Historically Complete

[JLHPROF]

So I've been thinking about publications of the Church (Deseret Book etc) of the discourses of the early prophets.  Or should I say, the selected discourses.

 

I want to get some feedback.  How do we feel when the Church publishes discourses of the early prophets to ONLY include teachings that coincide with current doctrines and eliminate anything that is no longer accepted?  Now, I'm not talking about class manuals here for in Church use (although that issue has come up before), but about publications that have as their purpose to show the teachings of a particular prophet.

For example,  I would wager that if I walked into Deseret Book to their doctrine section and selected ANY book reporting to contain the teachings of Brigham Young that the only teachings contained in those books would be the ones we currently accept.  It wouldn't actually be "whitewashed" but nor would it contain an accurate representation of the beliefs of Brigham Young, from Adam-God to Blood Atonement.  The same with Wilford Woodruff.  The same with Joseph Fielding Smith.  These items wouldn't be hidden but they would not be included in a book representing the beliefs and teachings of each man.  This bothers me a little.

 

Now, this is not always the case and nor do I believe the Church is hiding anything.  In fact the best example of the honest and complete version would be the Joseph Smith Papers project, readily available from Church outlets.  Nothing is censored.  Nothing is passed by correlation.  It's pretty wonderful historically speaking.  And I hope that up next is the Brigham Young Papers project.

 

Still, do we think it's fair historically to represent the early prophets beliefs with only teachings that are currently accepted, or should they contain a better historical snapshot of what that prophet actually believed?  Some of these collections do not represent the prophet at all in my opinion.

(And I don't want to get bogged down in any particular belief, other than as example).

 

 

 

 

 

[Buzzard]

I'd direct you to the Journal of Discourses, but I think it's currently out of print, and all the used copies have been gobbled up by anti's, who are avidly ever reading, but never able to come to a  knowledge of the truth. (apologies to our good brother, the Apostle Paul, for that sloppy paraphrase).

[JLHPROF]

I'd direct you to the Journal of Discourses, but I think it's currently out of print, and all the used copies have been gobbled up by anti's, who are avidly ever reading, but never able to come to a  knowledge of the truth. (apologies to our good brother, the Apostle Paul, for that sloppy paraphrase).

 

Oh I have a full set.  I read them regularly.  My point is not that the items aren't available.  It's whether or not it's correct to "edit and select" discourses of prophets to make them more in line with current teachings (like most collected discourse books ) when we publish them, or whether a collection of discourses of a prophet should always accurately display that prophet's personal beliefs in context, (like with the Joseph Smith Papers).

 

I mean, can any collection of discourses truly represent a prophet if we've removed anything they said we don't agree with?  Are we really put the "Teachings of Prophet XYZ" out there if we only include the things we like.

Edited September 16, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Duncan]

well, a few thoughts. Journals and letters and memoirs etc. provide another outlet of what people thought beyond what they said in transcripts. Those are sometimes available as well. Whether or not they are sold through DeseretBooks is another matter. if you want to know what so and so did on such and such a day find out who would have known about it, identify if they left any records and see what there is to see

[Buzzard]

Oh I have a full set.  I read them regularly.  My point is not that the items aren't available.  It's whether or not it's correct to "edit and select" discourses of prophets to make them more in line with current teachings (like most collected discourse books ) when we publish them, or whether a collection of discourses of a prophet should always accurately display that prophet's personal beliefs in context, (like with the Joseph Smith Papers).

 

I mean, can any collection of discourses truly represent a prophet if we've removed anything they said we don't agree with?

Haven't read them all, though I have spent some time perusing the Joseph Smith Papers website. It's my understanding that they are not redacted, and are or will be as complete as the church has the ability to make them, barring a few exceptions having to do with the temple. 

[cinepro]

So I've been thinking about publications of the Church (Deseret Book etc) of the discourses of the early prophets.  Or should I say, the selected discourses.

 

I'm sure someone can give a more detailed view of the exact relationship, but I'm not sure we should equate "Deseret Book" with "publications of the Church".  They are most definitely not the same thing.

 

Most of the publications at Deseret Book (either sold by them or published by them) are written or compiled by people who aren't Church leaders, and I suspect a huge influence in the writing, publication and promotion of the books is whether or not people will buy the books.  And if I were trying to write a biography of a Prophet or a compilation of a Prophet's writings, I think I have a pretty good idea of what is going to sell at Deseret Book.

 

For a good insight into this, you should read the background story on Ed Kimball's bio of his father (President Kimball).  If I recall, his initial submission was too long, but also had some things in it that the editors at Deseret Book didn't feel comfortable with.  But Ed didn't want to take it to Signature or another publisher, so they compromised and the published (edited) book includes a CD-ROM that has a PDF of the original unedited manuscript.  I've read both, and the the unpublished PDF is very different! 

Edited September 16, 2014 by cinepro

[JLHPROF]

I'm sure someone can give a more detailed view of the exact relationship, but I'm not sure we should equate "Deseret Book" with "publications of the Church".  They are most definitely not the same thing.

 

Fair enough.  But the question stands:  Is it right to publish a collection of discourses as representative of a prophet if we leave out everything that doesn't match current beliefs?

[Coreyb]

Deseret Book does sell the journal of discourses, at least at their flagship store in downtown slc. I do understand your complaint JLHPROF, it still is dishonest and unfair to a prophet by not publishing some of their doctrines that they themselves felt where so important. I have seen that they had on their shelf the Essential Joseph Smith by signature books. I think it would be great if they sold the rest of that series at the store, including Brigham Young, B. H. Roberts etc. I do believe that much of Joseph Fielding Smiths works are still sold there including the doctrines of salvation, though it may be published under Covenant. Come to think of it, a lot of the best things sold at Deseret Book are not published by them but rather by Greg Kofford, Signature Books, Oxford, Vintage, CFI etc.

[The Nehor]

I think the most egregious editing of the prophet's work is in our current prophet manuals. Is it just me or are those things 25% ellipses?

 

I wish that instead of just taking random cuttings of various talks we would treat them more like we do the talks of modern apostles and prophets and just take one sermon and discuss it rather then the weirdly disconnected snippets we get now.

 

In case anyone misses this I find the prophet manuals insipid. I think this is my Mission President's influence. He used to write Church manuals and pointed out that the scriptures are written by prophets while our lesson manuals are written by Seminary teachers and if the Church membership would step up our lessons would be based around the scriptures and full discourses by modern, early restoration, and other prophets.

[JLHPROF]

I think the most egregious editing of the prophet's work is in our current prophet manuals. Is it just me or are those things 25% ellipses?

 

I wish that instead of just taking random cuttings of various talks we would treat them more like we do the talks of modern apostles and prophets and just take one sermon and discuss it rather then the weirdly disconnected snippets we get now.

 

In case anyone misses this I find the prophet manuals insipid. I think this is my Mission President's influence. He used to write Church manuals and pointed out that the scriptures are written by prophets while our lesson manuals are written by Seminary teachers and if the Church membership would step up our lessons would be based around the scriptures and full discourses by modern, early restoration, and other prophets.

 

Agreed completely except on one point - the Church itself has the right to teach whatever it likes to its members.  They run the Church and if they want watered down correlated manuals (I share your disdain for the insipid nature of them) they have every right.  They are not passing those off (I hope) as complete pictures of what each prophet believed or taught, rather as source material for the topic of the week (tithing, family history, scripture reading etc).

 

But when a book of doctrine is published and presumes to represent the view of the prophet who gave the discourses and actually contains nothing of the sort, just approved teachings, I find that to be a gross misrepresentation and those books should not be endorsed.  If you are going to give me President Lorenzo Snow's discourses then I'd better find his teachings on man becoming as God in there.  If you are going to give me Brigham Young's teachings I expect to find Blood Atonement and Adam-God in there.  If you are going to give me President Joseph Fielding Smiths discourses I expect to read about the moon landing, that Adam was the first man etc.

Don't only include their currently accepted teachings - it's wrong.

[USU78]

 t still is dishonest and unfair to a prophet by not publishing some of their doctrines that they themselves felt where so important.

 

Editorial decisions that leave out something one person, but not another, wanted included are neither dishonest nor unfair.

 

Incomplete?

 

Of course.

 

Every compilation goes through an editing process, and the editing process leaves the editor's fingerprints all over the finished work.

 

Were Mormon's editorial decisions unfair or dishonest?

 

He left out an awful lot of stuff that the original speakers/writers thought was important.

[The Nehor]

Agreed completely except on one point - the Church itself has the right to teach whatever it likes to its members.  They run the Church and if they want watered down correlated manuals (I share your disdain for the insipid nature of them) they have every right.  They are not passing those off (I hope) as complete pictures of what each prophet believed or taught, rather as source material for the topic of the week (tithing, family history, scripture reading etc).

 

But when a book of doctrine is published and presumes to represent the view of the prophet who gave the discourses and actually contains nothing of the sort, just approved teachings, I find that to be a gross misrepresentation and those books should not be endorsed.  If you are going to give me President Lorenzo Snow's discourses then I'd better find his teachings on man becoming as God in there.  If you are going to give me Brigham Young's teachings I expect to find Blood Atonement and Adam-God in there.  If you are going to give me President Joseph Fielding Smiths discourses I expect to read about the moon landing, that Adam was the first man etc.

Don't only include their currently accepted teachings - it's wrong.

 

I would not fight the Brethren on this of course or apostasize over it. In fact I am teaching out of one of these insipid books on Sunday and I am going to try my hardest to make it an edifying experience....I would just rather teach from something else. I am probably going to get into trouble about this some day. A line in my Patriarchal Blessing tells me to use the manuals and materials available to fulfill my callings and I am not good at doing so. I write manuals as part of my living; I know what kind of people write them.

 

I do disagree with you on your latter point. I am okay with a book containing the teachings of Brigham Young leaving out Blood Atonement or Adam-God as long as they do not claim to be comprehensive. I just prefer to read a whole sermon rather then a hack job. If you want to leave out controversial sermons I would have no problem with it. Just don't take a sermon that includes them, publish it, and snip the offending passage out. I suppose it depends on the purpose of the book though.

[Buzzard]

Too bad they don't repeat the 1956 MP course of study entitled "The Great Apostasy" by T Edgar Lyon. ( my friends grandpa, btw).
Now THAT was a course of study. Found it in my fathers library when he passed.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Buzzard

[Coreyb]

Editorial decisions that leave out something one person, but not another, wanted included are neither dishonest nor unfair.

 

Incomplete?

 

Of course.

 

Every compilation goes through an editing process, and the editing process leaves the editor's fingerprints all over the finished work.

 

Were Mormon's editorial decisions unfair or dishonest?

 

He left out an awful lot of stuff that the original speakers/writers thought was important.

I disagree, it is a dishonest representation to create a book about a prophets doctrines/theology while leaving out teachings that said prophet felt were vitally important. How is that fair to the deceased prophet? Do you suppose if Brigham Young were here with us today he would be pleased with the editing process that edited out much of his most original ideas in order to make Discourses of Brigham Young? If you do, you and I have discovered two very different Brigham Youngs in our respective studies.

[cinepro]

Agreed completely except on one point - the Church itself has the right to teach whatever it likes to its members.  They run the Church and if they want watered down correlated manuals (I share your disdain for the insipid nature of them) they have every right.  They are not passing those off (I hope) as complete pictures of what each prophet believed or taught, rather as source material for the topic of the week (tithing, family history, scripture reading etc).

 

But when a book of doctrine is published and presumes to represent the view of the prophet who gave the discourses and actually contains nothing of the sort, just approved teachings, I find that to be a gross misrepresentation and those books should not be endorsed.  If you are going to give me President Lorenzo Snow's discourses then I'd better find his teachings on man becoming as God in there.  If you are going to give me Brigham Young's teachings I expect to find Blood Atonement and Adam-God in there.  If you are going to give me President Joseph Fielding Smiths discourses I expect to read about the moon landing, that Adam was the first man etc.

Don't only include their currently accepted teachings - it's wrong.

 

Honestly, it's not just the Prophets.  We can slice-and-dice almost anything to fit modern LDS views.

[The Nehor]

Honestly, it's not just the Prophets.  We can slice-and-dice almost anything to fit modern LDS views.

 

Okay....that is kind of disgusting. I love C.S. Lewis's books but suggesting that they are some kind of crypto-LDS teachings is an act of willful stupidity.

 

Yes, C.S. Lewis said some things that sound like they could come out of the mouths of LDS saints. If he were still alive he would be scandalized by this book. I hope that where he is now he just sees it as misguided idiocy and dismisses it with a chuckle and rolled eyes.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Editorial decisions that leave out something one person, but not another, wanted included are neither dishonest nor unfair.

 

Incomplete?

 

Of course.

 

Every compilation goes through an editing process, and the editing process leaves the editor's fingerprints all over the finished work.

 

Were Mormon's editorial decisions unfair or dishonest?

 

He left out an awful lot of stuff that the original speakers/writers thought was important.

 

Exactly right.

"But when a book of doctrine is published and presumes to represent the view of the prophet who gave the discourses and actually contains nothing of the sort, just approved teachings, I find that to be a gross misrepresentation and those books should not be endorsed."

It has a lot to do with how you define doctrine. Much of what we accept as doctrine isn't really doctrine.

1- Elder B.H. Roberts explained what Official Doctrine is:

The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.”

2- President Harold B. Lee explains,

“It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works.”

3- May 4, 2007 First Presidency Statement-

“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 and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publication.

This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.”

If it isn't included as described it isn't official church doctrine.

The other question is, should prophets and apostles sell their teachings of "doctrine" to the membership by selling their books at all?

[Buzzard]

Okay....that is kind of disgusting. I love C.S. Lewis's books but suggesting that they are some kind of crypto-LDS teachings is an act of willful stupidity.

 

Yes, C.S. Lewis said some things that sound like they could come out of the mouths of LDS saints. If he were still alive he would be scandalized by this book. I hope that where he is now he just sees it as misguided idiocy and dismisses it with a chuckle and rolled eyes.

I don't think he ever gave the gospel more than a passing glance once he discovered we proscribe booze. C.S. wasn't an alcoholic, but did like a stiff shot a few times a day. A faith promoting rumor existed on my mission that a pair of missionaries tracked him down shortly before he passed and had a couple hours of discussion with him, but I never have seen any reference for that, and can't believe that an Elder who had that experience would not have documented it. 

Having said that, I love "The Great Divorce".  Had a definite effect on the way I looked on life as a young man, and probably took me from a B to an A in an English class at BYU, when I was the only student conversant in Lewis, whom the professor loved.  And I was the Business major who wandered by mistake into the class designed for Humanities majors!

[JLHPROF]

 

 

Exactly right.

"But when a book of doctrine is published and presumes to represent the view of the prophet who gave the discourses and actually contains nothing of the sort, just approved teachings, I find that to be a gross misrepresentation and those books should not be endorsed."

It has a lot to do with how you define doctrine. Much of what we accept as doctrine isn't really doctrine.

1- Elder B.H. Roberts explained what Official Doctrine is:

The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.”

2- President Harold B. Lee explains,

“It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works.”

3- May 4, 2007 First Presidency Statement-

“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 and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publication.

This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.”

If it isn't included as described it isn't official church doctrine.

The other question is, should prophets and apostles sell their teachings of "doctrine" to the membership by selling their books at all?

 

But we are not talking about "official Church publications" like manuals.  We are talking about collected discourses designed to show the teachings of the prophets.  Removing "unofficial" doctrine from those is unethical from a historical standpoint.  It presents the prophet as someone other than he was.

 

The CHURCH has no obligation to include each prophets teachings that aren't official.  But any historian compiling a collection of discourses should have no hesitation about including key teachings of a prophet regardless of Church position.

[HappyJackWagon]

JLHPROF,

You misread my post. I answered the main question with agreement with USU78 about what editing entails.

I then discussed doctrine just to define what is official and what isn't. So there is much included in these books that is unofficial doctrine, but these books are not intended to be comprehensive.

That said, it is possible for someone to write a book about BY's teachings and be misleading. Absolutely. That's where the editorial bias comes in.

[CV75]

How do we feel when the Church publishes discourses of the early prophets to ONLY include teachings that coincide with current doctrines and eliminate anything that is no longer accepted?

I don't think historical scholarship is the highest standard to hold these publications up to. Such publications draw people to Christ, and He is our standard. Teaching current doctrine using what previous prophets taught accomplishes the same thing, while a more exhaustive treatment of all their lectures probably would not.

[JLHPROF]

I don't think historical scholarship is the highest standard to hold these publications up to. Such publications draw people to Christ, and He is our standard. Teaching current doctrine using what previous prophets taught accomplishes the same thing, while a more exhaustive treatment of all their lectures probably would not.

 

I like this response.  I like it a lot.  My question is still whether we are ethically and accurately portraying the prophet's beliefs and teachings.

If I had a book published of my "teachings" (which would be hilarious) I would like it to represent what I actually believed, not what the editors believe.

[Glenn101]

Oh I have a full set.  I read them regularly.  My point is not that the items aren't available.  It's whether or not it's correct to "edit and select" discourses of prophets to make them more in line with current teachings (like most collected discourse books ) when we publish them, or whether a collection of discourses of a prophet should always accurately display that prophet's personal beliefs in context, (like with the Joseph Smith Papers).

 

I mean, can any collection of discourses truly represent a prophet if we've removed anything they said we don't agree with?  Are we really put the "Teachings of Prophet XYZ" out there if we only include the things we like.

 

Wasn't it Brigham Young that was reported to have said that any of his speeches could be as good as canonized scripture, if he had the chance to review the transcript for accuracy and clarity before it was published? That is a synopsis, not a direct quote and I don't know the source. Maybe someone can help me there. Since Brigham and the other past prophets are not around to perform that review function, the chore falls upon the current prophets to do so.

 

Glenn

[USU78]

I don't think historical scholarship is the highest standard to hold these publications up to. Such publications draw people to Christ, and He is our standard. Teaching current doctrine using what previous prophets taught accomplishes the same thing, while a more exhaustive treatment of all their lectures probably would not.

 

Exactly.

 

Good stuff in this thread.

 

Mormon is the example such editors/compilers look to, IMNSHO.  The success or failure of their works are their own responsibility.

 

"Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith," which I have, and the Joseph Smith Papers, part of which I have, cover the same person and, largely, the same subject matter, but the purposes of the editor(s) couldn't be more different.  The former is a persuasive tract, the latter a scholarly compilation of extant written sources organized in a rational and usable way.

 

Neither editor is right; neither editor is wrong.

[JLHPROF]

Exactly.

 

Good stuff in this thread.

 

Mormon is the example such editors/compilers look to, IMNSHO.  The success or failure of their works are their own responsibility.

 

"Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith," which I have, and the Joseph Smith Papers, part of which I have, cover the same person and, largely, the same subject matter, but the purposes of the editor(s) couldn't be more different.  The former is a persuasive tract, the latter a scholarly compilation of extant written sources organized in a rational and usable way.

 

Neither editor is right; neither editor is wrong.

 

But the editor that removes the KFD from The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith because the current Church doesn't accept it as canon IS wrong.  It was a key part of Joseph's belief and thought, and teachings.

Any book claiming to contain his views on doctrine have to include that or they present a false picture of what Joseph believed and taught.  The same with many other items.