The Reliability of the Journal of Discourses

[SeekingUnderstanding]

50 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

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

And yet we quote and use the old and New Testament all the time regardless. Or are you aware of an effort to decanonize the Bible?

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Lots of problems with the OP and the Carruth article.  

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

Lajean Carruth is not a trained stenographer, but that is not relevant because she is not taking dictation. She is transcribing shorthand notes and comparing them to the published sermons. She is skilled in Pittman shorthand. There is nothing absurd about that. There is nothing absurd about her skill in transcribing Pittman shorthand notes into longhand. She has also done this for the transcripts of the John D. Lee trials.

6 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

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."

Acknowledged that there were instances of editorial control prior to publication. But on page 41 She quotes Brigham Young: "I never look at my sermons."

Here is the context of that quote starting on page 40 right after the discussion of the evidence for some editorial review (of the infamous Orson Pratt sermon which has already been acknowledged):

"While that announcement suggested to the readers that each sermon went through a careful vetting process before publication, evidence suggests that such hands-on editorial control was very much the exception. Despite the starkness of these two examples of prophetic and apostolic editorial intervention prior to publication, both involved the ongoing difficulty between Brigham Young and Orson Pratt over the matter of correct doctrine. It is likely that such strict editorial control was not normally the rule, and certainly this collaborative editing of a spoken sermon by one of the Quorum of the Twelve has no other known equivalent. In fact, the April 4 discussion with Pratt suggests that in general sermons were not so carefully vetted. Brigham Young even declared to the group, “I never look at my sermons,” apparently indicating that he did not study the published versions of his sermons either for consistency or error, and certainly not for editorial flourishes potentially added by Watt."

One more quote from the article:

"Nevertheless, even if every one of the edited sermons was examined prior to publication, because the speakers generally spoke extemporaneously they would have had nothing to compare Watt’s longhand transcription of the speech to. Separated as they were by weeks and even months from a particular sermon, and having given sometimes dozens of other sermons in the interim between the time it was given and the time of publication, it would have been difficult if not impossible for any of the speakers to notice with certainty either omissions or additions in what they had originally spoken. "

 

Granted that the JoD publications were pretty much tacitly accepted by the members of the church and members of the General Authorities, for some time. That does not change the fact that extensive editing by George D. Watt took place. This is in addition to common errors that occur between the orator and recorder. It is evident that Watt made a sincere effort to render the content faithful to the way he understood what the speaker was saying. But in one Heber C. Kimball speech, the shorthand notes contained "nearly six thousand words" while the published version contained a little over twenty-six hundred words, "and many of the words that are included are summarizations and inserted phrases that Kimball apparently never uttered."

That is one example where Watt changed the published sermon so drastically that "that they only scarcely resemble the words and thoughts of the speaker, and most of the details, both religious and historical, have been omitted." As you noted, Kimball was aware that the recorders were wont to edit speeches and was somewhat put out about it, to the point that he admonished them to only put in the words he said and not their "own stuff."

So, I am repeating for the last time here my contention that the JoD is not a good source to use in a debate to try and make a point, doctrine or historical, one way or the other. That is all that I have said, ever. Unless someone can point out where Lajean Carruth has erred in her transcriptions of the shorthand notes, criticism of her work is not well founded.

I am glad that you have read the article though, and I would invite anyone interested to obtain a copy and read it for themselves. It is enlightening.

Glenn

 

 

 

 

 

[Glenn101]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And yet we quote and use the old and New Testament all the time regardless. Or are you aware of an effort to decanonize the Bible?

Yes we do. But when I look at a scripture like "Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6) I have some serious questions. This is one that the JST has clarified or corrected. (Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not known it?)

I am not aware of efforts to decanonize the Bible. Who is involved in this?

Glenn

[Atheist Mormon]

On 12/3/2016 at 8:12 PM, Glenn101 said:

 

The Reliability of the Journal of Discourses

Glenn

Funny you should ask that. Before coming to JoD's, ask the reliability of Gospels...Over the centuries they were changed, corrected thousands of times.... I'd take JoD's any day over reliability issues.

[thesometimesaint]

14 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And yet we quote and use the old and New Testament all the time regardless. Or are you aware of an effort to decanonize the Bible?

There are lots of problems with all scriptures Spiritually mature people just accept that there are problems and adjust their beliefs and actions accordingly, while remaining faithful. 

[Bob Crockett]

19 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

So, I am repeating for the last time here my contention that the JoD is not a good source to use in a debate to try and make a point, doctrine or historical, one way or the other. That is all that I have said, ever. Unless someone can point out where Lajean Carruth has erred in her transcriptions of the shorthand notes, criticism of her work is not well founded.

Ratification trumps your point.   I don't really care to study the printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon (except for historical purposes) when I read the current authorized version of the Book of Mormon, even though I know the current authorized version varies widely from Joseph Smith's original communication.    

But I appreciate you bringing this to our attention, or least to my attention.  I have long believed, on the basis of something I think that Elden Watson had done, that there is an entire paragraph missing from JD 1:50 (Adam God).

Edited December 13, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Ratification trumps your point.   I don't really care to study the printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon (except for historical purposes) when I read the current authorized version of the Book of Mormon, even though I know the current authorized version varies widely from Joseph Smith's original communication.    

But I appreciate you bringing this to our attention, or least to my attention.  I have long believed, on the basis of something I think that Elden Watson had done, that there is an entire paragraph missing from JD 1:50 (Adam God).

We will have to agree to disagree on your first comment. But I am not going to belabor the subject further, I would only wind up repeating things I had said in earlier posts.

On your second comment, I agree with you.

Thanks for sharing your opinions and insights.

Glenn