The Reliability of the Journal of Discourses

[Dirk Moss]

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

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.

Do a search on LDS.org yourself and see.  Its not hard to check.  The JOD has not been cited as a source in general conference talks for several years.

 

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

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?  

You said my final point about the changed section headings was not applicable but then made a broad statement like this that shows just how applicable it is.  Don't you think the Brethren had poured over the section headings to D&C 74, 19, and 41 before 2013?  Don't you think that they were interested in and cited those headings for years?  The fact that sources did not exist prior to 2013 to correct the errors in those headings is not evidence that historical inertia should be the rule of the day.  We didn't have the shorthand transcripts before, so we were unable to check their reliability against the published versions; we now have them, and that is the difference. The LaJean transcripts are being published on the Church History webpage and incorporated into every published Documents volume of the Joseph Smith Papers which are published by the Church Historian's Press which is reviewed by the Quorum and the First Presidency.  To offhandedly claim that it is an "illegitimate method of scholarship" is an indictment of the Joseph Smith Papers, the Church History Department, and those in the Church leadership who accept such things as quite legitimate. They are not making their way into Church publications by accident. The article seems pretty clear that its the intent to throw the JOD out the window, but I just can't see how you don't see this kind of research as helpful or important to someone using those sources, have you taken the time to read the article yet?

[Calm]

The appraisal of the Church, as demonstrated by being published on LDS.org is this...

https://www.lds.org/topics/journal-of-discourses?lang=eng

Quote

Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions. Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been documented. 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.

 

[Calm]

An Ensign report from back in 78 so it seems like this reservation has been consistent over the years:

"Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal, there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. There were occasions when the accuracy was questionable. The accounts were not always cleared by the speakers because of problems of time and distance. This was especially true during the persecution of the 1880s which finally forced the cessation of publication.

We should remember that the times were different then. A major concern of the early Saints was physical survival. Sermons often dealt with the practical problems of the time and so may seem quaint in our day, even if much of the advice is still valid.

Doctrinally, members of the Church were growing and learning. Most adults were converts who had to unlearn and relearn many doctrines. They were learning things which our children learn in Primary and Sunday School. Remarks were frequently impromptu. Close, friendly audiences frequently invited informal discussion of varied topics. There was occasional speculation about doctrines which have since been determined unimportant or even misleading."

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/08/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

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 believe that you are comparing apples and oranges here. Pitman shorthand was and is a reliable method of taking dictation, notes, etc. with the aim that anyone conversant with the form could transcribe what another had written. Of course the original note taker would normally be able to more accurately transcribe his own work. However, a careful study of one note taker's techniques by another should make that less of a problem. This article was produced after many years of work and study. I am not an expert in the field and must rely upon those who are for my information. It came as a bit of a surprise to me, although I had long understood the many errors that can creep into a dictated text, especially when their is no immediate review.

In my opinion, George D. Watt, at the time, was sincere and diligent in his work. In his editing, he seemed mostly to retain the messages that were being preached while expanding on the thoughts and polishing the text. The "Teachings of Brigham Young" lesson manual were selected (carefully) from those discourses recorded and transcribed and published by George D. Watt. While they may not all be Brigham's words, they were selected because they do reflect correct doctrine and principles that are applicable to our times.

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

As Brigham Young probably couldn't read, he probably had little patience reviewing the published text of sermons.

Even Sally Denton believed that Brigham could read and write. "The extent of Brigham Young’s literacy is a subject of historical debate and speculation. While we know that he was virtually uneducated and that his apostles often read documents to him, surprisingly articulate letters in Young’s handwriting attest to his abilities." (Footnote on page 30 of “American Massacre” by Sally Denton)

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

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

I do not consider this impeaching anything. It is more illuminating than anything else. But your view does vary from mine.

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

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

Again you are comparing two different things. If you produced a rough draft of a paper, then came back and polished it, made changes, additions, deletions, etc. of your own words to produce a final document, that would be one thing. But if you are recording another person's words then editing, deleting, polishing, that is quite another.

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

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?

There is a difference between a draft and a recording of a speech, etc. In a court setting, would you not want an accurate transcription of what a witness said? Or would you care if the recorder added, deleted, and polished the final product?

But I am not advocating throwing the whole thing out because there have been some errors made. What I have said is that anyone should be wary of trying to make a point one way or the other using quotes from the JoD. There is much good doctrine and advice in those discourses. But I myself would and will read those discourses much as I would the Apocrypha, being mindful of the advice the Lord gave us concerning the Apocrypha in Section 91 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

"1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.

4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;

5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;"

Glenn

[Dirk Moss]

3 hours ago, Dirk Moss said:

Do a search on LDS.org yourself and see.  Its not hard to check.  The JOD has not been cited as a source in general conference talks for several years.

 

You said my final point about the changed section headings was not applicable but then made a broad statement like this that shows just how applicable it is.  Don't you think the Brethren had poured over the section headings to D&C 74, 19, and 41 before 2013?  Don't you think that they were interested in and cited those headings for years?  The fact that sources did not exist prior to 2013 to correct the errors in those headings is not evidence that historical inertia should be the rule of the day.  We didn't have the shorthand transcripts before, so we were unable to check their reliability against the published versions; we now have them, and that is the difference. The LaJean transcripts are being published on the Church History webpage and incorporated into every published Documents volume of the Joseph Smith Papers which are published by the Church Historian's Press which is reviewed by the Quorum and the First Presidency.  To offhandedly claim that it is an "illegitimate method of scholarship" is an indictment of the Joseph Smith Papers, the Church History Department, and those in the Church leadership who accept such things as quite legitimate. They are not making their way into Church publications by accident. The article seems pretty clear that its the intent to throw the JOD out the window, but I just can't see how you don't see this kind of research as helpful or important to someone using those sources, have you taken the time to read the article yet?

Sorry a typo in that last post I meant to say its NOT the intent to through the JOD out the window.

[JAHS]

On 12/4/2016 at 10:08 PM, Glenn101 said:

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

 

Yeah, from what I understand In the earlier days of the Restored Church, nearly all sermons were given extemporaneously, including those in the JOD. It was unthinkable for them to give a memorized or pre-written sermon (like we do now). The early Saints felt that they should preach strictly by the Spirit. Elder Orson Pratt noted that sometimes he – and probably other speakers – gave sermons when their “mind seemed to be entirely closed up....” Recalling such an incident, Pratt remarked, “What few words I could stammer forth before a congregation, were altogether unsatisfactory to my own mind, and I presume to those who heard me.” (Discourse by Elder Orson Pratt, delivered in the 13th Ward ssembly Rooms, Nov. 24, 1872)

Edited December 6, 2016 by JAHS

[Calm]

I asked at FM if anyone knew of a citation list besides scriptures for conference talks and a friend was gracious enough to check for JoD as no one knew of one.  Here are his results if it works right, if not you will have to wait until after my walk to get them, but in essence only one in the last 17 years though they were popular from the 60s to 1999:

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Dirk Moss said:

Sorry a typo in that last post I meant to say its NOT the intent to through the JOD out the window.

Since you are on the subject of correcting typos, it's throw instead of through  

Welcome to the boards!

[Dirk Moss]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

Since you are on the subject of correcting typos, it's throw instead of through  

Welcome to the boards!

Yeah I saw that but I don't have the ability to edit posts yet.  My clarification was for content, not for your inner grammarian.

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, Dirk Moss said:

Yeah I saw that but I don't have the ability to edit posts yet.  My clarification was for content, not for your inner grammarian.

I think it was coming more from my inner smart-assian.  Either way, my apologies.

Edited December 6, 2016 by pogi

[Woody]

On 12/5/2916 at 5:10 pm, Bob Crockett or Dirk Moss, I know not which, said,

   "Joseph Smith tried to sell the copyright to the BoM"

Am I the only person who has disbelieved this? Forgive me for not being conversant with all the literature produced by scholars of Mormonism in the last 180 years.

But when you notice your jaw whiskers tickling your chest, that's a hint that something is surprising. When you are surprised, ask Why?

It is asserted that Joseph Smith sent brethren to Canada to try to sell the Book of Mormon copyright. And they failed. And Joseph then said "some revelations were from God, some from the devil, and some from men".

Does it really seem likely that Joseph would sell the copyright for any amount of money, love, or fame? Think about the Dogberry incident.

Does it really seem likely that Joseph handed down a false revelation, then just dismissed it with a couple of words and moved on? DC 43:4, OD-1:11, and

     "I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught." TPJS 368, HC 6:366

The only source I know of for this whole story is David Whitmer's Address to All Believers, issued when David was an old man, bitter critic, excommunicated, etc. etc.

I think there was a revelation to that effect, yes, but it came from the devil via Hiram Page & his stone. DC 28. David Whitmer warped the story to discourage people away from the prophet, whom he hated.

[Calm]

Well, if it was a choice of selling it and publishing or having to stop selling it. I can see him making that choice:

"Question: Are there any eyewitness accounts of the events that resulted in the trip to Canada to sell the Book of Mormon copyright?

Joseph Smith decided this could be an opportunity to relieve some of the financial pressure associated with publishing the Book of Mormon

Joseph Smith had been told there were people in Canada willing to buy the copyrights to useful books. Due to the dire financial position of the Church, he decided this could be an opportunity to relieve some of the financial pressure associated with publishing the Book of Mormon. Four men went to Canada.

Joseph Smith received a revelation directing them to go to Kingston, Canada, with some conditions placed upon their success

Before leaving, Joseph Smith received a revelation directing them to go to Kingston, Canada, with some conditions placed upon their success.

...it Pleaseth me that Oliver Cowderey Joseph Knight Hyram Pagee & Josiah Stowel shall do my work in this thing yea even in securing the Copyright & they shall do it with an eye single to my Glory that it may be the means of bringing souls unto me Salvation through mine only Be{t\gotten} Behold I am God I have spoken it & it is expedient in me Wherefor I say unto you that ye shall go to Kingston seeking me continually through mine only Be{t\gotten} & if ye do this ye shall have my spirit to go with you & ye shall have an addition of all things which is expedient in me. amen & I grant unto my servent a privelige that he may sell a copyright through you speaking after the manner of men for the four Provinces if the People harden not their hearts against the enticeings of my spirit & my word for Behold it lieth in themselves to their condemnation &{◊\or} th{er\eir} salvation.

The text of the actual revelation was recently discovered and published in The Joseph Smith Papers

The text of the revelation was published in the The Joseph Smith Papers: The Revelations and Translations Series. According to Marlin K. Jensen, Church Historian and Recorder,

Another interesting development from work on the Revelations and Translations Series has been the identification of a previously unpublished revelation on securing a copyright for the Book of Mormon in Canada. David Whitmer, after he left the Church, recalled that the revelation promised success in selling the copyright, but upon return of the men charged with the duty, Joseph Smith and others were disappointed by what seemed like failure. Historians have relied upon statements of David Whitmer, Hiram Page, and William McLellin for decades but have not had the actual text of the revelation. Revelation Book 1 will provide that.

Although we still do not know the whole story, particularly Joseph Smith’s own view of the situation, we do know that calling the divine communication a “failed revelation” is not warranted. The Lord’s directive clearly conditions the successful sale of the copyright on the worthiness of those seeking to make the sale as well as on the spiritual receptivity of the potential purchasers. [1]

Hiram Page, one of the participants, stated he for the first time understood how some revelations given to people were not necessarily for their direct benefit

Hiram Page, who was one of the individuals sent to Canada, laid out the event in a letter in 1848.[2] Page wrote that the revelation Joseph Smith received conditioned success upon whether those individuals in Canada capable of buying the Book of Mormon copyright would have their hearts softened. When unable to sell the copyright, the four men returned to Palmyra. Hiram Page stated he for the first time understood how some revelations given to people were not necessarily for their direct benefit—in fact, Hiram Page believed that the revelation was actually fulfilled."

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Attempt_to_sell_copyright

[Calm]

More info:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/securing-prophets-copyright-book-mormon-historical-and-legal-context-so-called-canadian

[Calm]

If you read the above link's ection on the copyright, you will see that by selling "a" copyright in Canada, Joseph would have protected the BoM from piracy, not give it up.

Copyright law was neither the same in law or the way it was phrased.  The language has changed and it does not mean what we would mean today by saying the same thing.

[rongo]

.

Edited December 7, 2016 by rongo

[Bob Crockett]

On 12/5/2016 at 8:22 PM, Dirk Moss said:

Do a search on LDS.org yourself and see.  Its not hard to check.  The JOD has not been cited as a source in general conference talks for several years.

I did.   The Journal of Discourses is quoted in existing manuals. See a Primary Manual.  Speeches at BYU [Leonard Arrington].  The Ensign/Liahona.  Elder Maxwell sermon.  LDS.ORG articles.  Priesthood manuals.  There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of modern examples.  I don't have time to spend 30 minutes inserting more examples.

Quote

You said my final point about the changed section headings was not applicable but then made a broad statement like this that shows just how applicable it is.  Don't you think the Brethren had poured over the section headings to D&C 74, 19, and 41 before 2013?  Don't you think that they were interested in and cited those headings for years?  The fact that sources did not exist prior to 2013 to correct the errors in those headings is not evidence that historical inertia should be the rule of the day.  We didn't have the shorthand transcripts before, so we were unable to check their reliability against the published versions; we now have them, and that is the difference. The LaJean transcripts are being published on the Church History webpage and incorporated into every published Documents volume of the Joseph Smith Papers which are published by the Church Historian's Press which is reviewed by the Quorum and the First Presidency.  To offhandedly claim that it is an "illegitimate method of scholarship" is an indictment of the Joseph Smith Papers, the Church History Department, and those in the Church leadership who accept such things as quite legitimate. They are not making their way into Church publications by accident. The article seems pretty clear that its the intent to throw the JOD out the window, but I just can't see how you don't see this kind of research as helpful or important to someone using those sources, have you taken the time to read the article yet?

I don't know what you mean by "changed section headings."  My post merely asserts that given the Church's ratification of the Journal of Discourses sermons, it doesn't make a lot of sense to try and impeach them with a questionable reconstruction of Pittman notes. Now, I don't have a problem with original scholarship constructing a sermon from Pittman notes where there is no other reference, but the best evidence by far of what a sermon said -- at least as intended by the speaker -- is a ratified (i.e., published and not withdraw) sermon.

It is "pored," not "poured."  Sorry to be a grammar or spelling Nazi.  I certainly make mistakes of my own and this post probably has some.

You say that the LaJean transcripts are being published by the Church, which is reviewed by the Brethren.  That doesn't change my opinion about the legitimacy of the method of impeaching the JoD.  As I have said in the past here, the Ensign published articles seeming to endorse a limited MesoAmerican setting for the Book of Mormon; that doesn't necessary make it (i.e., endorsement) a fact. The Church publishes a lot of material of interest.

I did not "offhandedly claim" that the use of Pittman notes was an illegitimate means of scholarship.  I made my point here that it is illegitimate given (1) they were idiosyncratic notes where no government rule was in place to require regularity, (2) it is a regular process for a stenographer to check the accuracy of his text by looking at other accounts and by conferring with the speaker as well as obtaining draft review; thus, the notes themselves don't anticipate all the rest of the effort that goes into the final transcription (3) the sermons in large part were published in the Deseret News, (4) the Brethren had the opportunity to review their sermons, and I have cited examples where the Brethren read the newspapers for the things the Brethren had said, and (5) the sermons have been further ratified by continual and consistent use in sermons, manuals, speeches and official magazines.

You ask again if I have taken the time to read the article.  No I haven't.  I reject the underlying simple premise, that the JoD should be disregarded or diminished because of the Pittman notes.  (I have elsewhere said that I disregard the JoD for a number of reasons other than this.) Do I need to read some article to be able to reject the premise?  

I have said nothing about anybody throwing the JoD out the window.  That phrase is not in any of my posts.  My essential position is that it is not legitimate scholarship to impeach the JoD by Pittman notes, given the factors I list above.

When it comes to Church apologia, I believe in disciplined methodology based upon established principles. I take my guidance in large part from what the law might say under the circumstances.  I take my guidance from the methods of criticism I've seen in scholarly journals of historical texts.  One can't simply make up a method of impeachment and call it good without being subject to reasoned criticism.  

Edited December 7, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

If you read the above link's ection on the copyright, you will see that by selling "a" copyright in Canada, Joseph would have protected the BoM from piracy, not give it up.

Copyright law was neither the same in law or the way it was phrased.  The language has changed and it does not mean what we would mean today by saying the same thing.

Perhaps I shouldn't have referred to this event.   Trying to sell a copyright has absolutely nothing to do with the text's legitimacy or the seller's interest in abandoning the text.   I must assume that if Joseph Smith wanted to raise money by selling the Book of Mormon copyright he would have retained a license to publish the Book without limit.  

[Marmonboy]

19 hours ago, pogi said:

Since you are on the subject of correcting typos, it's throw instead of through  

 

It is, however, possible to throw something through a window, although it's probably best to open the window first.

[Calm]

The Primary manual referred to above was published in 1997.  Arrington's speech was 74.  The Ensign link 83.  Maxwell sermon 92.  The BY manual was 2005.

An historical article about Orson Pratt in 2012 is the only thing from the past ten years you referenced, no JoD references were used to support doctrinal statements, but rather were about Orson's experiences and POV.

There is also one reference in a conference talk in the past 16 years.  However, in the twenty before that there were over 100.  Showing a rare current reference or many old references does not dispute that the JoD is no longer popular as a reference among church leadership or has OT been used in the Ensign or conference talks for several years.  It is possible that there is one reference if it occurred after 2012/13 (several is usually under 5, isn't it?).

Edited December 8, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

From my friend's work on JofD references in General Conference.

1 from 2015-2010, 0 2009-2000, 61 1999-1990, 51 1989-1980, 53 1979-1970, 28 1969-1960, 6 1959-1950, 12 1949-1940, and 4 between 1897 and 1939.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

This is what I provided the info for:

"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."

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

From my friend's work on JofD references in General Conference.

1 from 2015-2010, 0 2009-2000, 61 1999-1990, 51 1989-1980, 53 1979-1970, 28 1969-1960, 6 1959-1950, 12 1949-1940, and 4 between 1897 and 1939.

On 12/5/2016 at 9:22 PM, Dirk Moss said:

Do a search on LDS.org yourself and see.  Its not hard to check.  The JOD has not been cited as a source in general conference talks for several years.

I find such concerns a total red herring.

The primary source used as record of the vast majority of GA talks during the Presidency of Brigham Young in Utah (1847-1877) is the JoD.

Just because the quotes are linked back to "Discourses of Brigham Young" as in the Brigham Young manual doesn't change the fact that the historical record of that discourse is the JoD.
In fact, I think if you looked at almost every quote from Brigham Young in General Conference you would likely find the original source of the quote to be the JoD even if a different reference like the manual or DBY.

I think we are all being a bit insincere discussing whether or not the Journals are quoted in General Conference.
So we quote the Brigham Young manual, which in turn got its quote from Widtsoe's Discourses of Brigham Young which in turn got many of its discourses from the Journals.
Widtsoe said "Brigham Young secured stenographic reports of his addresses. As he traveled among the people, reporters accompanied him. All that he said was recorded. Practically all of these discourses (from December 16, 1851 to August 19, 1877) were published in the Journal of Discourses, which was widely distributed. The public utterances of few great historical figures have been so faithfully and fully preserved."

Edited December 8, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Glenn101]

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So we quote the Brigham Young manual, which in turn got its quote from Widtsoe's Discourses of Brigham Young which in turn got many of its discourses from the Journals.
Widtsoe said "Brigham Young secured stenographic reports of his addresses. As he traveled among the people, reporters accompanied him. All that he said was recorded. Practically all of these discourses (from December 16, 1851 to August 19, 1877) were published in the Journal of Discourses, which was widely distributed. The public utterances of few great historical figures have been so faithfully and fully preserved."

The Widtsoe probably was not aware of George Watt's editorial efforts either. Inf act, until just recently there were very few who knew about them and fewer still that knew how extensive Watt's editing was in many cases. The article in question was published in 2013. Hopefully BYU Studies or some organ of the Church will publish all of the sermons for which there are extant shorthand notes.

Glenn

[Bob Crockett]

30 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

The Widtsoe probably was not aware of George Watt's editorial efforts either. Inf act, until just recently there were very few who knew about them and fewer still that knew how extensive Watt's editing was in many cases. The article in question was published in 2013. Hopefully BYU Studies or some organ of the Church will publish all of the sermons for which there are extant shorthand notes.

Glenn

That appears to be unsupported and unwarranted supposition, that the published sermons did not comport with the Brethren's wishes.   As I mentioned, Orson Pratt got into hot water for his published sermons and articles.   They were being read.   Moreover the Tribune was constantly attacking them.   I've read hundreds of old Deseret News papers.    There were many editorials about sermons and counterpunches to the Tribune.   

I don't dispute the fact there were errors in transcription.   Some sermons I've read seem to have problems    But the Brethren intended the JoD to be read as lds,org says:  "and a letter from the First Presidency was included in the first volume encouraging Church members to cooperate in the “purchase and sale” of the journal".

Edited December 8, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

Whatever past leadership considered the JoD, this is what it is considered by them now (unless someone somehow believes that the Gospel Topics aren't run through Correlation?):

"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"