The Confounding World of LDS Doctrinal Pronouncements...

[_Jason Bourne]

I'm not playing word games, I'm only pointing out that the inferential linkage within your core argument is fragile at best.

Sure you are. You have to to make this work.

For heaven's sake Jason, the New Testament apostles didn't completely understand that the Lord was going to be physically resurrected until after he was dead and they had seen him with there own eyes. No one has ever said that the teaching of the Gospel would be without imperfections because of the imperfect humans through whom it comes. But in the Lord's true church, any such gets corrected.

God being God from eternity and being and being a personage of spirit to not being God from eternity, having a body, being a man like us and one of a plethora of other gods is a huge shift and not a simple misunderstanding or interpretation.

Even if the original intent of Josephs' words are in contradiction to previous teaching in that Jesus and the Father are not different physically, this does not invalidate the lectures. I don't know what Joseph meant or what the context of his words were. What I do know is that you are second guessing him in an attempt to justify your own personal movement away from the Church.

The lectures were actually quite well done and in agreement with LDS Canon up to that point. It is the later teachings that moved away from the core teachings about God. And you are in idiot if you think I enjoy the difficulty this had caused or if you think I am trying to justify moving away from the Church I based my life on and still love.

This is the problem with your posts coggins, as well as many in the apologetic business. People have honest questions and issues but you just want to belittle and try to make them think they have some charecter flaw. It does not help much really.

Well, I'd just be careful how you judge the Lord's servants from your cubby hole almost two centuries removed from him and without the benefit of being able to ask him yourself what he meant.

Whatever. Words have meanings. Teachings mean something. Men who claim to be spokesmen for God should be expected to be consistent in their message. The One True Church should stand and proclaim just what the doctrine is and not leave it open ended as it is not ignore the clear contradictions.

But of course, anything to delegitimize teachings that rub you the wrong way (after all, if they do that then, well, they couldn't be true now, could they?).

I am quite happy to believe God was once a man and we can become Gods and he has a body if it did not contradict the canon that other prophets have said is the measurement of doctrine and if it does not square with canon we can set it aside. Too bad you cannot discuss things without being demeaning. Do I threaten you or something? The gospel seems to have failed fostering civility in you.

[_beastie]

Which means that the Lectures on Faith as a whole were profitable for doctrine. Does it say that every word in them is so profitable? Not in the text you posted. The Bible is profitable for doctrine as well, as a whole, and yet we also accept the fact that there are numerous passages in that work that are not inspired (including the entire Song of Solomon). Could it be possible that there is one doctrine here that was not clear in Joseph's mind at the time, and yet the entire corpus still be "profitable for doctrine?".

No, of course not. That doesn't fit the secular leftist rockin' Dawkins its-all-just-a-big-cosmic-accident template does it? My, what you Brights won't do to win an argument.

Have you actually read the Lectures on Faith? You do realize that the premise that a correct understanding of the nature of God was one of the primary points of the Lectures? And that the pesky little detail that you regard as a "rhetorical flourish" is talking directly about that very nature?

So your premise is that a major component of the entire series could be incorrect, and it really wouldn't matter.

And, of course, anyone who doesn't accept this strained premise of yours is intellectually and spiritually damaged.

Really. Deep down does this satisfy you? Somewhere in that coggin noggin do you realize what a pathetic show you've demonstrated on this point?

[_Jason Bourne]

I think you really need to get with the program or go back to Sunday School and pay attention this time around. The standard works do not define all of our accepted doctrine and belief. You are in a church led by the principle of modern, continuing revelation, not the Catholic Church or Evangelical Protestantism with its "deposit of faith".

JFS and HBL disagree. They said the standard works is what judges our doctrine and if a teaching disagrees with it we can set it aside. Of course new teaching can be canonized.

As for addtional revelation ok. If doctrine is outside of canon what do we do with Adam God, Blood atonement, polygamy required for exaltation and on and on, all the things taught by apostles and prophets that we are told by the apologist that it was opinion and or it does not square with canon. You are playing both sides here coggins.

Doctrine is whatever comes by the power of the Holy Spirit, whether it finds its way into the standard works or not. And you are also dog dead wrong in your primary assertion. There is a plethora of scriptures which logically imply, explicitly or implicitly that the Father shares with the son not only his nature and powers, but his experiences and path of development. Go back to the New Testament and see where Jesus quite clearly and unambiguously says that [I]he does nothing but what he has seen the Father do.

Please provide a list of scriptures that teach God the father is just one of a plethora of an infinite regression of Gods, that He was once a man like us and that he was not God from all eternity. If there are a plethora of such passages this should be quite easy for you.

I could multiply examples such as this all night but I have neither the patience nor the time to do so. This thread has just about exhausted its intellectual credibility.

Yes especially after this post you made.

[_Yoda]

OK, folks..in answer to the question of whether or not the Journal of Discourses can be considered doctrine, here is the Church's official stance from LDS.org:

I’ve been reading the Journal of Discourses with a great deal of interest and pleasure, but I notice that they are not printed by the Church. Can you tell me how authoritative I should consider them to be?

Gerald E. Jones, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Aug. 1978, 31–32

Gerald E. Jones, director, LDS Institute of Religion, Berkeley, California Many queries come from students concerning these twenty-six volumes first published in England between 1853 and 1886. The original intent of their publication was to provide income for George D. Watt, their stenographer and publisher. Many Church members in England desired to read the sermons delivered by the General Authorities of the Church in Utah, and Brother Watt’s books filled that need. He obtained clearance from the First Presidency 1 June 1853. Addressed to Elder Samuel Richards, missionary printer in England, and to “the Saints abroad” this statement introduced volume one:

“Dear Brethren—It is well known to many of you, that Elder George D. Watt, by our counsel, spent much time in the midst of poverty and hardships to acquire the art of reporting in Phonography [shorthand], which he has faithfully and fully accomplished; and he has been reporting the public Sermons, Discourses, Lectures delivered by the Presidency, the Twelve, and others in this city, for nearly two years, almost without fee or reward. Elder Watt now proposes to publish a Journal of these reports, in England, for the benefit of the Saints at large, and to obtain means to enable him to sustain his highly useful position of Reporter. You will perceive at once that this will be a work of mutual benefit, and we cheerfully and warmly request your cooperation in the purchase and sale of the above named Journal, and wish all the profits arising therefrom to be under the control of Elder Watt.” (Signed by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Willard Richards.)

The first four volumes were reported by Elder Watt, but after that other reporters are included—one a sister, Julia Young. Brother Watt reported through volume twelve, when David W. Evans became the prime reporter. He was followed by George W. Gibbs, a secretary to the First Presidency.

In considering the reliability of the Journal of Discourses, we should remember certain circumstances.

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.

The general membership of the Church has progressed in knowledge of gospel principles, which is as it should be. In our organizations, we have been taught the gospel for more than one hundred years now. Because of modern revelation and because of “line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept” progression, we have answers that were not yet given when the Journal of Discourses was published.

We also should be aware of priorities in our studies. It seems to me that we should first become very familiar with the four books of Scripture accepted as standard works. The words of our current living prophet are also most valuable for us in our time. The official statements of the First Presidency are standards for doctrine and practice in the Church. We should be familiar with the manuals and courses of study provided for us in our day. For further inspiration and instruction by the General Authorities, we can study general conference addresses, beginning with the most current and moving back in time.

Even after digesting these materials, some persons may still have time and inclination to peruse the Journal of Discourses. We can be grateful that records of the early sermons were kept to help us understand the growth of the Church and the testimonies of our early leaders. If we find the time to read them, however, we should avoid getting caught up in their uniqueness and should concentrate on the inspiring thoughts and experiences related to us by choice men.

Having taught seminary and institute classes for more than twenty years, I have tried to follow my own advice. Because I also love to read, I have read the scriptures many times, all of the general conference reports, and finally, all volumes of the Journal of Discourses.

Frankly, one of the main reasons I read the Journal of Discourses was so I could answer students’ questions about them with some knowledge of what they were about. Though I enjoyed reading them, gained some new insights, and was inspired by the spirit of the early brethren, except for the needs of students, there was no practical benefit that I could not have obtained from current conference talks with less effort, much greater clarity and more economy.

For me, the most pertinent discussion of gospel doctrines and answers to life’s problems and source of spiritual inspiration in today’s world comes from the standard works and our living prophets.

Here is the exact link if anyone is interested:

link

[_Blixa]

Thanks for that Liz...

I find this a rather pathetic statement, especially from a teacher, one who should be not only curious about all things, but especially about their field of expertise:

Frankly, one of the main reasons I read the Journal of Discourses was so I could answer students’ questions about them with some knowledge of what they were about.

Ditto the the next sentence as well. It smacks of "don't trouble your mind with this..."

Though I enjoyed reading them, gained some new insights, and was inspired by the spirit of the early brethren, except for the needs of students, there was no practical benefit that I could not have obtained from current conference talks with less effort, much greater clarity and more economy.

[_Runtu]

Rather, you have some folks declaring gospel truth, only to be rejected as heretical by future "prophets."

Example?

Sure thing, Cogs. Over many years, and even as part of the lecture at the temple veil, Brigham Young taught that Adam was God and the Father of our spirits. For example: "Adam came into the garden of Eden with a celestial body and one of his many wives, he is our Father and God. The Father, not the Holy Spirit, conceived Jesus with the Virgin Mary," Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50 (April 9, 1852).

Even Bruce McConkie admitted as much: "Brigham Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel."

But a later prophet, Spencer Kimball, said of this teaching, ""We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine," Conference Report, p. 115 (October 1-3, 1976).

[_Yoda]

Rather, you have some folks declaring gospel truth, only to be rejected as heretical by future "prophets."

Example?

Sure thing, Cogs. Over many years, and even as part of the lecture at the temple veil, Brigham Young taught that Adam was God and the Father of our spirits. For example: "Adam came into the garden of Eden with a celestial body and one of his many wives, he is our Father and God. The Father, not the Holy Spirit, conceived Jesus with the Virgin Mary," Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50 (April 9, 1852).

Even Bruce McConkie admitted as much: "Brigham Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel."

But a later prophet, Spencer Kimball, said of this teaching, ""We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine," Conference Report, p. 115 (October 1-3, 1976).

Thanks for this reference, Runtu!

This is about as close we're going to come to having any type of official Church stance that Brigham Young was a crackpot when he talked about half the things he did.

Either that, or there was a WHOLE lot of things that were "misinterpreted" and not recorded properly.

In either case, this makes it pretty clear WHY the JoD is not considered official Church doctrine or part of the official canon.

[_Jason Bourne]

Did Coggins abandon this thread? Is that a concession?

[_Jason Bourne]

And you know as I think about this and the evolution thread, how can something like the Bible dictionary that is published with the LDS KJV Bible not be considered to contain or reflect LDS Doctrine. I mean I am really starting to think that the Church really does not want to be pinned down to anything. Let's read the statement:

This dictionary has been designed to provide teachers and students with a concise collection of definitions and explanations of items that are mentioned in or are otherwise associated with the Bible. It is based primarily upon the biblical text, supplemented by information from the other books of scripture accepted as standard works by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth. Many of the items have been drawn from the best available scholarship of the world and are subject to reevaluation based on new research and discoveries or on new revelation. The topics have been carefully selected and are treated briefly. If an elaborate discussion is desired, the student should consult a more exhaustive dictionary.

So what new research or discovery might change the item Seth posted about Adam, Eve, the Fall, death etc. Maybe this is not really that big of a deal. But it seems that a Bible dictionary published with the Church's Bible with LDS scripture cross references ought to be considered doctrinal.

[_The Nehor]

I personally find it odd that Brigham Young taught both the correct doctrine and the "Adam-God" doctrine. I can't be sure yet but from the timetable I've worked out so far the teachings were intermingled chronologically. Either he couldn't make up his mind or he didn't see any conflict. Still working on this.