The Reliability of the Journal of Discourses

[JLHPROF]

10 hours 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

Perhaps.

But it's still disingenuous to say "we don't quote the journals" in Conference just because we pass the recorded discourse from the Journals through one or two other books first.
Still came from the Journals.

[Bob Crockett]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

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"

I have never said that it is authoritative.  Your quote supports my prior statements.  You must be assuming that I am here to champion the JoD when what I am doing is stating the absurdity of challenging the JoD on the basis of Pittman notes. 

Let me state an analogy.  I am a libertarian.  I think Marx's philosophies to be absurd and unsupportable.  It would not be persuasive to me for you to show me differences between his printer's manuscript and the published Das Kapital.  I would think the effort rather frivolous.

Similarly, antiMormons love to criticize the statements of the Three and Eight Witnesses on the basis that there is no original signed statement of the witnesses.  The correct response is that the witnesses simply ratified the testimony by seeing their statements in print.  It isn't the original document that is important in determining policy and pronouncement; it is what is published.

I have repeatedly drummed home the fact that I have problems with the accuracy of the Journal of Discourses.  It has historical significance but not a whole lot more, in my opinion.  The Church says that hardly anything is authoritative, even those items the Church published.  The Church does not operate on a concept of a fixed canon, so it isn't going to be pinned down by past official statements.

I merely point out that the First Presidency urged the members of the Church to buy the Journal of Discourses.  The obvious implication of that is that they reviewed and approved the contents or otherwise believed the contents were a worthy representative of Church teachings.  

So, respectfully,I think there is some -- but not much -- merit in the attempt to impeach the Journal of Discourses by claiming that the Pittman shorthand notes contradict the printed text of the sermons.  For all the reasons I advance above.  I don't want to repeat them.  You seem to ignore the stronger points because, I suppose, your mind is made up about this Pittman stuff. 

I strongly caution thinking and believing Saints not to sign on to this nonsense (given the over 120 years of Church acceptance of the JoD).  Otherwise we begin to start worshiping at the shrine of the Pittman notes and expect to find the Holy Grail there when it isn't going to be.  (For similar reasons I question the likely results of the Book of Mormon Critical Text project, but that is another matter.) The JoD's problems are much more significant that your point, which seems a little trivial given the points I've made about ratification.  (I've done more checking; lots of recent general conference cites to Discourses of Brigham Young and similar works about Wilford Woodruff and others -- all derived in part from the JoD.)

   The sermons were not prepared. They weren't correlated.  They expressed lots of personal opinion.  Much of it was just plain bogus from the perspective of historical Church doctrine.  God is not an unembodied aggregate of universal particles, as taught in the JoD.  Orson let his philosophy get away from him.  It is not right to publish parts of the endowment ceremony.  Orson thought at times he ran the Church and was smarter than Pres. Young.  When Thomas B. Marsh spoke in the tabernacle and publicly repented of his sins, I thought it wrong for President Young to follow him and mock him.  One of President Young's counselors, one of his sons, was a disbeliever and President Young knew it, and I find it incorrect to let him speak in conference.  I find the JoD critical to an understanding of Church history and not so much its theology.  

Similarly, I've heard stake presidents say some pretty conflicting things or implement unusual and non-authorized policies or, even, violate the law.  The Church does not have systematic theology nor does it train its priesthood leaders formally.  I note from the New Testament several points of conflict between what Paul taught and what Peter taught. 

Edited December 8, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/3/2016 at 7:12 PM, Glenn101 said:

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

This really is fascinating!

Watt certainly took liberties with his transcription, didn't he?

By comparison, it looks fairly faithful to the intent of the content recorded in shorthand, but as a reporter in this day and age, I would not do that to somebody's words and call it a direct quotation. I would cast it as an indirect quote or a paraphrase. It is as though Watt were acting as a ghost writer.

I like how the transcribed shorthand preserves the flavor of Brigham Young's phrasing and manner of speech, but it is definitely not as easy to read as is the cleaned up version that Watt published.

I would like to see more such comparisons.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

Scott Lloyd quoteth:  " “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."

I'd be curious Scott what your opinion is on my ratification argument.  What does it matter if there were reconstructed differences if the sermons were published without retraction in the Deseret News + lots of editorials both by the SL Trib and Deseret News about published sermons + some evidence of Brigham's disapproval of what Orson Pratt's published statements and Moses Thatcher's published statements said?  Do you really believe the Brethren did not read the Deseret News?

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I have never said that it is authoritative.  Your quote supports my prior statements.  You must be assuming that I am here to champion the JoD when what I am doing is stating the absurdity of challenging the JoD on the basis of Pittman notes. 

I do not understand that part of your stance. The Pittman "notes" were the actual shorthand texts from which George Watt extracted his longhand transcriptions. What is absurd about an expert in Pittman shorthand that has studied George Watt's work for thirty years going back to those original notes and performing another transcription, then comparing it to the published material?

7 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I have repeatedly drummed home the fact that I have problems with the accuracy of the Journal of Discourses.  It has historical significance but not a whole lot more, in my opinion.  The Church says that hardly anything is authoritative, even those items the Church published.  The Church does not operate on a concept of a fixed canon, so it isn't going to be pinned down by past official statements.

And your intuition has been proven correct! I would think that you would be pleased.

7 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I merely point out that the First Presidency urged the members of the Church to buy the Journal of Discourses.  The obvious implication of that is that they reviewed and approved the contents or otherwise believed the contents were a worthy representative of Church teachings.

Some, but not all. As I noted in an earlier post, I do not recall any apostle citing anything from the Adam-God sermons or those on the Blood Atonement, or Orson Pratt's discourse on how he worshiped God. Speakers parsed those JoD sermons for quotes that were in accord with the church doctrines as were currently understood. But the quotes may have been just as much Watt's words as they were those of the person giving the talk.

Again, I do believe that you are remonstrating against a position which has not been taken.

What I and I believe the authors of article are advocating is not to use the JoD as an authoritative source to try to make a point one way or the other. As you noted, they are of great worth historically and to get a feel for the speeches, themes, concerns, etc. of those apostles of former times.

Glenn

[Bob Crockett]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

But the quotes may have been just as much Watt's words as they were those of the person giving the talk.

 

It doesn't matter if they were Watt's words or Orson Pratt's.   They became Orson Pratt's after publication and he did not retract them.  As the style was not to prepare talks in advance, few speakers would know the words weren't theirs or care.

I would not trust an effort to disprove the JoD in this manner.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Scott Lloyd quoteth:  " “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."

I'd be curious Scott what your opinion is on my ratification argument.  What does it matter if there were reconstructed differences if the sermons were published without retraction in the Deseret News + lots of editorials both by the SL Trib and Deseret News about published sermons + some evidence of Brigham's disapproval of what Orson Pratt's published statements and Moses Thatcher's published statements said?  Do you really believe the Brethren did not read the Deseret News?

Back then? I would not venture a guess as to their reading habits.

As is said in the film adaptation of L.P. Hartley's The Go-Between, "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."

By the way, I didn't quote it, not initially. Glenn101 did.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Back then? I would not venture a guess as to their reading habits.

As is said in the film adaptation of L.P. Hartley's The Go-Between, "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."

By the way, I didn't quote it, not initially. Glenn101 did.

I guess I shouldn't have asked more than one question.   Don't you think that the publication of sermons in an official organ of the Church, the Deseret News, trumps any concern about whether the sermons were reported accurately?  

If, today, there is a textual difference between what is printed in the Ensign for a general conference talk and the video of the talk -- let's say its a material difference and not a minor error in transcription -- should not we give more heed to the official printed version?

Or should we just disregard the printed version because we like the video version better, as it is more in line with our personal philosophies?

[I can say that it is a rather common thing in large organizations as well as academic settings to have differences between what was said at a forum and what is printed in a journal of the proceedings.  Witness FAIR's recent redaction of comments made by Bill Reel.  Having been through this exercise in some of these settings, the answer simply is that the organization has time when it prints the proceedings to make sure they are in line with the organization's objectives.  Real common.  And not wrong.  We should not presume that the Brethren in the Salt Lake Valley were bumpkins.  President Young had a phalanx of secretaries reading him newspaper articles, taking his dictation, etc. ]

There's three questions.  Sorry.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Glenn101]

21 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

It doesn't matter if they were Watt's words or Orson Pratt's.   They became Orson Pratt's after publication and he did not retract them.  As the style was not to prepare talks in advance, few speakers would know the words weren't theirs or care.

I would not trust an effort to disprove the JoD in this manner.

Actually Orson Pratt did retract one of his sermons. But the retraction itself was not viewed very favorably by Brigham, as per the article.

I keep asking a question that I have not seen you answer. What part of the process do you distrust? Do you question Lajean Purcell Carruth's skill/competence transcribing Pittman shorthand notes? Do you distrust her attention to detail, her diligence in studying George Watt's coding style (thirty years) in order to render his notes accurately into longhand.? Do you , have anything specific, substantive that you can point to in the actual that is cause for alarm? The people that work with Lajean seem to trust he professional integrity and skill level. This is not was not an off the cuff hodgepodge effort. It has been a sustained, painstaking effort to learn, understand and transcribe those sermons. If you can point out actual errors, that would help.

Transcribing the shorthand of another person can be a problem. Every person who learns shorthand will develop personal variations that must be learned in order to be able to "translate" their work into longhand. But that is what Lajean has done. I guess that we will continue to disagree on that point.

5 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

And not wrong.  We should not presume that the Brethren in the Salt Lake Valley were bumpkins.  President Young had a phalanx of secretaries reading him newspaper articles, taking his dictation, etc. ]

No one is presuming that the brethren in Salt Lake were bumpkins. As I quoted from the article though, there is little evidence of editing of the published speeches by the originators of the speeches. And Brigham Young was quoted as saying that he never looked at his own sermons. I provided that quote and a reference for it in an earlier post. But he did review the talks of others when the occasion warranted. This was the case with the Orson Pratt talk on how he worshiped God.  That talk must have bothered someone because someone brought it to Brigham's attention. Brigham ordered that the talk not be published in the Deseret News and provided another sermon in its place. However, part of Pratt's talk had already been set in type and was printed. Pratt wrote another "apology" sermon as a retraction and it was printed, but as I noted previously, Brigham did not really care for the "apology."

However, the article notes that the evidence shows that actual review was sporadic at best, but that it did happen and then it did not happen. Often there were delays of several days, to a couple of weeks or more between the delivery of a sermon and the publishing in the Deseret News or the JoD.

The crux of the matter as it stands today is that a legitimate, concerted effort has been made to understand Watt's shorthand notes and to transcribe them into longhand. Comparisons with those longhand notes and the published sermons brought to light extensive editing by George Watt. Whether that editing was reviewed before hand in all occasions is open to debate. The the research has uncovered evidence only of sporadic review.

That editing is an additional caution in addition to the possible errors inherit in dictation especially without the possibility of immediate review makes it advisable not to use the Journal of Discourses to try to make a point, doctrinal or otherwise, which has been the main point I have belabored all along.

Glenn

[RevTestament]

This OP just affirms for me that the JoD should not be treated as scripture. I have found many things in it which I believe are contrary to the scriptures. Given that the JoD seems to really be the UNDERSTANDING of one man based on what he was hearing, I am all the more cautious about relying on them in any way as a source for Church Doctrine or theology. I thank the OP for pointing this out. I would be all for willing persons to go through the shorthand, and publishing a new, more accurate/literal version of the JoD if that would add light to the subjects in the JoD. Nevertheless, I believe Watt was probably an honest man, so my guess is most of the subjects are treated fairly accurately in the present "abridged" version of the JoD, which is what I believe it should be called.

[Marmonboy]

I am sticking with my original position that they would be fascinating from a historical POV, enabling us to get that much closer to the unfiltered speech of those pioneer Church leaders, but they would not be the be-all and end-all of contemporary Church doctrine.

[Bob Crockett]

20 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

 

I keep asking a question that I have not seen you answer. What part of the process do you distrust?

 

 

 

 

And I keep answering.  In summary:  Typically, a shorthand reporter (at least in modern times) uses lots of means to get a correct transcript, including consulting with others who were there, consult with the speaker to approve the text, and consult with others who also took notes.  The King Follett sermon was constructed from the notes of several people.  I doubt Lajean is actually a certified court reporter.  Furthermore, once the sermon is published, all bets are off about the notes.  The fact of publication trumps the notes.  So, really, I have answered your question many times. It is OK if you don't want to read or much less acknowledge my answers, but the publication is more than enough.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Glenn101]

24 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

And I keep answering.  In summary:  Typically, a shorthand reporter (at least in modern times) uses lots of means to get a correct transcript, including consulting with others who were there, consult with the speaker to approve the text, and consult with others who also took notes.  The King Follett sermon was constructed from the notes of several people.  I doubt Lajean is actually a certified court reporter.  Furthermore, once the sermon is published, all bets are off about the notes.  The fact of publication trumps the notes.  So, really, I have answered your question many times. It is OK if you don't want to read or much less acknowledge my answers, but the publication is more than enough.

I asked specific questions which you did not answer. Do you doubt Lajean's competence in the Pittman shorthand field and ability to accurately transcribe Pittman shorthand notes? If so, on what basis did you come to that conclusion? On actual observed errors that have been reported? The fact that Lajean is not a certified court reporter is really irrelevant. She is a historian and has been cited in several works by several authors.

I agree with your statement that "Typically, a shorthand reporter (at least in modern times) uses lots of means to get a correct transcript, including consulting with others who were there, consult with the speaker to approve the text, and consult with others who also took notes. "However, the evidence that has been uncovered does not support substantial collaboration and/or review.

Glenn

[Calm]

Court reporters have never been the only ones to use shorthand.  I see no reason why their standards should be applied to a no legal environment whose participants were likely clueless such standards might be someday applied to them.

[Calm]

https://history.lds.org/article/lost-sermons-editorial-method?lang=eng

"We’ve had the shorthand of George D. Watt and others in our collection for many years, but they haven’t been accessible to researchers because very few people could read them," Assistant Church Historian Richard E. Turley Jr. said. "We’re fortunate to have with us on our staff a woman named LaJean Carruth who has taught herself to read the shorthand of George D. Watt, and she has been able to open up this treasure chest of material for the use of researchers.”

[Bob Crockett]

One should not treat my skepticism as support for the Journal of Discourses, which it isn't, or somehow an attack on what the Church is saying and doing today.  It isn't.   

One must give due credit to the published versions the FP asked the members to buy and study.   LaJean Carutth's work is interesting but how would a secular historian treat this information if asked the question:  "Is the Journal of Discourses a reliable source of early LDS Church sermons?"

Glenn's original post said:  "The Journal of Discourses is everyone’s favourite source for quote mining to prove a point one way or the other."   Should we not refer to the JoD?

 

Edited December 11, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Glenn101]

50 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Glenn's original post said:  "The Journal of Discourses is everyone’s favourite source for quote mining to prove a point one way or the other."   Should we not refer to the JoD?

Bob, how do you feel we should use the JoD?

Glenn

[Bob Crockett]

Like any historical source.  It was the Church's (i.e., the Church's position on what the Brethren had said) stated position at one time.  The sermons were published in the Deseret News.  Warts and all.  

The problem I think with you and others is that you seem to think the Brethren speak ex cathedra, when they just don't.   So you get troubled when supposed ex cathedra statements say embarrassing things.  Rather than acknowledge that the Brethren do not speak ex cathedra you want to find means to impeach the published statements to suggest that the ex cathedra statements weren't accurately reported. 

We read in the NT Luke's rather bland and non-controversial account of the Church's first general conference in Jerusalem.  We have Paul's account, where he condemns Peter as one of the "false brethren" who has gone back on the revelation about the Gentiles.  Paul condemns Peter's refusal to eat with the Gentiles at the conference.   Who's to blame here?  Paul for being critical of Peter and sowing dissension?  Was Paul exaggerating?  Did Luke fail to give an accurate account?  Should we jettison the whole NT because of this seeming inconsistency and conflict?  You, I think, could say "Yes."  Many others might say -- well, the Apostles don't speak ex cathedra and thus men will be men.

Should we not refer to the JoD?

Is the JoD a reasonable source to understand the Brethren's sermons at the time?

Is there no value to seeing and using the published version of a sermon, even if the shorthand notes seem to vary?

Why would President Young have authorized the publication of the sermons in the first place and urged the Saints to buy either the Deseret News or JoD?  

Shouldn't President Young simply have said -- look at George Watt's notes?

Edited December 11, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[thesometimesaint]

I think it is best to take the JoD as a window into what some leaders were thinking at the time. But not necessarily binding on us in ours.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

I think it is best to take the JoD as a window into what some leaders were thinking at the time. But not necessarily binding on us in ours.

The concept of whether a teaching is binding on us or not always strikes me as a strange one.

If something is true, it's binding.  If it's not true it's not binding. 
If it was once true and now is not it is not eternal and therefore of less significance (temporal laws of Moses for instance). 
But if it is eternal it should still concern us.

All that matters is eternal truth.  Nothing else will have any lasting impact.

Edited December 11, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Shouldn't President Young simply have said -- look at George Watt's notes?

You do have a sense of humor after all!

6 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

The problem I think with you and others is that you seem to think the Brethren speak ex cathedra, when they just don't.

Bob, I do not believe that the prophets are speaking ex cathedra in every talk and sermon.  You are reading something into my remarks that are not there. My contention is and has been simply that the JoD is not a reliable source from which to try to make a point. I believe that the JoD is a good place to gain a perspective on the ideas and thoughts of the speakers, the things that were concerning them during the era.

Glenn

 

[thesometimesaint]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The concept of whether a teaching is binding on us or not always strikes me as a strange one.

If something is true, it's binding.  If it's not true it's not binding. 
If it was once true and now is not it is not eternal and therefore of less significance (temporal laws of Moses for instance). 
But if it is eternal it should still concern us.

All that matters is eternal truth.  Nothing else will have any lasting impact.

Truism.

I still like bacon cheese burghers even if under OT Eternal Truth requires I be put to death.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

If we discount the Journal of Discourse for transcription problems, what do we do with the Old and New Testament? Don't we run into the same problem (only probably much worse)?

[Bob Crockett]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If we discount the Journal of Discourse for transcription problems, what do we do with the Old and New Testament? Don't we run into the same problem (only probably much worse)?

As well as talks published the Ensign. 

The whole theory of the OP and the Carruth article is absurd.   Doubt the entirety of the JoD because of purported differences between Pittman notes for a few sermons and the published versions?

Lots of problems with the OP and the Carruth article.  

She's not a trained stenographer.   Does her article address standard stenographic techniques?  No.  

In plenty of places her article acknowledges heavy editorial control of the sermons before publication.  She writes, at page 37 of her article that Pres. Young spent days in his office having sermons read to him by Thomas Bullock as the sermons were being readied for publication in the Journal of Discourses.   (Again, supporting my position that Pres. Young really couldn't read much.)

She writes at page 26:  "Young was likely also aware of, and possibly even condoned, Watt's general practice of editing the sermons in order to present the speakers in a more polished, erudite light."

She also notes that Heber C. Kimball, who was not an educated man, objected to Watt's editorial insertions into Kimball's talks.  P. 36.

What does all this mean?   Once the sermons achieved publication status, the notes -- whatever they were -- became of very little significance as the Church ratified the final versions as they were published in the Deseret News and then sent to England for publication in the Journal of Discourses.   This is no basis to get all excited about jettisoning the Journal of Discourses.   To lay readers of Carruth's articles, I can see the attractiveness to all this.  But evidentiary standards are polished over 1000 years, and they teach that it is one thing to say that somebody didn't record your speech correctly, and quite another to approve for publication a transcript of your speech and then come back and say that transcription does not match what you said.

It is akin to signing an affidavit under penalty of perjury and then disavowing it on the ground that somebody else drafted it for to sign.  Really, the exact same concept.  Somebody else might have indeed drafted it for you to sign but once you ratified it with your signature, they are your words.

In terms of a Latter-day Saint trying to determine what was presented as doctrine during Brigham Young's declaration, should we rely upon notes of sermons that Brigham Young and and the Brethren did not author or view, or texts that Brigham Young approved for publication to the Saints?  Is it significant in that determination that Brigham Young knew that the reporter was making editorial refinement of the sermons but ordered publication nonetheless?  

Similarly, in our day today, in attempting to divine what passes for Church doctrine today, should we rely upon the published text of sermons in the official conference reporter (and the Ensign) or the video of the sermons which may contain differences?

I realize that historians may have a different view of things and might be interested in what Brigham Young actually said on a particular date rather than what he approved for publication later, but that is altogether a different question that "What was the view of the Brethren?"

Edited December 13, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If we discount the Journal of Discourse for transcription problems, what do we do with the Old and New Testament? Don't we run into the same problem (only probably much worse)?

There are lots of problems with the Old and New Testaments. The Joseph Smith "Translation" was a beginning attempt to identify and correct some of the problems. "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; ......" (Article of Faith #8)

Glenn