Close Topic Options

Journal of Discourses - Page 14

Then I do wonder, suppose Brigham meant for us to really have some piece of Doctrine for OUR day and this correlation committee decides not so, what then? Makes you wonder... 100 years from now will Pres. Monson's talks be edited as well to fit the Doctrine of 2109?

Discourses Journal

No, because nothing of what he says is or will be considered "controversial". "Be cheerful", "Love others" "smile", etc is the general message we are getting from him and many other recent Prophets.

Journal of Discourses Studies Doctrine Mormon

That is true, Brigham did have a fire tongue approach to the Gospel but he was no where close to Joseph, yet neither approach is seen today, save maybe for those special firesides and closed meetings some get to attend. Oh well, back to research.

Page 14 Discourses Journal

I think it would be good to consider that we are talking about the early church which was obviously not as organized as it is today and changes were still being made. They did not have "church correlation" like we do today to make sure everything is kosher.

Also, maybe several things discussed in the journals just do not fit into 2009 context so unless you are a church history expert you may not understand it correctly.

Maybe some of the older discourses were too "meaty" instead of "milky". The church these days seems to focus more on the milk and leaves it up to us to learn of the "meat" through our own studies and through the spirit.

Just my idea.

Discourses Journal

I didn't know there was a 2009 context. I do want to know why several things Brigham talked about in the JDs are not recognized even though he said them as a prophet.

Journal of Discourses

Whats the 2009 context according to you? Some examples please?

Edited: SuzieSu on 20th Jul, 2009 - 6:39pm

Journal Discourses - Page 14

I'm not sure why some of Brigham's comments are not recognized. The whole context thing is just my idea of why some things said in the past may not be talked about now. Times change and sometime one thing said at one time makes no sense at a later time.

Well here is an example of how sometimes you need to really understand history in order to get into context with what is going on. History that the everyday member does not necessarily know.

Why do anti-mormon books claim that Joseph Smith was a "gold digger/treasure hunter" and a crazy diviner?

Are they just making up information that has no basis?

No! There is plenty of evidence to suggest that in Joseph's earlier years he may have used a seer stone to find hidden things and very well may have attempted to use a seer stone to find buried treasure.

It was not quite so strange at that time to use stones, dreams, or divining rods to look for hidden things, especially buried treasure. Oliver Cowdery himself had a divining rod, and several other people in the area supposedly had stones and rods as well. From what I understand it was a dying part of the culture at that time. Joseph's family was poor, so that fact along with cultural influence may have persuaded him enough to actually engage in those activities.

With time Joseph obviously used the seer stones for their correct purpose. We know that Joseph was a man and did make mistakes and this very well could have been something he struggled with for a time. In the end he learned from his mistakes and was indeed the Prophet we believe he was.

Journal Discourses Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 14

I struggle with this point myself for one side they quote him in the things that seem to fit with what the church believes now but then they say its not doctrinal when the stuff is more controversial seems to be a pick and choose kind of thing.