The Reliability of the Journal of Discourses

[Glenn101]

The Journal of Discourses is everyone’s favourite source for quote mining to prove a point one way or the other. But an article published by BYU Studies in 2013 raises some serious questions questions as to the reliability of the material as it appears in those journals.

The Journal of Discourses was published serially by George D. Watt, an English convert to the Church in 1837. When he was able to finally get to Utah in 1851, he began recording the sermons by the apostles. He originally did not receive any compensation for his work and was given permission to transcribe the sermons and sell them. Thus came about the Journal of Discourses produced in Liverpool England.

Watt had learned Pitman shorthand prior to his immigration to the States and employed this to record the talks.

Lajean Purcell Carruth works in the Church History Library and says that she spent 30 years learning Pittman Shorthand and to decipher Watt’s shorthand notes. She has compared many of the sermons as recored in the Pittman shorthand with the accounts published and found some significant differences.

I am availing myself of the “Fair Use Doctrine” as applied to copyrights in any direct quotes from the article.

First, here is a speech published in the JOD from a talk given by Brigham Young at Tooele, Utah in August of 1867.

“Many try to excuse themselves because tea and coffee are not mentioned, arguing that it refers to hot drinks only. What did we drink hot when that Word of Wisdom was given? Tea and coffee. It definitely refers to that which we drink with our food. I said to the Saints at our last annual Conference, the Spirit whispers to me to call upon the Latter-day Saints to observe the Word of Wisdom, to let tea, coffee, and tobacco alone, and to abstain from drinking spirituous drinks.”

However, when Lajean compared the above to the actual shorthand notes:

“Some of the sisters and some of brethren will say tea and coffee is not mentioned in the Word of Wisdom but hot drinks [as] if this doesn’t refer directly perfectly absolutely definitely and truly to that that we did drink hot[.] What does it allude to[?] What did we drink hot[?] Tea and coffee[.] When we made milk porridge it was food[.] We could not wash it red hot as we drank down tea[.] It alludes to tea and coffee or whatever we drank[.] I said to the Latter-day Saints at the annual conference 6 of April the spirit whispers to me for this people to observe the Word of Wisdom[.] Let the tea and coffee and tobacco alone whether they smoke take snuff and chew let it alone[.] Those that are in the habit of drinking liquor[,] cease to drink liquor[.]”

Quite a bit of difference there.

The article goes on to say “Carruth’s new transcriptions have revealed that extensive editorial alterations were often made during the process of transcription and publication as Watt and others prepared the sermons for publication in the Journal of Discourses or the Deseret News. The differences between the shorthand record and the published versions are often quite extensive. Nearly every sermon for which we have compared the shorthand and the published versions demonstrates the same level of revision shown in Young’s Tooele speech above, and in many cases the changes are far more pronounced.”

There are a lot more to the article, but I do believe that the Journal of Discourses, for whatever value they do have, using them as a source to prove a point is, in my opinion, something to be avoided.

The article is in PDF format and requires a subscription to BYU Studies or an individual purchase, so I cannot link to it. Here is the link that will get anyone interested to the place where they can gain access to the article.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/prophets-have-spoken-but-what-did-they-say-examining-differences-between-george-d-watts

Glenn

[JLHPROF]

This is very interesting and probably accurate.

Unfortunately it gets used both ways - by those who data mine the journals to prove obscure points and equally as incorrectly by those who would dismiss an accurate account containing a teaching they disagree with - the "oh, but that's only found in the journals" argument.

It's hardly only a 19th century issue either.  At least they didn't have a fake conference session recreated to alter the record.

Edited December 4, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Marmonboy]

A new edition of the JD would be a massive undertaking, but would be fascinating to have. Maybe when the JSP is wrapped up?

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Marmonboy said:

A new edition of the JD would be a massive undertaking, but would be fascinating to have. Maybe when the JSP is wrapped up?

I don't know that Lajean is working on the JSP. But you are correct, it would be a massive undertaking. The problem is that all of the original shorthand notes are not extant, or at least not known to be extant. I think that something will be done with what is available though. Lajean is supposedly training a daughter to take up the work. Lajean is in her sisties now and may retire before the effort is completed.

Glenn

 

[Bob Crockett]

I'm not a defender of the Journal of Discourses but I question reconstruction of proceedings from someone's Pittman notes which are not official court proceedings.   Non official notetakers don't have to adhere to any required convention.   

The JoD sermons were typically published in the Deseret News for all to review.   General  Conference sermons for decades have cited the JoD.

So I'm not buying this much.  There are problems with the JoD but by adoption and ratification the problems aren't so significant. 

[Marmonboy]

It would be interesting. if only from a historical POV, to read what the early leaders said, much closer to their actual words and not filtered through an editorial staff and the 19th Century equivalent of political correctness.

[James Tunney]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

I'm not a defender of the Journal of Discourses but I question reconstruction of proceedings from someone's Pittman notes which are not official court proceedings.   Non official notetakers don't have to adhere to any required convention.   

The JoD sermons were typically published in the Deseret News for all to review.   General  Conference sermons for decades have cited the JoD.

So I'm not buying this much.  There are problems with the JoD but by adoption and ratification the problems aren't so significant. 

Yeah, I think it should be owned warts and all. What one doesn't like can and is dismissed using the speaking for god or speaking as a man argument. Whether one agrees to what was inspired, or what was mere speculation, or why the necessity for the dichotomy in the first place is why we probably keep coming back to discussion forums like these.

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I'm not a defender of the Journal of Discourses but I question reconstruction of proceedings from someone's Pittman notes which are not official court proceedings.   Non official notetakers don't have to adhere to any required convention.   

The JoD sermons were typically published in the Deseret News for all to review.   General  Conference sermons for decades have cited the JoD.

So I'm not buying this much.  There are problems with the JoD but by adoption and ratification the problems aren't so significant. 

Bob, what are you not buying? Have you read the article. Do you question the research and results by Lajean Carruth? "The Teachings of Brigham Young" were very carefully vetted for correct doctrines before being published as a manual. But even then, we do not know whether the quotes are those of Brigham Young or the words of George Watt. General Conference talks have not cited anything about Adam-God or Blood Atonement. Those giving those talks cite references that agree with correct doctrine.

My point though is that we cannot reliably use the JoD for a reference to try to make a point because of the extensive editing by George Watt. Here is another quote from the article (Fair Use):

"Some of the sermons were so heavily edited and summarized by the time they were printed in the Deseret News or the Journal of Discourses that they only scarcely resemble the words and thoughts of the speaker, and most of the details, both religious and historical, have been omitted. For example, in one Heber C. Kimball address, Watt’s shorthand notes of the sermon total nearly six thousand words. The published version of this same sermon features just over twenty-six hundred, and many of the words that are included are summarizations and inserted phrases that Kimball apparently never uttered."

I do not understand your point about reconstruction "from someone's Pittman notes." The Pittman notes were those of George D. Watt himself.

Just Saying.

Glenn

Edited December 4, 2016 by Glenn101
Added a bit asking for clarification.

[PeterPear]

Well there you go. Now all you complainers about Brigham Young and of any other President of The Church can now smoke and chew tobacco and drink your tea and coffee and get drunk on liquor because Pitman's shorthand is true as far as LaJean translated it correctly.

[Thinking]

It seems to me that George D. Watt would best be able to interpret his own shorthand notes and not somebody else a century and a half later.

[PeterPear]

25 minutes ago, Thinking said:

It seems to me that George D. Watt would best be able to interpret his own shorthand notes and not somebody else a century and a half later.

Exactly.

[Calm]

But if he was prone to writing others' words in the way he wished them to say something or adding his own ideas (as he appears to be from the article iirc), perhaps not the best final product.

[Marmonboy]

But it would be one step closer to what was actually said. Besides, isn't the point of shorthand to capture as closely as possible what was actually spoken? It certainly was in courtrooms.

[strappinglad]

Do we know who was responsible for the transcription and editing? Did BY himself ever do any of the editing? Did he review the edited works?   Rare is the post here that does not see some editing, either before or after posting. Mostly it is done by the poster but sometimes corrections are noted as needed by others.  As  OP has read the article , does it go into details about the publishing process? Most of the sermons were much more ' off the cuff ' back then and emphasis and repetitions were likely common,editing for clarity and removal of extraneous dialogue were needed. The second version of the Tooele speech sounds much more like it was spoken, but had a lot more words than necessary to convey the ideas .  Is there any evidence that apostles objected to the published versions because there were serious flaws ?

Edited December 5, 2016 by strappinglad

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Do we know who was responsible for the transcription and editing? Did BY himself ever do any of the editing? Did he review the edited works?   Rare is the post here that does not see some editing, either before or after posting. Mostly it is done by the poster but sometimes corrections are noted as needed by others.  As  OP has read the article , does it go into details about the publishing process? Most of the sermons were much more ' off the cuff ' back then and emphasis and repetitions were likely common,editing for clarity and removal of extraneous dialogue were needed. The second version of the Tooele speech sounds much more like it was spoken, but had a lot more words than necessary to convey the ideas .  Is there any evidence that apostles objected to the published versions because there were serious flaws ?

The article quotes Brigham Young as saying "I never look at my sermons." The reference is "Young, Office Journal, Minutes, April 4, 1860, as published in Collier, Office Journal of President Brigham Young, 423."

The article did note the extemporaneous nature of most of the talks making it difficult for reviewers to compare what was originally said with the material that was to be published. There are indications that some material was reviewed but the article states:

"In any case, available evidence suggests that it was not the usual practice for the original speaker to review the longhand transcription before publication. Among the dozens and dozens of longhand transcripts, on only one are the insertions and editing marks known to be in the handwriting of the original speaker, in this unique case Orson Pratt in his well-known 1852 sermon on plural marriage.33 At least according to the currently available evidence, it seems that the substantial edits made to the longhand manuscripts prior to publication were likely not personally made by the speakers themselves and most were made by Watt as he created the transcript."

Glenn

 

[CMZ]

In a sense the JD is like the apocrypha in that you need the Spirit with you to know how to interpret it properly. But of course this is the case with any writing. But as JLHPROF said, we don't need to either throw it out nor cling to it as pristine, unvarnished truth.

I'm nearing the end of volume 25 myself and can say there is much in there that nobody would have any real problem with. It's not essential but I'd be all for a corrected/expanded/revised edition... and perhaps with the rumored volume 27 included.

[Bob Crockett]

19 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Bob, what are you not buying? Have you read the article. Do you question the research and results by Lajean Carruth? "The Teachings of Brigham Young" were very carefully vetted for correct doctrines before being published as a manual. But even then, we do not know whether the quotes are those of Brigham Young or the words of George Watt. General Conference talks have not cited anything about Adam-God or Blood Atonement. Those giving those talks cite references that agree with correct doctrine.

My point though is that we cannot reliably use the JoD for a reference to try to make a point because of the extensive editing by George Watt. Here is another quote from the article (Fair Use):

"Some of the sermons were so heavily edited and summarized by the time they were printed in the Deseret News or the Journal of Discourses that they only scarcely resemble the words and thoughts of the speaker, and most of the details, both religious and historical, have been omitted. For example, in one Heber C. Kimball address, Watt’s shorthand notes of the sermon total nearly six thousand words. The published version of this same sermon features just over twenty-six hundred, and many of the words that are included are summarizations and inserted phrases that Kimball apparently never uttered."

I do not understand your point about reconstruction "from someone's Pittman notes." The Pittman notes were those of George D. Watt himself.

Just Saying.

Glenn

I'm sorry I wasn't very clear.  And, no, I haven't read her research or article.

I start from the legal premise that one cannot impeach published transcripts of court proceedings with the notes of the court reporter except if the error is brought to the attention of the court as soon as the transcript is made public and there is some means to impeach the reporter other than mere disagreement of recollection.  Although the JoD is not a court proceeding, the doctrine is used to protect official accounts from collateral challenge at some later date.  In this case, the official account of the sermons is contained in the Deseret News, the Church's official organ.  It really matters little to nothing that the spoken words deviated from the official account (and, who can really determine what the spoken word really was?) as long as you have an official account.  Sure, the official account may have errors.  But, it is and was the Church's official statement at the time, and published with at least one apostle's approval.

As a general matter, if a stenographer is not a court reporter, who in the 19th century was required to adhere to certain formalities, then who knows what personal and changeable conventions George Watt was using. You say, "The Pittman notes were those of George D. Watt himself."  Reconstructing events from somebody's unofficial Pittman notes is absurdly unreliable.  

But George Watt (who, I add, was excommunicated for apostasy) published his sermons in the Deseret News.   You mention that these sermons were so heavily edited and summarized by the time they were printed in the Deseret News that they were unrecognizable.   Yet, they were published for the speaker to review and retract.  

Somebody above mentions that Brigham Young did not read his own sermons.   That doesn't excuse the fact that the sermons were published by the official organ of the Church. They were thus ratified by the Church.  They, thus, independently became "sermons" by mere publication in the Deseret News.  It would be similar to a sermon appearing today appearing in the Ensign which has some differences here and there from what was spoken in General Conference.  Which version is the more likely one to be "official?"  The one spoken, or the one printed?  I have no doubt that there are differences, but are we to reject the version of the sermon that went through the hands of the Deseret News editor (an apostle) before publication?

And then, are we to ignore the fact that the JoD sermons are heavily quoted in General Conference addresses, Ensign articles and Church publications? 

I realize there are difficulties with Brigham Young's Adam-God sermon at 1:50.   That is often the reason members would like to disavow the Journal of Discourses.  Yet, the theme is reported several times elsewhere in the JoD sermons and also in the criticisms by Orson Pratt.   I've read the montages of the doctrine put together by Odgen Kraut.   There's too much there to disavow it.  I don't have much of a problem with the Adam-God doctrine as Hugh Nibley seemed to endorse it without explanation.  I personally believe that the Adam-God doctrine is completely consistent with Biblical doctrine.

Using primitive Pittman notes to impeach official published accounts of statements of the Brethren would really lead to havoc.   Pittman shorthand was used heavily by the Church in the Nineteenth Century to document statements of the Brethren.  We should be comforted that the Church went to great lengths to have the words of the Restoration published in official organs of the Church.

   

Edited December 5, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Dirk Moss]

Hi Bob,  While people often think of the JOD as an official publication of the Church it was not.  They have come to hold that kind of a revered status, but they are not an official publication of the Church.  LDS.org states "The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine."  

The BYU Studies article explains that Watt was granted permission to publish the sermons as a money making enterprise. Brigham Young endorsed the idea of sermons being published, but he did not personally review them.  This matters a great deal because of the way we use JOD as a sermon text.  In sermons, the words one uses really matters.  How many times does a discussion unfold in a Sunday School classroom like this "notice he said Celestial and Terrestial, but didn't mention the Telestial Kingdom..."? It would be pretty important to know if the speaker in fact actually had discussed the Telestial Kingdom at length but the editor of the sermon decided not to incorporate it. An example of this is found in our common use of Joseph Smith History in the Pearl of Great Price.  There is no indication in the JSH that Richards is actually pulling from separate portions of the History as it was originally published to create what appears to the lay person a seamless narrative of early events.  As a result, someone might think to themselves "I wonder why Joseph doesn't talk about the loss of the 116 pages in JSH? Is he embarrassed and trying to hide it? Or was it not important to him?"  Joseph of course did talk about it, Richards just cut that portion of the history out.

The article demonstrates pretty clearly that this is not simply run of the mill editing to publish a spoken sermon, correcting grammar and what not.  There are what historians would consider to be serious, substantive, content changes between the spoken word as it was recorded and the published word as it has come down to us.  The article also explains that there is no evidence of consistent article review before publication either in the JOD or the Deseret News and actually provides examples in which Brigham Young is upset that certain sermons or portions of history were published, showing he had not reviewed them.

Context and phraseology can change things a great deal.  For instance, D&C 74 had always been considered an outgrowth of the translation of the Bible, and every commentary from the History of the Church to every D&C Commentary described that revelation in that context.  However, when the Book of Commandments and Revelations was discovered, the Church learned that D&C 74 had nothing at all to do with the Bible translation, as it was received before Joseph even began the translation of the New Testament.  Instead the context became the response to the question of early converts about whether or not they needed to baptize their children.  The erroneous placement of D&C 74 in 1832 by well-meaning compilers of the D&C had the effect of causing all of us to be incorrect to a degree in our understanding and application of that revelation.  There are other examples of this as well, such as D&C 19 and D&C 41 which have been rectified in the 2013 edition of the scriptures.  In those cases, the section headings and the sometimes the dating were simply wrong.  And even though they had been published by the Church, their erroneous content did not become true just because it was published.  When the Church, through more accurate archival discoveries, found the original dates and context of those sections, they changed the section headings.

 

The JOD of course used to get quoted and used in official publications all the time, but you will notice that they have not been cited in General Conference or the Ensign for the past several years.  I don't think the authors of the article are advocating that people throw out the Journal of Discourses as a source, but that they be much more careful about what the source actually is.  This is the same tactic used by the Joseph Smith Papers project approaching the History of the Church.  Much of what is in the HoC is accurate, inspiring, and helpful.  But some things have just been proven to be erroneous by other documents.  It can still be a useful source for historians, but they need to be careful to understand what they are using when they use it.  The JOD reflects what the topics of sermons are, in general how the speaker tried to grapple with them, but does not represent a word for word echo of the sermon.  The authors demonstrate that if we use the JOD, especially when we are using it to prove or argue a semantic ecclesiastical point, we should be aware that the quote we are using as the words of John Taylor or Brigham Young might not have actually been said like that by them at all.  The context we think surrounds a teaching in the JOD might actually be entirely different as the article points out.  So the article is advocating a more measured, careful approach to the sermons as demonstrated by the research they provide. 

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

And then, are we to ignore the fact that the JoD sermons are heavily quoted in General Conference addresses, Ensign articles and Church publications? 

I realize there are difficulties with Brigham Young's Adam-God sermon at 1:50.   That is often the reason members would like to disavow the Journal of Discourses.  Yet, the theme is reported several times elsewhere in the JoD sermons and also in the criticisms by Orson Pratt.   I've read the montages of the doctrine put together by Odgen Kraut.   There's too much there to disavow it.  I don't have much of a problem with the Adam-God doctrine as Hugh Nibley seemed to endorse it without explanation.  I personally believe that the Adam-God doctrine is completely consistent with Biblical doctrine.

Using primitive Pittman notes to impeach official published accounts of statements of the Brethren would really lead to havoc.   Pittman shorthand was used heavily by the Church in the Nineteenth Century to document statements of the Brethren.  We should be comforted that the Church went to great lengths to have the words of the Restoration published in official organs of the Church.

Bob, Thanks for your reply. The problem I have with your position is that the evidence shows that many of the sermons were not reviewed, although some most definitely were. Also, the sermons that appeared in the Deseret news did not always jive with the corresponding JoD text. Our scriptures, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants have both been edited to fix errors, mostly in punctuation, and such. The Journal of Discourses has had no such review and editing.

I personally do not have a problem with the Adam-God theory as I have come to understand it. That has come after doing a lot of reading and research. I do disagree with the common understanding of the Adam-God theory. And a lot of that disagreement comes because of one word that was inserted by George D. Watt in the original talk that, according to other witnesses was not in the original talk.

As to the accuracy of anyone reading another person's Pittman shorthand, Lajean Carruth and George Watt to be specific, I think that you would need to prove your assertion. Lajean says that she has spent thirty years learning George Watt's idiosyncrasies in order to be able to render his shorthand accurately. The article begins with a facsimile of a the first page of a talk made by Brigham Young on June 13 of 1852. Lajean does a transcript of that page in the article and posts it alongside Watt's longhand.

Do you know anyone who is competent in Pittman shorthand that can check her work for errors? Or possible alternate punctuation etc. I don't mean this to sound antagonistic or the like. I would really like a second set of eyes on this. I do not know if there is anyone working with Lajean who is qualified to make such a review. I do not know what kind of review this has went through before it was published. But she does seem to have the confidence of the of the Church Historian's Office and Professor Gerritt Dirkmaat, a professor of Church History and Doctrine at Brigham Young.

Glenn

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Bob, Thanks for your reply. The problem I have with your position is that the evidence shows that many of the sermons were not reviewed, although some most definitely were. Also, the sermons that appeared in the Deseret news did not always jive with the corresponding JoD text. Our scriptures, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants have both been edited to fix errors, mostly in punctuation, and such. The Journal of Discourses has had no such review and editing.

I personally do not have a problem with the Adam-God theory as I have come to understand it. That has come after doing a lot of reading and research. I do disagree with the common understanding of the Adam-God theory. And a lot of that disagreement comes because of one word that was inserted by George D. Watt in the original talk that, according to other witnesses was not in the original talk.

As to the accuracy of anyone reading another person's Pittman shorthand, Lajean Carruth and George Watt to be specific, I think that you would need to prove your assertion. Lajean says that she has spent thirty years learning George Watt's idiosyncrasies in order to be able to render his shorthand accurately. The article begins with a facsimile of a the first page of a talk made by Brigham Young on June 13 of 1852. Lajean does a transcript of that page in the article and posts it alongside Watt's longhand.

Do you know anyone who is competent in Pittman shorthand that can check her work for errors? Or possible alternate punctuation etc. I don't mean this to sound antagonistic or the like. I would really like a second set of eyes on this. I do not know if there is anyone working with Lajean who is qualified to make such a review. I do not know what kind of review this has went through before it was published. But she does seem to have the confidence of the of the Church Historian's Office and Professor Gerritt Dirkmaat, a professor of Church History and Doctrine at Brigham Young.

Glenn

"Jibe."  I get ticky tack on the wrong use of the word in this discussion to demonstrate how small wording errors can effect an entire meaning.  "Jive" means, essentially, to speak non-sense.  Jibe is a nautical term used to connote compliance.  Almost complete opposites.

And so it is with idiosyncratic usage of shorthand.  Part of the reporting process involves code words and abbreviations to help the reporter.  The final process of the stenographer is to create a text which conforms to his personal recollection, which often and many times includes consulting with others present as well as the speaker himself.  Many times in my work I get calls from a court reporter asking for recollections as to uncertain reporting, where I was present and doing the speaking.  In seeing the effort to reconstruct the John D. Lee trials by scholars from shorthand I am struck by the problems and issues with such a task. It just isn't a simple thing to do as you suggest it is done.  I would never put any faith into reconstructed stenographer notes.

You say:   " the evidence shows that many of the sermons were not reviewed."   I think the evidence is that the sermons were published for review.  If there were problems, there would be plenty of persons to complain about it, to lead to retractions.  When Orson Pratt published the text of the sealing ceremony in Washington DC, there were plenty of eyes focused upon that and commenting, including Brigham Young.  One can't simply ignore the fact that the sermons were published.

"Also, the sermons that appeared in the Deseret news did not always jive with the corresponding JoD text."   And, so, is there a log or article on this?   The Deseret News likely had its own reporter there, thus demonstrating the problems with shorthand reporting.  It is not accurate.  It just isn't.  So if it isn't, what can be gained by reconstructing Pittman notes without having the ability to do what reporters often do, to verify, as I describe above.

You say:  " Lajean Carruth and George Watt to be specific, I think that you would need to prove your assertion. Lajean says that she has spent thirty years learning George Watt's idiosyncrasies in order to be able to render his shorthand accurately."   This is just a public board.  I offer my observations based upon life's experience and research in the John D. Lee transcripts, leading to published papers. My observation is that given all the many factors I name, including heavy use of the JoD in General Conference sermons, by Leonard Arrington and other major scholars, I just don't think that one can impeach the JoD by reconstructing the talks from Watt. The JoD is a remarkable set of compiled sermons.

But, this is just my subjective opinion.  You basically asked for opinions by posting your thoughts.  And, as I have said, I have not read the article you reference as I basically reject the premise.  It would be like doing a statistical study without using statistics. 

I urge great caution in attempts to revise Church history with non-standard techniques.  

 

Edited December 6, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, Dirk Moss said:

Hi Bob,  While people often think of the JOD as an official publication of the Church it was not.  They have come to hold that kind of a revered status, but they are not an official publication of the Church.  LDS.org states "The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine."  

The BYU Studies article explains that Watt was granted permission to publish the sermons as a money making enterprise. Brigham Young endorsed the idea of sermons being published, but he did not personally review them.  This matters a great deal because of the way we use JOD as a sermon text.  In sermons, the words one uses really matters.  How many times does a discussion unfold in a Sunday School classroom like this "notice he said Celestial and Terrestial, but didn't mention the Telestial Kingdom..."? It would be pretty important to know if the speaker in fact actually had discussed the Telestial Kingdom at length but the editor of the sermon decided not to incorporate it. An example of this is found in our common use of Joseph Smith History in the Pearl of Great Price.  There is no indication in the JSH that Richards is actually pulling from separate portions of the History as it was originally published to create what appears to the lay person a seamless narrative of early events.  As a result, someone might think to themselves "I wonder why Joseph doesn't talk about the loss of the 116 pages in JSH? Is he embarrassed and trying to hide it? Or was it not important to him?"  Joseph of course did talk about it, Richards just cut that portion of the history out.

The article demonstrates pretty clearly that this is not simply run of the mill editing to publish a spoken sermon, correcting grammar and what not.  There are what historians would consider to be serious, substantive, content changes between the spoken word as it was recorded and the published word as it has come down to us.  The article also explains that there is no evidence of consistent article review before publication either in the JOD or the Deseret News and actually provides examples in which Brigham Young is upset that certain sermons or portions of history were published, showing he had not reviewed them.

Context and phraseology can change things a great deal.  For instance, D&C 74 had always been considered an outgrowth of the translation of the Bible, and every commentary from the History of the Church to every D&C Commentary described that revelation in that context.  However, when the Book of Commandments and Revelations was discovered, the Church learned that D&C 74 had nothing at all to do with the Bible translation, as it was received before Joseph even began the translation of the New Testament.  Instead the context became the response to the question of early converts about whether or not they needed to baptize their children.  The erroneous placement of D&C 74 in 1832 by well-meaning compilers of the D&C had the effect of causing all of us to be incorrect to a degree in our understanding and application of that revelation.  There are other examples of this as well, such as D&C 19 and D&C 41 which have been rectified in the 2013 edition of the scriptures.  In those cases, the section headings and the sometimes the dating were simply wrong.  And even though they had been published by the Church, their erroneous content did not become true just because it was published.  When the Church, through more accurate archival discoveries, found the original dates and context of those sections, they changed the section headings.

 

The JOD of course used to get quoted and used in official publications all the time, but you will notice that they have not been cited in General Conference or the Ensign for the past several years.  I don't think the authors of the article are advocating that people throw out the Journal of Discourses as a source, but that they be much more careful about what the source actually is.  This is the same tactic used by the Joseph Smith Papers project approaching the History of the Church.  Much of what is in the HoC is accurate, inspiring, and helpful.  But some things have just been proven to be erroneous by other documents.  It can still be a useful source for historians, but they need to be careful to understand what they are using when they use it.  The JOD reflects what the topics of sermons are, in general how the speaker tried to grapple with them, but does not represent a word for word echo of the sermon.  The authors demonstrate that if we use the JOD, especially when we are using it to prove or argue a semantic ecclesiastical point, we should be aware that the quote we are using as the words of John Taylor or Brigham Young might not have actually been said like that by them at all.  The context we think surrounds a teaching in the JOD might actually be entirely different as the article points out.  So the article is advocating a more measured, careful approach to the sermons as demonstrated by the research they provide. 

Moss sayeth:  "While people often think of the JOD as an official publication of the Church it was not."  I have not said otherwise, but there are plenty of publications which arise to near-canonical status and this, in my opinion, is one.

Moss sayeth: "The BYU Studies article explains that Watt was granted permission to publish the sermons as a money making enterprise."  Different time and place.  Patriarchs were authorized to charge $1 for their blessings.  I recall my grandfather, a patriarch for many years and a multimillionaire, charging for the blessings or at least telling me that it was customary.  Joseph Smith tried to sell the copyright to the BoM.  On my mission we went door to door selling copies of the Book of Mormon.  Today these practices would be frowned upon.  But, having a monopoly to report and publish statements by the Brethren was a significant endorsement, in my view.  Much more so than a Deseret News reporter also making a report.  And, it was likely the only way the sermons could be memorialized in a permanent fashion, as the Church was broke.

Moss sayeth:  "The JOD of course used to get quoted and used in official publications all the time, but you will notice that they have not been cited in General Conference or the Ensign for the past several years."  I have not noticed that and do not think the assertion is true.

Moss sayeth:  "The article also explains that there is no evidence of consistent article review before publication either in the JOD or the Deseret News and actually provides examples in which Brigham Young is upset that certain sermons or portions of history were published, showing he had not reviewed them."  I have considered this assertion for many years and have concluded that Brigham Young didn't read, or read much, and had his clerks read material to him.  But he was quite mindful of things of statements by the Brethren and was quick to correct them when brought to his attention -- i.e., Orson Pratt and Moses Thatcher.

The rest of your generalized statements about context and such don't really apply to my position, and that it is risky to impeach the JoD with such thin information as a reconstruction of Watt's Pittman notes.  It would be akin to attempting to impeach Einstein's published theories on the basis on notes to himself. Should not we view with a great deal of respect published sermons the Brethren have pored over for decades and used heavily versus uncertain notes based upon an illegitimate method of scholarship?  

Edited December 6, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

D Moss, welcome to the board.  Enjoyed the insightful post and hope many more follow.

[Glenn101]

23 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The rest of your generalized statements about context and such don't really apply to my position, and that it is risky to impeach the JoD with such thin information as a reconstruction of Watt's Pittman notes.  It would be akin to attempting to impeach Einstein's published theories on the basis on notes to himself. Should not we view with a great deal of respect published sermons the Brethren have pored over for decades and used heavily versus uncertain notes based upon an illegitimate method of scholarship?  

I don't think that anyone is trying to impeach the JoD. Just urging caution is using it to promote a point or view one way or the other. However I do question you view as to the "illegitimate method of scholarship." Would you please explain why you believe spending years to study a particular method of communication and then using that knowledge to decipher such communications is not valid scholarship. Pittman Shorthand is well developed system. The accuracy of the rendering depends upon the accuracy of the original notes and the competence of the transcriber.

I understand you position as to the traditions concerning the use of the JoD. I do not understand your positions on the scholarship that is being used. If you have some information that I am not aware of to show that Lajean does not know what she is doing I would appreciate it.

57 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

"Jibe."  I get ticky tack on the wrong use of the word in this discussion to demonstrate how small wording errors can effect an entire meaning.  "Jive" means, essentially, to speak non-sense.  Jibe is a nautical term used to connote compliance.  Almost complete opposites.

Mea Culpa. But it was a fat finger. I do that a lot. Usually a spelling checker rescues me.

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

 However I do question you view as to the "illegitimate method of scholarship." Would you please explain why you believe spending years to study a particular method of communication and then using that knowledge to decipher such communications is not valid scholarship.

Such is not scholarship in and of itself. I have an attorney friend who is an expert on the Illuminati and has books and books of occult literature.   He has had me read some of his stuff.  It isn't peer accepted by any legitimate social scientist.  I've seen thousands of books written about the occult.  More than I could have possibly imagined when I saw somebody's collection.  It isn't scholarship just because it has been studied.

I'd want to see papers from social scientists legitimizing the impeachment of an official proceeding by reconstructing 150-year-old Pittman notes.  And, these aren't official proceedings.  My criticism of scholarship though is a minor one.  Given the fact that JoD was published, reviewed and quoted means a lot.  I really doubt that any neutral social scientist would discount the JoD by these means.  But, it is just my subjective opinion.  I can say as a trial lawyer, "ratification" means a lot and it doesn't matter much about the "drafts" once a document achieves official status.  An agency publishing them can't later disvow them very well by complaining they weren't accurately transcribed.  Disavowal is possible and can be done, but it its difficult.  I could disavow my handwritten diary 20 years after the fact, but who would believe me?   This whole thing smells like an effort to get rid of troublesome doctrine and statements in the JoD.  If one approaches one's task with that agenda in mind, I have my doubts.

Now, having said that, I personally don't think much of the JoD.  It is a collection of sermons made, often by uneducated men, expressing their opinions of the will of the Lord.  Orson Pratt disavowed the reality of the Godhead and taught that God was really a universal collection of particles.  Moses Thatcher was into occultism.  As Brigham Young probably couldn't read, he probably had little patience reviewing the published text of sermons.  Plus, in my detailed reading of the JoD I am of the strong personal opinion that Watt failed to capture sarcasm and jokes well.   When a general authority complains that the missionaries are selecting for wives all the pretty ones and sending the rest home to Utah, I have a problem with that statement, as it was probably a joke.  Brigham Young was a notoriously difficult and sarcastic person, and that doesn't come through very well in his sermons.  So, as a general matter I sort of take the JoD with more than a grain of salt but less than canon. 

What I object to, however, is using Pittman notes to impeach the published transcripts, which is a different matter altogether.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

I mean, is it a legitimate impeachment to ask for drafts of papers I've published and then compare them to my final product?   

There is no possible way to know what the speaker actually said, so you are questoning the entire thing because the draft is different than the finished product?