Pres. Cannon's journals online

[Duncan]

https://churchhistorianspress.org/george-q-cannon

 

Coo-Ell !

[JLHPROF]

Very cool.

[Coreyb]

I hope they are also printed, because I prefer to read books. still cool

[iamse7en]

I am disappointed with all of the redactions though... Here's what the church published in one HTML file... Just search "redacted" and you'll see a lot of good stuff is missing. It's funny that some names of people who did salacious things are redacted but other names aren't. Would also love to read the redacted material involving the temple and anointings.

Also, as a student of the Adam-God doctrine and knowing his feelings on the matter, I was excited to search for "Adam" but didn't see a single thing. I find it odd given how he was a big proponent of the doctrine.

Quote

Brother Cannon said there was a learned Doctor that wanted to be baptized. ... He (the doctor) is satisfied that the doctrine of the plurality of God and that Adam is our Father is a true doctrine revealed from God to Joseph & Brigham. For this same doctrine is taught in some of the old Jewish records which have never been in print and I know Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young have had access to, and the Lord has revealed this doctrine unto them or they could not have taught it (Wilford Woodruff Journal, 9/4/1860)

Elder Geo. Q. Cannon fully endorsed the doctrine that father Adam was our God and Father - or as He in many places is called, Michael the great prince - the Arch Angel, Ancient of Days, & c. It was not only wisdom, but perfectly consistent, that Adam & Eve should partake of the forbidden fruit and start the work of increase of their species. The above doctrine had been revealed to him, so that he knew it was true. (Minutes of the Salt Lake School of the Prophets, 10/15/1870)

He [George Q. Cannon] believes that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, and that Adam is His Father and our God: that under certain unknown conditions the benefits of the Savior's atonement extend to our entire solar system. ... He asked me what I understood concerning Mary conceiving the Savior; and as I found no answer, he asked what was to prevent Father Adam from visiting and overshadowing the mother of Jesus. Then said I: "he must have been a resurrected Being." "Yes," said he, "and though Christ is said to have been the first fruits of them that slept, yet the Savior said he did nothing but what He had seen His Father do, for He had power to lay down His life and take it up again. Adam, though made of dust, was made, as President Young said, of the dust of another planet than this." I was very much instructed by the conversation and this days services. (Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, 6/23/1889)

I know much is yet to be published from his journal volumes, but was still a bit disappointed that not a single mention of even Adam the first man except one ("from the time of Adam."

Edited August 23, 2016 by iamse7en

[Calm]

So a quick look at the redacted names looks like they are the names of people committing adultery, engaging in drunkenness, etc.  Is it really of value to know who these people were?  

[iamse7en]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

So a quick look at the redacted names looks like they are the names of people committing adultery, engaging in drunkenness, etc.  Is it really of value to know who these people were?  

As my post implies, the names are less important than the big sections removed. Search "words redacted" and you'll see hundreds and hundreds of words redacted. The names would be nice to know if I recognize the names, but I care more for the entire sections removed. Names are of far less importance than other things, but sure, I admit I would have some interest in knowing the names behind these salacious actions.

[Calm]

So far everything redacted had to do with seduction and stuff that looks like it would amount to gossiping for anyone who was not in the undesirable position of having to offer correction.

Is there any redaction that you have found that might possibly fall outside of this removal of confessions of a sexual nature?

Edited August 23, 2016 by Calm

[cinepro]

Two of the biggest "scandals" in Cannon's life were his son John's relationship with "Louie" Wells (page 126 here), and the situation with the Bullion, Beck and Champion Silver mine (discussed in this article).  From a cursory search, it appears these incidents have either been totally removed from the diaries, or he never mentioned them in the first place.

[iamse7en]

Saw these quotes pasted in Facebook. Apparently the Church posted the rest of the journals online but then took them back down for whatever reason. But google cached them and these are Adam-God related. Given he "fully endorsed the doctrine that father Adam was our God and Father" and "believes that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, and that Adam is His Father and our God," I was hoping there'd be more explicit quotes here. Interesting nonetheless. More confirmation (in addition to Nuttall papers) that John Taylor believed and taught the doctrine (at least in private) as president of the church.

Quote

… We drove to Bishop Roundy’s … The people had met and dispersed, thinking I would not be there, but I reached a few minutes before the time for meeting, seven o’clock. They expressed a wish to still have meeting and I told them I would be very pleased to speak to them. I spoke to them about an hour. … Quite a number of questions were asked me, particularly about Adam being the father of our spirits. (GQC Journal, 11/10/1881)

 

Quote

I had a most delightful conversation with Prest. Taylor upon doctrine. Listened to his views about our Father in heaven (Adam) and Jesus, and gave him some of mine upon the same subjects. (11/18/1882)

 

Quote

 

We met at 10 o’clock in the Tabernacle with the Presidency of the Stake and the High Council, to take into consideration the doctrines that had been taught by Father Edward Bunker, who resides at Bunkerville, a settlement over which his son, Edward Bunker, Jr, presides as Bishop. It seems that the settlement has become divided on the question whether Adam is our Father and God and the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. Brother Myron Abbott, first counselor to Bishop Bunker, and his mother’s brother, had advocated this doctrine, and Father Edward Bunker had disputed it, and also disputed the doctrine that Adam was a celestial being when he came here to begin the work of the procreation of man. He advocated the idea that Adam was a distinct creation, and had been made out of the dust of the earth, as he claimed, in the same way and by the same power or law that men’s tabernacles would be resurrected from the dead. The High Council had had the question before them, and as Father Bunker was not there himself, he had been represented by his son, but had asked the privilege of setting forth his views in greater fullness in writing. This privilege had been granted to him, and this document was read this morning before us and the High Council.

President Woodruff was desirous that I should manage the case. I thought I detected in the document a disposition to make Jesus the Eternal Father and the sole object of our worship. My first question, therefore, to Father Bunker was whether this was the case—whether he believed that the being to be worshipped was the Father, in the name of Jesus, or whether Jesus was the being to be worshipped? This confused him. He said that it would take some time to explain his views, and he proceeded to speak at some length, but I told him it was not necessary to go to any length, but to give a simple answer to the question. He then said that he worshipped the intelligence, wherever it was found. Then I said, he would have a great many gods if he worshipped intelligence, and how could he worship intelligence without it was tabernacled? Upon being pressed upon this question he admitted that it would not be possible to worship intelligence unless it was in a tabernacle, and also said that he believed in worshipping the Father in the name of Jesus. I tried to have him answer my question as to whether he believed our Father and God had a father or not. We knew that the Savior had a Father, but did he believe that the Father whom we worshipped had a father? My object in asking that question was to get from him the idea as to how he believed he had received a tabernacle. But he would not answer this. I then proceeded to take up his views concerning Adam being a distinct and separate creation—a new creation, so to speak. I said that we knew that the Savior received his tabernacle through procreation. The Bible said that the Holy Ghost overshadowed the Virgin Mary. Of course, we have been taught that there was a celestial being who overshadowed the Virgin Mary and begat the tabernacle of Jesus, who was the Son of God, and He was born of a woman, and all the beings that we knew anything about, of our species, were born in the same way. I took up his quotation from the new translation of the Bible concerning the creation of Adam, and I said, according to my reading and interpretation, it is as clear to me that Adam was begotten in the usual way, through procreation, as it appeared to be in the mind of Father Bunker that he had been made as an adobie was made. I said, now we know that the Lord Jesus received a tabernacle in the manner in which our tabernacles were organized, and no doubt his father, if he had received a tabernacle, had received it in the same way; and I asked, Why should Adam be sui generis—that is, the only being in all the species that was a new creation? I reasoned upon this, and I think made it clear to all who were present that it was nonsensical. I then referred to a number of passages to explain how difficult it is, unless we have the light of the Spirit, to understand the Godhead. I said the Savior—and I quoted revelations to illustrate the point—spoke to His servants as though He were the Father himself and spoke of himself as the Only Begotten Son. I said the reason for this is that Jesus represented the Godhead and spoke for the Godhead. Viewed in this light, many passages that would be puzzling might be clearly understood. I said that according to the teachings of President Young Adam was our Father and our God, and the father of the Lord Jesus, but it was not necessary for us to argue or contend about this. If we cannot understand it, let it remain without agitation and without discussion; for it would inevitably lead to bad consequences if men indulged in that spirit. I then referred to the case of Brother Orson Pratt, who had been a strong opponent of President Young in regard to this doctrine, and related instances where Orson came very nearly loosing [losing] his standing, and would doubtless have lost it if President Young had not been determined to hold on to him. He contended against this doctrine for a long time; but for some time before his death he ceased his opposition, and had acknowledged that whenever he contended against Brother Brigham on these points his mind was filled with darkness, and he did not feel happy, but when he received the doctrine and submitted to the teachings of President Young his mind was light and clear and he had peace. I said this was the experience of Orson Pratt, and we would do well to profit by it.

President Woodruff made some excellent remarks and bore testimony to the truth of the position that I had taken and the views that I had set forth.

There was a good mild spirit in the meeting, and in interrogating Father Bunker I endeavored to do so in a way not to arouse any feeling on his part. His son, the Bishop, had shared with him in his views, and he admitted, after he had heard what was said, that he had had light thrown upon his mind concerning the Godhead and the principle of procreation. I had spoken of this last power as the gift of eternal lives—the gift by which the universe was peopled, and by which all worlds would be peopled and the glory of God increased. The brethren seemed to accept our views, and Father Bunker expressed himself as perfectly satisfied. I took occasion to say to Brother Myron Abbott that I hoped he would not indulge in a spirit of triumph, and think that he had been fully vindicated and had come off conqueror. … (GQC Journal, 6/11/1892)

 

 

[Jeanne]

Yeah...thanks!