Journal Of Discourse

[mfbukowski]

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.

Don't know who this was addressed to- but I do agree with your statement- absolutely.

If you read that press release (and that is all that is) carefully you will see it is horribly ambiguous and really doesn't say much at all.

[rongo]

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.

Yes.

[rongo]

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.

I've always told people who are concerned about their heterodox views (one was a young man who didn't think he was worthy to go on a mission because he believed in progression between kingdoms) that the doctrinal portions of the temple recommend interview (questions 1-3), baptismal interview, and Articles of Faith (cannonized scripture) are the only required beliefs, and only in those words (i.e., if you believe that Jesus is the savior of our world and other worlds have their own saviors, you still "have faith in and a tesimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer." Even if Bruce R. McConkie's head explodes that you believe that).

He was a really sharp young man who thought deeply about things. I told him that outside of the above doctrinal requirements, members can and do believe a lot of different things, including progression between kingdoms, saviors of other worlds besides Jesus, limited foreknowledge, etc. As long as we don't teach either view as authoritative certain, it's perfectly okay to believe and even discuss (cautiously).

[mfbukowski]

This is the important nugget of the press release:

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Let me edit that as I see the meaning-

"The Brethren counsel together to establish doctrine... which RESIDES in the Standard Works and official proclamations and declarations"

To me this means they give the official interpretation of the standard works. I don't know how it could be otherwise- if the doctrine resides in the standard works the brethren are not "establishing" it no matter what the words say.

The doctrine RESIDES in the standard works.

And then this in the April Conference, said by an Apostle:

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”⁵ President Clark, quoted earlier, observed:

“To this point runs a simple story my father told me as a boy, I do not know on what authority, but it illustrates the point. His story was that during the excitement incident to the coming of [Johnston’s] Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk. …

“… The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.”⁶

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng

So do you have to accept all that is in the J of D? Of course not!

[DavidB]

mistaken post on my part.

Edited November 30, 2012 by DavidB

[mfbukowski]

I've always told people who are concerned about their heterodox views (one was a young man who didn't think he was worthy to go on a mission because he believed in progression between kingdoms) that the doctrinal portions of the temple recommend interview (questions 1-3), baptismal interview, and Articles of Faith (cannonized scripture) are the only required beliefs, and only in those words (i.e., if you believe that Jesus is the savior of our world and other worlds have their own saviors, you still "have faith in and a tesimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer." Even if Bruce R. McConkie's head explodes that you believe that).

He was a really sharp young man who thought deeply about things. I told him that outside of the above doctrinal requirements, members can and do believe a lot of different things, including progression between kingdoms, saviors of other worlds besides Jesus, limited foreknowledge, etc. As long as we don't teach either view as authoritative certain, it's perfectly okay to believe and even discuss (cautiously).

Absolutely! +1

[BCSpace]

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. The only way to know what is official doctrine in the JoD is to see it or similar published in the official publications of the Church.

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

Yes, as long as there is no disclaimer or caveat (rare).

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. Not all doctrine.

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

As as long as such portions or similar aren't officially published elsewhere, yes.

[Freedom]

We have doctrine but not dogma. Because we treat doctrine the way the scientific community treats scientific findings, the church is very careful not to give the impression that all is caste in stone. All that is published by the church is the current understanding of what God wants us to know. This does not make it eternal laws, simply the current teachings of the church that are subject to change as more information comes to light.

The journal of discourses is of questionable reliability because what is published is not necessarily anywhere close to what was said or indented.

[Kemara]

To me this means they give the official interpretation of the standard works. I don't know how it could be otherwise- if the doctrine resides in the standard works the brethren are not "establishing" it no matter what the words say.

The doctrine RESIDES in the standard works.

This bears repeating, over and over.........and over again if necessary.

[rongo]

The journal of discourses is of questionable reliability because what is published is not necessarily anywhere close to what was said or indented.

I disagree with this. I have carefully read all 26 volumes and taken voluminous notes, and I have a good appreciation for the accuracy of the stenographers. The quality of stenographers is quite high.

There is no need to use the "not recorded correctly" defense on anything in there. I think people are scared of what "might" be in there more than anything because they aren't first-hand familiar with it. There really isn't anything "in there" that would even tempt me to claim "Woah ---- that's not even close to 'what was said or intended.' "

[canard78]

Let me see, where did I put it. Oh yes...

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

JoD is interesting reading and has some nice ideas (and a couple of strange ones), but it's not doctrine. Nor are the Ensigns or church manuals.

[rongo]

The problem with the LDS Newsroom statement is that it tries to too easily dismiss some past statements as stemming from "a single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion." None of the " 'ol chestnuts" from critics were "single statement/single occassion" wonders ----- there are always at least a few different statements by more than one leader.

Point well taken, though. Authorized past prophets have taught (because they believed) things we don't accept or understand the same way today. There's no problem with this, because we don't believe that God remote-controls people or prophets' every thought, bias, etc.

[ERayR]

Indeed Joseph very much opposed the restrictions of creeds and maintained the restoration would free mankind to progress on an individual level and direction guided by the Holy Ghost.

[canard78]

The problem with the LDS Newsroom statement is that it tries to too easily dismiss some past statements as stemming from "a single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion." None of the " 'ol chestnuts" from critics were "single statement/single occassion" wonders ----- there are always at least a few different statements by more than one leader.

Point well taken, though. Authorized past prophets have taught (because they believed) things we don't accept or understand the same way today. There's no problem with this, because we don't believe that God remote-controls people or prophets' every thought, bias, etc.

Hi Rongo. Don't worry, I wasn't posting it 'at' you, it was more to the thread in general.

I embrace non-canon sources (including JoD) as great sources for pondering the gospel and developing my understanding of it.

I also agree that it's daft to dismiss is as 'bad record keeping.' I've read apologists who try to dismiss some of the 'awkward' content by suggesting maybe it was never said. King Follet discourse and the Zelph revelation get the same 'non-reliable conflicting accounts' treatment from some apologists. They don't do the same with the first vision...

It's all good stuff and interesting too. It doesn't have to be binding doctrine to be the only source of upliftment.

[blackstrap]

If the prophet rises in GC and states " thus saith the Lord" , are we to assume that he is then acting as a prophet and not a man? We are still to receive our own spiritual confirmation ,but still...

I do notice how rarely that phrase is used.

That said, in my lifetime I have found that if I disagree with some statement from the 'top 15' ,then there is at least a 75% chance that it is my error.( I am giving myself a lot of leeway for the other 25 % )

[mfbukowski]

Indeed Joseph very much opposed the restrictions of creeds and maintained the restoration would free mankind to progress on an individual level and direction guided by the Holy Ghost.

Exactly! If one defines every "jot and tittle" there is no room for personal interpretation and therefore personal revelation. The Holy Ghost is not a remote computer printer repeating the identical copy at various remote locations- it works as an integrated unit with the individuals needs, wants, and understanding, and level of ability to commune with the spirit. Some may receive a simple yes or no and others may be ready for "paragraphs" of explanation on a given topic, and Joseph was certainly an expert on how the Holy Ghost works and he knew this well.

[Freedom]

I disagree with this. I have carefully read all 26 volumes and taken voluminous notes, and I have a good appreciation for the accuracy of the stenographers. The quality of stenographers is quite high.

So let me get this straight - you read an article in the National Inquirer or New York Times that claims to be quoting a certain person and by simply reading the article you can vouch for the accuracy of the quote? Do you not see the logical fallacy in this argument? The only way you can confirm its accuracy is by comparing it to what was actually said. Do you understand how the volume came to be?

Edited December 1, 2012 by Freedom

[Nathair/|\]

I've always told people who are concerned about their heterodox views (one was a young man who didn't think he was worthy to go on a mission because he believed in progression between kingdoms) that the doctrinal portions of the temple recommend interview (questions 1-3), baptismal interview, and Articles of Faith (cannonized scripture) are the only required beliefs, and only in those words (i.e., if you believe that Jesus is the savior of our world and other worlds have their own saviors, you still "have faith in and a tesimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer." Even if Bruce R. McConkie's head explodes that you believe that).

He was a really sharp young man who thought deeply about things. I told him that outside of the above doctrinal requirements, members can and do believe a lot of different things, including progression between kingdoms, saviors of other worlds besides Jesus, limited foreknowledge, etc. As long as we don't teach either view as authoritative certain, it's perfectly okay to believe and even discuss (cautiously).

Hey, if my heresies don't mark me as unacceptable, few will.

[rongo]

So let me get this straight - you read an article in the National Inquirer or New York Times that claims to be quoting a certain person and by simply reading the article you can vouch for the accuracy of the quote? Do you not see the logical fallacy in this argument? The only way you can confirm its accuracy is by comparing it to what was actually said. Do you understand how the volume came to be?

You're right, in the sense that none of us were physically there, and so we can't prove with absolute certainty whether *anything* really was or wasn't said.

I think the burden of proof is on those who claim that the transcripts are untrustworthy. What, specifically, do you or anyone else hold forth as being incorrectly transcribed and recorded? Or, is the claim just a blanket carte blanche for when we don't want awkward or hard-to-explain statements?

Have you read, really read, any of Journal of Discourses? I don't mean look up a quote when one is presented, but sit down and read it? If you do, you get a feel for each speaker's "voice." This "voice" can be compared to other items in JoD that were written (not spoken ---- one famous one is one the Tanners blatantly doctored, and it was a *written* address from Brigham Young, not a talk). The stenographers were skilled and competent ---- a really lost skill nowadays with digital recording. My wife had an elderly sister in her ward who transcribed baby blessings and talks with the Gregg system, and typed up and sent them to people. In the era of stenography, questioning the accuracy or competency of stenographers would have been kind of mental. They were good at what they did.

Even in our day ----- I had a girl in my ward who tried and tried to pass the court reporting tests, but couldn't quite pass. They are very stringent. How can we rely completely on the absolute accuracy of court reporters (when the stakes of what was really said and not said are very high)? None of us were "there." Can't we just call into question the accuracy of court reporters?

[CV75]

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

I'd agree--as I mentioned in an earlier post, if not all scripture is doctrine, and all that is spoken by the Lord's servants when moved upon by the Holy Ghost is scripture, then not all that is spoken by the Lord's servants when moved upon by the Holy Ghost is doctrine, either.

[rongo]

If the prophet rises in GC and states " thus saith the Lord" , are we to assume that he is then acting as a prophet and not a man? We are still to receive our own spiritual confirmation ,but still...

Correct. Even if the prophet says "thus saith the Lord," and even if it's in General Conference, it is only the word of the Lord if it is the will of the Lord. In other words, saying it's the will of the Lord doesn't make it so unless it actually is, no matter who says it or where it's said.

John Taylor pointed this out pointedly when he was President of the Church (John Taylor, July 18, 1880. Journal of Discourses 22:201-202):

It requires the Presidency of the Church to seek after God in all of their administrations . . . Now we ought not to allow our feeling to have any place in these matters. No man has a right to use his priesthood to carry on his own peculiar ideas, or to set himself up as a standard, with the exception of the First Presidency, and they have no right to do it unless God be with them, and sustain them, and they are upheld by the people.

[Freedom]

You're right, in the sense that none of us were physically there, and so we can't prove with absolute certainty whether *anything* really was or wasn't said.

I think the burden of proof is on those who claim that the transcripts are untrustworthy. What, specifically, do you or anyone else hold forth as being incorrectly transcribed and recorded? Or, is the claim just a blanket carte blanche for when we don't want awkward or hard-to-explain statements?

Church leaders spoke off the cuff and did not follow careful doctrinal protocols we have today. We do not know who recorded the talks, and the person who transcribed did it without the authorization of the original speaker. You seem to be treating the journal the way evangelicals treat the bible, as some sort of inerrant god breathed relic.

[rongo]

Church leaders spoke off the cuff

Sometimes. And sometimes, they were prepared remarks. Sometimes they were *written* talks, not spoken (hard to claim off the cuff when they're written, though).

and did not follow careful doctrinal protocols we have today.

Which makes them, in many instances, more interesting reading than today's carefully correlated, "safe" material. The reality is that no harm acccrued from the Brethren's willingness to speculate and talk in depth about what today would be considered "open questions."

We do not know who recorded the talks

Absolutely not true. We know who recorded them in 91% of the cases (I've counted, and am writing books on this). But you aren't talking about the 133 talks that don't list a stenographer ----- you are attempting to apply this "plausible deniability" across the board.

and the person who transcribed did it without the authorization of the original speaker

Again, absolutely not true. JoD was a Church-approved and sponsored periodical that was bound annually into book volumes. The Brethren knew and sanctioned the recording and publication of the talks.

You seem to be treating the journal the way evangelicals treat the bible, as some sort of inerrant god breathed relic.

Again, absolutely not true. There is fallible, wrong material in Journal of Discourses. I just don't try to explain it away by saying that it was (in every case) "not recorded correctly." The men meant to say what they said ---- even when they were "wrong" about what they said (which is a lot less of the case than people think or are afraid of).

[canard78]

Sometimes. And sometimes, they were prepared remarks. Sometimes they were *written* talks, not spoken (hard to claim off the cuff when they're written, though).

Which makes them, in many instances, more interesting reading than today's carefully correlated, "safe" material. The reality is that no harm acccrued from the Brethren's willingness to speculate and talk in depth about what today would be considered "open questions."

Absolutely not true. We know who recorded them in 91% of the cases (I've counted, and am writing books on this). But you aren't talking about the 133 talks that don't list a stenographer ----- you are attempting to apply this "plausible deniability" across the board.

Again, absolutely not true. JoD was a Church-approved and sponsored periodical that was bound annually into book volumes. The Brethren knew and sanctioned the recording and publication of the talks.

Again, absolutely not true. There is fallible, wrong material in Journal of Discourses. I just don't try to explain it away by saying that it was (in every case) "not recorded correctly." The men meant to say what they said ---- even when they were "wrong" about what they said (which is a lot less of the case than people think or are afraid of).

Very impressive response and well researched. I find it strange that people need to dismiss the JoD rose wholesale because they see a few thorns they can't explain.

Reality is, there are still divergent views among the 'brethren,' we just don't get to hear about them as much. Also, as recently as McConkie 'incorrect speculation' was put in print (blacks and priesthood in Mormon Doctrine) and later retracted. No-one says 'McConkie didn't say it' because it's published and in black and white (no pun intended).

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the GA council meeting. They (apparently) rarely agree immediately.

One example (from personal knowledge, so you'll need to trust me on this), the selection of the actor to play Jesus in the latest NT films took months because there were such strong views on the 3-4 candidates submitted for approval by the 15.

JoD was at a time when people felt comfortable (in the haven beyond the mountains) speaking their mind and speculating.