church ----- as is often said, we are much more focused on orthopraxis (correct actions, behavior, and covenants) than orthodoxy (correct thinking or beliefs).

Indeed one may use the criteria the church itself quite obviously uses- the baptismal interview to become a member and the temple recommend interview to maintain oneself in the "highest" degree of membership.

If one can truly in good conscience answer all those questions as the church would have them answered, one is a member in good standing.

It's really as simple as that.

Complex questions of the nature of the Godhead or the theology of what is "real" in the mind of God, the nature of Adam and his relation to God etc are all just abstract irrelevancies compared to the simple test of orthopraxis found in those interviews.