Difference between revisions of "Journal of Discourses/As doctrine and one of the "standard works" of the Church"

(→‎A "standard work"?: typo)
(No difference)

Revision as of 20:58, 3 September 2009

This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.

Criticism

  • Critics often use the Journal of Discourses to show both nonmembers and LDS what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supposedly "really believes" to be official doctrine on subjects that have been considered to be either controversial or touchy by members of the Church. A popular example often used in the anti-Mormon community is the Adam-God theory.
  • Critics insist that LDS once regarded the Journal of Discourses as a "standard work" or similar to scripture.

Source(s) of the criticism

Response

Critics, however, will often do very little to explain or support the validity, reliability, or the history of the quotes they use from the Journal of Discourses.

History of the Journal of Discourses

The Journal of Discourses is a twenty-six volume set of sermons given by the early members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. It was published in England between the years 1853 and 1886. Its purpose was not unlike the modern Ensign magazine in that it made much of the council of the brethren readily available to the Church in England.

It also served the purpose of creating an income for George D. Watt who served as an official transcriber of the public sermons of the First Presidency and the Twelve, and publisher of the Journal of Discourses. A letter from the First Presidency was included in the first volume recommending that the Saints support Watt by purchasing a copy. Watt was later replaced as the publisher by David W. Evans, who was followed by George W. Gibbs—secretary to the First Presidency.

A "standard work"?

Main article: Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders

Critics are often fond of pointing out that George Q. Cannon described the Journal of Discourses as a "standard work":

The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saints will certainly welcome with joy every Number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector of 'the light that shines from Zion's hill.'[1]

Critics use this paragraph to argue that the Journal of Discourses was once an official, binding publication upon members of the Church. This is a good example of the fallacy of equivocation—the argument relies on the fact that modern members of the Church do not use the term "standard work" in the same way that 19th century members did.

Joseph Smith, for example, said a Church hymnbook would "be a standard work."[2] A "standard work," then, was a book often used or a typical reference work. It did not mean that the work was canonized scripture—which is how modern Church members use the term. The Journal of Discourses was—and is—extremely valuable. It was not, however, without error. It was not without the opinion of leading brethren. And, it was not a work which defined doctrine that was elsewhere undefined or undescribed in LDS scripture.

Critics also ignore other statements by LDS leaders that explain how they saw the material published in venues like the Journal of Discourses. President George Q. Cannon (source of the "standard work" quote used above) explained that the scriptures are the only source of official doctrine, coupled with later revelation to the prophets that has been presented to the Church and sustained:

I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church.[3]

Brigham Young also noted:

Brother Orson Hyde referred to a few who complained about not getting revelations. I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime, perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything of the kind in this place, but in the councils of the nations—that Brigham Young has said "when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture." I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God, without any special command to one man to go here, and to another to go yonder, or to do this or that, or to go and settle here or there.[4]

Brigham Young made it clear that his previous statement should not mean that anything he said was scripture, but only that which he had the opportunity to correct and send to the Saints as scripture.

Reliability of the Journal of Discourses

One might assume, based on how critics quote the Journal of Discourses, that it is something to be shunned, and generally ignored. It does in fact have some errors in it. However many of these errors can be attributed to the fact that the discourses given by the brethren were not always reviewed by them for errors (many gave their sermons impromptu, especially Brigham Young). This of course makes it much more difficult to determine the intent of the speaker. Such things as puns, sarcasms, and emphasis on different parts of a sentence (which can often change the meaning of a sentence) are very difficult to detect when reading sermons that would not have taken into account an audience who would never hear the discourses. In many instances, the General Authorities would give into speculation in their talks. An example of very obvious speculation is provided in a quote by Orson Pratt:

I do not know what the Lord will hereafter do with this people; I have not myself a sufficiency of the spirit of prophecy to understand all the events of the future; and I doubt very much, whether there is an individual in this Church that does know; but we do know as far as the things of the future are revealed; and we may know many things by dreams and visions, but when it comes to principles, and to what the Lord will do with this people, I doubt very much whether there is an individual in the world, that knows the changes and variety of scenes through which this people will be called to pass. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 15)
But if the Saints act wisely they may set an example before them that will do them good, and if there is any good or righteousness in them, an upright, holy example will bring it out. All this will take place, and there are many here that will live to see those things, and I rejoice that there is but a comparatively little time for those things to be accomplished. (ibid, Vol. 3, p. 16-17)

If the first half of the quote was cut off, the passage would have a very different tone. Orson Pratt would appear to have an authoritative tone which could leave the reader rather perplexed. However, as we know, no one knows when the Second Coming will occur, and with this knowledge, it is clear to see that Orson Pratt is speculating. But at times, early General Authorities would speculate about more weighty matters, and would reach into the foggy realm of unsure doctrines, just as most Latter-day Saints do from time to time when contemplating the Church’s principles. While the General Authorities in our day are much more careful not to share their personal beliefs in public discourses, the General Authorities in the early time period were less careful. After all, practically everyone was a member of the Church in Salt Lake City and surrounding areas at that time period. They would not need excuse themselves when speculating as Orson Pratt was careful to do in the quote above. This makes it more difficult to detect when the Brethren were not speaking about the true and established principles of the Church, and were speculating instead. And in these instances, the reader who has a sound knowledge of the Church’s doctrines and a sure testimony will have no difficulty in dismissing these quotes as speculation. However, some of the writings of the Journal of Discourses are more disturbing, and are not excusable as private interpretation. One of the more common is Brigham Young’s Blood atonement. Quotes such as these often become disturbing because the reader does not understand the time period, or has not read the surrounding passage to get a grasp on context.

Examples of anti-Mormon quote mining in the Journal of Discourses

Main article: Use of sources/Journal of Discourses

Table of Contents

Main article: Journal of Discourses/Contents

Conclusion

The bind that critics find themselves in is that they want to have their cake and eat it too: they want to use sources written or derived from faithful Mormons and LDS Church leaders in order to maximize the shock value of what they present; but they also can't resist the "the Church hides and/or manipulates its history" claim.

In this case, the two approaches run at cross-purposes, and cancel each other out—the Church has not hidden the Journal of Discourses, but neither has it made its contents binding upon members. Even less has the Church made the (usually distorted or removed from context) claims of critics binding upon members—our doctrine is for us to declare and interpret, not the critics.

Thus, the critic must insist that the Church had (in the past) treated the Journal of Discourses as binding doctrine on the level of scripture and that this has been hidden from the modern member. Neither claim is true.

This is another good example of where fundamentalist critics (whether religious or secular) try to impose their mindset on the Church and its members. Critics cannot understand how the Church can have prophets that are not infallible—they assume either that these men must not be prophets, or that members must regard them and their every utterance as infallible. Neither conclusion is correct.

Endnotes

  1. [note]  George Q. Cannon, introduction to 8th volume of Journal of Discourses.
  2. [note]  Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 164. off-site
  3. [note]  George Q. Cannon, "Comments," Millennial Star 42 no. 46 (15 November 1880), 724. (10 October 1880, General Conference)
  4. [note]  Brigham Young, "Texts for Preaching Upon at Conference—Revelations, etc.," Journal of Discourses, reported by D.W. Evans and John Grimshaw, (6 October 1870), Vol. 13 (London: Latter-day Saint's Book Depot, 1871), 264–264.off-site

Further reading

FAIR wiki articles

FAIR web site

External links

Printed material

  • Journal of Discourses (London: Latter-Day Saint's Book Depot, 1855–86), 26 vols. + index.
  • Ronald G. Watt, "Journal of Discourses", Encyclopedia of Mormonism 2:769–70.
Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Journal_of_Discourses/As_doctrine_and_one_of_the_%22standard_works%22_of_the_Church&oldid=48675"