Journal of Discourses - Isn't it scripture anymore?

[Guest]

It is referenced in all currently accepted church publications (although the word "women" is generally replaced with "woman").

"Special Witnesses" quote from it on a regular basis.

But the Stake President warned me to stop reading between the quotes.



So what is it? What isn't it?


Is pinning down it's accurate description like trying to describe the taste of salt?

[_Yoda]

My understanding is that the Journal of Discourses is not considered canonized scripture. It is a resource, but not scripture. The Journal of Discourses addresses the Saints during that time period going through those particular struggles, and the counsel given is unique to them.

This is the apologist answer (or pretty close to it...I'm sure that Gaz or BC will correct me if I'm wrong here).

What I find intriguing is your very valid point on one of the other threads. (Sorry, I can't remember which one).

You asked the question, "Wasn't the Journal of Discourses the Ensign of that time frame?"

I hadn't heard this phrased quite this way, but you're exactly right.

That would mean that the Ensign is OUR Journal of Discourses.

Interesting to think about. That means that the instruction given in the Ensign is considered "scripture" for us, but may not be considered "scripture" for Church members in the future, just like the JoD is not considered scripture to us.

Thoughts, anyone?

[_Trinity]

Yes, it is the Ensign, including talks given over the pulpit in the tabernacle during conference. Most believers I know consider the Conference edition of the Ensign to be scripture.

[_Seven]

Yes, it is the Ensign, including talks given over the pulpit in the tabernacle during conference. Most believers I know consider the Conference edition of the Ensign to be scripture.

This is one of my favorite topics, besides polygamy.

The Conference talks are scripture for today. Apologists will tell you nothing is except the standard works but there have been prophets who have stated Conference is modern day scripture and is MORE important than anything we read because it's for our day. I will have to hunt those statements down. Calling Rollo for help!

[_Seven]

It is referenced in all currently accepted church publications (although the word "women" is generally replaced with "woman").

"Special Witnesses" quote from it on a regular basis.

But the Stake President warned me to stop reading between the quotes.



So what is it? What isn't it?


Is pinning down it's accurate description like trying to describe the taste of salt?

Uncle Dale is one of my favorite posters on FAIR/MAD. Here is an exchange he had with BC Space about this topic I thought could help when you hear apologists claim it wasn't scripture for the saints at that time:

QUOTE (BCSpace @ Aug 29 2006, 10:05 PM)

The JoD is not considered a doctrinal work because it is not published by the Church.



Malarkey!

Not only was the JD published by the LDS Church (using both the Church's press and
a commecial press in Liverpool, England), the discourses were nearly all previously
published in the "doctrinal" section of either the Deseret Evening News or the
Deseret Weekly News, on the Church's press in Salt Lake City.

Not only that, but the texts of the discourses were sometimes shortened by the
Church-appointed editors of the Deseret News, under either direct 1st Presidency
supervision, or under apostolic supervision.

In other words, when you read a Brigham Young General Conference Address in an
old volume of the Deseret News, you know that Young approved the text, that
his secretary, Elder Reynolds reviewed the text, and that editors like Elder Carrington
double-checked the text, prior to publication in Utah and reprinting in the JD.

If you are saying that Mormons, back in, say, 1865, could have walked up to BY
during a Conference Talk, and told him that they refused to follow his instruction,
as the Church's Living Prophet, you are simply wrong.

Had you attempted to do that, you would have been put through a church court
trial for disobedience to direct instruction from the Lord's Anointed.

Now, 140 years later, Mormons seem to think that they can pick and choose which
sentences from those discourses are the Word of God, and which are not.

Isn't the determination of doctrine still an exclusive prerogative if the 1st Presidency?
If instruction, advice, counsel, or inspired opinion of a former Living Prophet (or
even of a high level GA) is to be overrulled, then doesn't that decision have to come
from a higher level in the Church than a member who objects to which printing press
was used to publish that communication (and in a foreign reprint edition, for heaven's sake!)

UD

QUOTE (BCSpace @ Aug 29 2006, 10:41 PM)


The fact remains that the JoD is not a doctrinal work. Try again.






OK -- you've convinced me!

As a Reorganized LDS, I should have never been reading that Utah stuff anyway.
But, you say "try again" -- ???

If an 1865 JD discourse by BY is non-doctrinal, then how about a 1965 DN
"Church News" section's printing of an LDS First Presidency Message?

[u]V

TIMES AND SEASONS.

CITY OF NAUVOO,

THURSDAY, SEPT. 1, 1842.

PERSECUTION OF THE PROPHETS.





QUOTE

But if we believe in present revelation, as published in the Times and Seasons last spring, Abraham, the prophet of the Lord, was laid upon the iron bedstead for slaughter; and the book of Jasher, which has not been disproved as a bad author, says he was cast into the fire of the Chaldeas.

If THAT also is non-doctrinal, my Reorganite adrenaline will really get pumping, and
I can start looking for a 2005 LDS 1st Pres source to submit for similar dismissal.

I'm psyched!

UD

[_Yoda]

Uncle Dale is one of my favorite posters on FAIR/MAD. Here is an exchange he had with BC Space about this topic I thought could help when you hear apologists claim it wasn't scripture for the saints at that time:

LOL!

This is a great discussion, Seven. What was BC's response? If he didn't respond, maybe we can convince him to respond here. ;)

[_bcspace]

"But if we believe in present revelation, as published in the Times and Seasons last spring, Abraham, the prophet of the Lord, was laid upon the iron bedstead for slaughter; and the book of Jasher, which has not been disproved as a bad author, says he was cast into the fire of the Chaldeas."

If THAT also is non-doctrinal, my Reorganite adrenaline will really get pumping, and
I can start looking for a 2005 LDS 1st Pres source to submit for similar dismissal.

The Times and Seasons is not a doctrinal work (I seem to recall Uncle Dale try to make the case the the Deseret News is a doctrinal work but perhaps my recollection is faulty). However, can we not find a similar statement about Abraham in a doctrinal work? Perhaps in the scriptures themselves? Or is it the Book of Jasher he is worried about (notice the caveat in any case even though the T&S is not a doctrinal work)?

It IS true that the JoD is not considered a doctrinal work because it is not published by the Church (The Corporation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or simply The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I should have been more clear on that) and of latest date. Anyone who takes a teacher preparation course in the Chruch or who is or has been a missionary knows this (as well as most who attend Church on a regular basis).

Uncle Dale knows this (or should know this) and is simply upset that many of his pet hypothesis' go out the window without the JoD. Now if you can find a JoD quote in a doctrinal work (and you often can indeed find such quotes) then that particular quote, if presented as doctrine, is doctrine.

There are some LDS (you can see some of them on FAIR or 'in the chapel') who over or under react to the JoD and similar works. Some will tell you that only LDS scriptures are doctrine and that anything else published by the Corporation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints such as Sunday School manuals etc. are not doctrinal. Others do indeed consider works like the JoD to be doctrine. Both are wrong.

You might also want to provide the link to the particular MAD discussion lest any be tempted to go out of context.

[_Yoda]

You might also want to provide the link to the particular MAD discussion lest any be tempted to go out of context.

MAD has a block on us being able to link to specific threads. It would be a good idea, though, to find the title of the thread, and the appropriate date it was started so that posters here can find it easily.

[_bcspace]

You might also want to provide the link to the particular MAD discussion lest any be tempted to go out of context.

MAD has a block on us being able to link to specific threads.

Yet someone was able to incompletely quote one. You can still print out the actual url and I can copy and paste.

[_Yoda]

You might also want to provide the link to the particular MAD discussion lest any be tempted to go out of context.

MAD has a block on us being able to link to specific threads.

Yet someone was able to incompletely quote one. You can still print out the actual url and I can copy and paste.

That's cool. I can't do a search over there because I'm banned. I can read, but I don't have a sign-on. You can't use the search function unless you are signed in on the board. Would you be willing to search it, and post the link here?