Journal of Discourses - Isn't it scripture anymore?

[_cinepro]

My favorite thing about the Journal of Discourses is it shows just how transitory and arbitrary the statements and teachings of the Church can be. It is one thing to sit here in 2008 and look back at the speeches of that era and nitpick over the phrasing and laugh at the frontierisms.

But are we willing to admit that our modern Church leaders will also one day be subjected to such a dismissal? Who wants to admit that the saints of 2108 will probably look back and laugh at President Hinckley's counsel regarding piercings, and the resulting hubbub at BYU and among some LDS? If we could take a time machine to the 22nd century, we would probably find an LDS Church where the women wear string bikinis 24/7, and anytime someone refers to the great Modesty Fanaticism of 2006, people would chuckle at how the personal opinions of some leaders were so drastically overreaching. Where the conference reports of 2009 are placed in the old libraries alongside the Journal of Discourses, and only referred to with selective quotations to bolster the current teachings of the day (fourth member of the god-head Heavenly Mother/Eve, Book of Mormon takes place in Aboriginal Australia, women shouldn't have more than 4 visible piercings, and 2 out-of-sight ones).

Will we be laughed at by future members and apologists for our spoiled, never used food storage? For continuing to pay tithing long after the Church had achieved a sustainable financial endowment? For our reluctance to even mention our heavenly mothers in Church meetings?

Honestly, the only thing that freaks me out more than thinking the JoD is doctrinal is thinking it isn't. If we as a church can't tell if something is doctrinal or not without 100 years of subsequent reflection and scientific development, do we really have the right to judge any current teaching as doctrinal? Wouldn't the 100 year lag time always be in effect?

[_dblagent007]

The question is what is: (1) doctrine, (2) scripture, or (3) well informed but unbinding opinion.

The church explains what is and, unsurprisingly, Mormon Doctrine, JoD, etc., are excluded. http://www.newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

An explanation of scripture is found in one of the works of doctrine.

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

http://www.newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Anything spoken when one is not moved upon by the Holy Ghost is neither doctrine nor scripture. I suspect there is a fair amount of this floating around (even in the JoD) as sort of a Mormon folk lore.

[_Chap]

The question is what is: (1) doctrine, (2) scripture, or (3) well informed but unbinding opinion.

The church explains what is and, unsurprisingly, Mormon Doctrine, JoD, etc., are excluded. http://www.newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

An explanation of scripture is found in one of the works of doctrine.

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

http://www.newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Anything spoken when one is not moved upon by the Holy Ghost is neither doctrine nor scripture. I suspect there is a fair amount of this floating around (even in the JoD) as sort of a Mormon folk lore.

So ... where are we told how to tell unambiguously and definitively whether someone else is correct when they claim that they are being "moved upon by the Holy Ghost"?

It seems to me that without a clear criterion to distinguish HG-based and non HG-based utterances we have no basis at all for deciding what is doctrine and what is not.

[_dblagent007]

The question is what is: (1) doctrine, (2) scripture, or (3) well informed but unbinding opinion.

The church explains what is and, unsurprisingly, Mormon Doctrine, JoD, etc., are excluded. http://www.newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

An explanation of scripture is found in one of the works of doctrine.

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

http://www.newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Anything spoken when one is not moved upon by the Holy Ghost is neither doctrine nor scripture. I suspect there is a fair amount of this floating around (even in the JoD) as sort of a Mormon folk lore.

So ... where are we told how to tell unambiguously and definitively whether someone else is correct when they claim that they are being "moved upon by the Holy Ghost"?

It seems to me that without a clear criterion to distinguish HG-based and non HG-based utterances we have no basis at all for deciding what is doctrine and what is not.

The first link explains what the church considers doctrine. Anything that is not doctrine, we must filter through our own Holy Ghost based revelation process. This leaves quite a bit of leeway for people to think and teach what they want. Many members of my family believe things that I don't agree with, but we are all still very active and faithful members of the church. We still manage to coexist peacably.

[_harmony]

The first link explains what the church considers doctrine. Anything that is not doctrine, we must filter through our own Holy Ghost based revelation process. This leaves quite a bit of leeway for people to think and teach what they want. Many members of my family believe things that I don't agree with, but we are all still very active and faithful members of the church. We still manage to coexist peacably.

Try leaving, and see how peaceful that coexistence is.

[_The Nehor]

My favorite thing about the Journal of Discourses is it shows just how transitory and arbitrary the statements and teachings of the Church can be. It is one thing to sit here in 2008 and look back at the speeches of that era and nitpick over the phrasing and laugh at the frontierisms.

But are we willing to admit that our modern Church leaders will also one day be subjected to such a dismissal? Who wants to admit that the saints of 2108 will probably look back and laugh at President Hinckley's counsel regarding piercings, and the resulting hubbub at BYU and among some LDS? If we could take a time machine to the 22nd century, we would probably find an LDS Church where the women wear string bikinis 24/7, and anytime someone refers to the great Modesty Fanaticism of 2006, people would chuckle at how the personal opinions of some leaders were so drastically overreaching. Where the conference reports of 2009 are placed in the old libraries alongside the Journal of Discourses, and only referred to with selective quotations to bolster the current teachings of the day (fourth member of the god-head Heavenly Mother/Eve, Book of Mormon takes place in Aboriginal Australia, women shouldn't have more than 4 visible piercings, and 2 out-of-sight ones).

Will we be laughed at by future members and apologists for our spoiled, never used food storage? For continuing to pay tithing long after the Church had achieved a sustainable financial endowment? For our reluctance to even mention our heavenly mothers in Church meetings?

Honestly, the only thing that freaks me out more than thinking the JoD is doctrinal is thinking it isn't. If we as a church can't tell if something is doctrinal or not without 100 years of subsequent reflection and scientific development, do we really have the right to judge any current teaching as doctrinal? Wouldn't the 100 year lag time always be in effect?

We probably will be laughed at. If we're right, it's even worse. Imagine how the millenial Saints will look at us. I imagine as a bunch of barely educated fools who wandered about the Gospel with multiple wrong ideas about it, quaint and useless customs, horribly wrong rationales for why commandments were given, primitive gospel speculations, etc. I expect they will have more cause to look down on us then we do at the early Saints. I expect to have a good laugh at myself when it's all explained.

[_bcspace]

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?

It's really easy to pin down.

As per the Church's own statements about doctrine such as that found in the link in my siggy, publication by the Church is the way to identify doctrine. Therefore, those quotes from the JoD which are found in a Church publication are doctrine. Any quote from the JoD alone is not doctrine because the JoD is not published by the Church.

[_dblagent007]

BCSpace,

The link seems to indicate that "official church publications" = " the four 'standard works' of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith." I don't think the doctrine goes any further than that.

[_Inconceivable]

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?

It's really easy to pin down.

As per the Church's own statements about doctrine such as that found in the link in my siggy, publication by the Church is the way to identify doctrine. Therefore, those quotes from the JoD which are found in a Church publication are doctrine. Any quote from the JoD alone is not doctrine because the JoD is not published by the Church.

While on the mission,

we used to dog the Jehovah's Witnesses for updating each printing of their Green Dragon (JW Bible). Every Mormon scripture chase verse had summarily been rewritten to reflect their doctrinal views - it was the word of God.

bc,

Your comment would be most humorous if it weren't gravely troubling (and didn't affect peoples very lives).

[_The Nehor]

It's really easy to pin down.

As per the Church's own statements about doctrine such as that found in the link in my siggy, publication by the Church is the way to identify doctrine. Therefore, those quotes from the JoD which are found in a Church publication are doctrine. Any quote from the JoD alone is not doctrine because the JoD is not published by the Church.

I disagree with this interpretation.

I'm gonna go with the Holy Ghost thing again. I can't imagine how obnoxious me continually saying this is to so many people.