Close Topic Options

Journal of Discourses - Page 10

[quote] I do.  I thought it was lost and gone forever, but I found it today, packed away in the basement[/quote]

Wow!!!!!! lucky you! ;D do you have the whole collection????

[quote] I would need to know specific places to start looking to find differences[/quote]

Okay, please give me some time to research on it and I will post it here. Thanks.

Discourses Journal

I did have all of them.  I purchased them about 18 years ago, in paperback.  Through all the moves (about 15 or 16), they have gotten beat up a bit.  I didn't look through them today to see if they are all there.

NightHawk

Journal of Discourses Studies Doctrine Mormon

I think it is important that I state my understanding of what constitutes 'official Church doctrine' before preceeding to discuss the Journal of Discourses and how they relate to the 'doctrines of the Church.'

It is my opinion that the Standard Works constitute the 'official doctrines of the Church' and that we should first read the Scriptures before preceeding to read the Journal of Discourse or other books and writings.  In short, my opinion is that we must first read the scriptures, then the words of the living prophets, then we may begin to read the histories of the Church (Comprehensive History of the Church among others), Journal of Discourses, and old General Conference Reports (commonly abbreviated C.R., and hereafter I will refer to the conference reports with this abbreviation wherever reasonable).  With this understanding of what I believe to be the 'standard' by which we can judge all the teachings of the Church or members of the Church including General Authorities I now would like to focus upon my understanding of what constitutes 'official doctrine.'

What does it take for a teaching to become 'official doctrine?' In my opinion all new doctrine or re-intrepretation of old doctrine must come via the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator of the Church.  The reason I hold this belief is because we sustain at General Conference 15 men (sometimes more depending on the makeup of Quorum, at several points their have been 13+ Apostles in the Quorum of Twelve) as Prophets, Seers and Revelators.  The President (Prophet, Seer and Revelator) has the authority to reveal new doctrine, or to re-intrepret old doctrine, thus if I cannot find it in the Scriptures, and it comes from anyone other then the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator of the Church speaking specifically of the President I can assume that the person was not speaking by the spirit of inspiration and revelation even if what he says is completely true and correct for it is my opinion that the Lord does not work that way.  There are many who are called to be General Authorities, yet we must remember that the Seventies are not sustained as 'prophets, seers and revelators' and thus if they speak new doctrine or expound on old doctrine I can be assured that they don't speak by inspiration but as men.  The exception being that they are teaching from the Scriptures, and from the teachings of the living Prophet.  I chose not to place my faith or my understanding in a dead prophet but in a living Prophet and while many of the teachings of previous prophets are wonderful, inspired and spiritually uplifting I turn first to the Standard Works and then to the living Prophet.

I know that many will disagree with what I will say next and I understand that this is good but I chose to express this because my understanding of this important matter stems from this point.  The Apostles while sustained as Prophets, Seers and Revelators cannot expound new doctrine, or re-intrepret old doctrine, they cannot receive revelation for the Church.  

But let's look at the terms Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.  First, the term prophet in the general sense applies to most members of the Church, we each can be Prophets in the sense we can 'expound the scriptures' and this just as equally applies to any General Authority.  So in short I do believe that when speaking by the spirit of inspiration that we are being spoken to by prophets even in Sacrament meetings.  The term prophet does not necessary mean seeing into the future, but more aptly applies to 'expounding scriptures' and 'admonishing the saints' and there is only one true Prophet of the Church who can 'expound the scriptures' and admonish the Church as a whole and that is the President of the Church.

Seer, is the greatest gift of all, it means that someone can see and discern things which are not normally seen or discerned.  There is only one seer on the earth at a time, no one can claim this privelige but the President of the Church and the Apostles when acting under His direction can act in that function.  The term revelator is more unique, it means to 'reveal' that which is yet not known.  So the prophet, seer, and revelator is basically one who 'expounds scriptures, admonishes the saints, discerns that which cannot be seen, and sees that which cannot be seen, and one who reveals that which has not yet been revealed.  Let me be clear that this is only my limited understanding and does not constitute truth or error.  But even then the President of the Church does not act alone, He cannot declare that He received by revelation a new doctrine without the consent of the Apostles and the Church. (Note: This is not because it isn't necessarily a revelation unless approved by the members but merely that it has not been accepted by the members, and many of the things found in the Journal of Discourse may fall into this category) but that the people must consent to it for it to be applicable.  In short, the Prophet must reveal, the Apostles sustain, and then the membership sustain before it can be official.  In short, the 'Living Christ' isn't even official doctrine because it was not presented to the membership of the Church for a sustaining vote.  So no matter what policy the Brethren put out regarding the Journal of Discourse, no matter what statement is made unless the Church as a whole sustains it, it shall never be doctrine nor official.

I believe the things above to be true, but if I am in error I ask for the Lord's forgiveness and ask you to look with kindness upon my weaknesses, and my lack of understanding.

Page 10 Discourses Journal

[quote] I know that many will disagree with what I will say next and I understand that this is good but I chose to express this because my understanding of this important matter stems from this point.  The Apostles while sustained as Prophets, Seers and Revelators cannot expound new doctrine, or re-intrepret old doctrine, they cannot receive revelation for the Church.  [/quote]

Although I technically understand what you mean, why then we call the Apostles, Prophets, Seers and Revelators for the Church?.
Also besides the Scriptures, there are other Church 'official' books like Jesus The Christ by Elder Talmage for instance, the Institute Manuals, etc. You may want to check this thread about Official LDS doctrine:

https://www.bordeglobal.com/cgi-bin2/yabb/Y...;num=1065374909

[offtopic] Edward, you may want to check all the 7 pages of the LDS doctrine board at the bottom of your screen, you will see more threads this way. [/offtopic]

Discourses Journal

Simply because a book or manual has been published by the Church or a member of the Church, rather he holds high or low position does not qualify it for the status of 'official doctrine.'

The Brethren cannot declare official doctrine of the Church, and merely because it comes from a source that is at times respected doesn't mean that it is the doctrine of the Church.  Elder Boyd K. Packer can't go to General Conference and say: "Thus saith the Lord, we are to read the Journal of Discourse and it is now official doctrine of the Church."    First, everyone would laugh at him and tell him that he needs to get off his high horse and to take a pause.  Why would everyone laugh, because they know that no matter how often an Apostle expresses an opinion he does so by his own right and not by the will of the Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the Church.  

For something to be official doctrine it must be declared by the President (no one else has the right to declare doctrine for the Church, why is this: Because Boyd K. Packer may say, the Journal of Discourses is official doctrine and David B. Haight may say, the Journal of Discourse is not inspired and cannot be considered revelation.  The Lord works in simple ways, he reveals to His mouthpiece his will and then His mouthpiece in turn declares the will of the Lord to the First Presidency who sustain his revelation, and then He in turn presents it to the Quorums of the Church for their sustaining vote, and then finally after all have agreed they present it to the Church to become official doctrine, until it is sustained by the members it cannot be considered doctrine binding on the members.

It is my opinion that many people confuse 'official doctrine' with anything that is uttered by a leader in the Church who is acting in his capacity as leader.  This simply is not so, merely because a book is pubished by Gordon B. Hinckley doesn't mean it is official doctrine (Way to Be, etc) of the Church.  It is only official in the sense that it comes from President Hinckley but that doesn't mean it is an official statement.  There are a lot more to what goes on in the Church then just receiving revelation for the whole Church.  The President acts as the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer and sits on Executive Boards, Committees, etc and in these roles he makes many decisions but they are not all inspired.  To think this would be to make the Prophet infallible in all that he does and would also create a problem which is how does the President receive so much revelation.

We have to remember that many of the manuals published by the Church are done so by the Priesthood Executive Council and that there are many people who put effort into seeing that it is published, that all the information is correlated and correct.  The Seventies, Department Heads, and other Administrators have constant input in this process and merely because the Church endorses a publication does not mean it contains official doctrine.  For one, it would be impossible for 15 men to read, write, and check information in each publication to see that it is correct.  The President of the Church cannot reasonably be expected to suddenly have impressed upon his mind: 'Oh, my John Doe down in the Correlation Department just inserted three minor words which makes what is written not the official doctrine of the Church, I must call one of the Apostles to go down there right now to correct the situation.' In fact the General Authorities know the importance of making sure that errors don't enter into the publications of the Church and the 3 most senior apostles sit on the Correlation Executive Council, and direct the Correlation Department which is not directly headed by them.  They dedicate their time and effort to insuring errors don't enter the publications of the Church but the status of 'official publication' is entirely different then 'official doctrine'  Deciding where the bathrooms were to be located in the Church Office Building was an official decision, and yet we don't consider it 'official doctrine'

You forunately refer to James Talmage's Articles of Faith, published in 1918 as official doctrine of the Church.  This is not so, let's recall Bruce R. McConkie (who was an apostle at the time) and his writing "Mormon Doctrine" and how he had to go back to edit it because it contained inaccurate information on the doctrines of the Church, and he was nearly excommunicated over the issue.  Many people forget that the last Apostle to be excommunicated from the Church while serving as an Apostle was in 1948 for a violation of the 'law of chastity'  These men are human and are prone to error and we as a Church have a safeguard against mistakes by human beings who lead this Church.  The Quorum of the First Presidency must be unanmious in declaring something as revelation, then the Quorum of the Twelve must sustain it unanmiously as revelation, and then the membership must sustain so by the time it becomes official doctrine well over 11 million people have stated that they know through inspiration and revelation that it is true.

The Pearl of Great Price wasn't sustained until 1898 (if I recall the date right) in the October General Conference, before that it was published in England by Mission Presidents and others acting in various capacities.  The members were in no way bound by the teachings found in the Pearl of Great Price nor was it doctrine until it was sustained in that General Conference.

In summary, it is important to differentiate between 'official doctrine' and statements made by those who were acting in official capacity.  These are not doctrine, the President of the Church deciding how many bathrooms are to be in the Church Office Building through revelation and inspiration does not mean that the members of the Church are bound by the number of bathrooms decided on.  

Journal of Discourses

Edward so that you do not become confussed. I just reviewed the General Handbook of Instructions. Remember if a book has the name of the Church and is pubished by the same, then it is official. You may or may not wish to refer to it as 'doctrinal', but it is still official. Example, a nursery manual may or may not have teaching examples that you agree or disagree with, but it is still official and it represents and is authorized by the Church. The only time this is not so is when a latter publication comes out and you are asked to destroy the older version.

Journal Discourses - Page 10

I don't want to have to disagree with you, but the term official extends to every act that a person who works for the Church does once he arrives at work, and that includes the official janitorial duties of a Church custodian but you are seeming to miss the point.  A publication by Gordon B. Hinckley, and the Twelve Apostles is not binding on the member unless it is sustained, it is not revelation, it does not represent the doctrine of the Church.  In short, if I don't have the opportunity to sustain the action it is nothing more then ink on a piece of paper.  That sounds confusing to so many people who want every word uttered by the authorities to mean something, generally these are anti's and apostates who desire this, they would even give 'official' recognition to a decision by a General authority.

The manner in which the church operates is perfect, it does not allow for 15 men to decide what is and what is not to be binding on the members of the Church, and the words of the General authorities and writings of the General authorities are just that, rather recalled or not.  Rather endorsed by a single member of the Quorum or by all of them, until it is officially sustained and endorsed by the members of the Church, it is no different then if the Church re-published Shakesphere, or a manual on computer specs.  Yes, those computer specs are 'official' in the sense that John Doe who worked for the Church wrote them, and that John Doe then had the church put it out in memo that this was to be the specs for all the new computers received.

"A prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such." (Joseph Smith, HC 5:265)

We are all liable to err, and many may think that a man in my standing ought to be perfect; no such thing." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourse 10:212)

"There are many subjects, about which the scriptures are not clear and about which the Church has made no official pronouncements. In such matters, one can find differences of opinion among Church members and leaders. Until the truth of these matters is made known by revelation, there is room for different levels of understanding and interpretation of unsettled issues." (Enclylopedia of Mormonism, 1:395)

"It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write." (Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in Holy Places (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company., 1974), 162.)

D&C 107:27-29, "And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other-A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwise-Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous and holy men."  The Lord instituted a procedure whereby we may know for ourselfs what is "OFFICIAL DOCTRINE" of the Church which has nothing to do with the official decision of the custodian who decided to draft a list of chemicals to be used, and in what amount on which toilet and in what order and his official decision is just that, his opinion and if he gets togeter with other janitors and decides that this is how some things are to be operated procedurely that is entirely different then doctrinally.  The President of the Church along with the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve do not in and of themselves have the authority to declare doctrine and revelation for the Church, they can pusblish all that they want and if it doesn't agree with the standard works of the Church then it is to be ignored as if it came from a Bishop of a Ward of from anyone.  I believe that it is one step away from apostasy to begin placing the 'procedural decisions' of the Brethren on the same footing as doctrine.  Procedures change from time to time and are intended for the operation of the Church.  The President is more then just the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator to the Church, he is also the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Legal Counsel and many other things, he directs the affairs of Brigham Young University, and the Church Educational System, and the decisions he makes in these roles are not binding on the members.  Anyways you want find 'procedure' being disguised as revelation, nor will you hear from the mouth of the Prophet that the 'Articles of Faith' is official doctrine.  It may be a publication of the Church, but so is a memo from a Secretary to another Secretary asking what time the Staff meeting is for the Department.  No one would construe this document to be binding on the Church or to represent the opinions of the Church, but it would only represent the opinion of that one secretery, but if the Secretary's got together and formed a majority and decided to publish this memo because it might effect Secretery's in other departments and be of benefit to them.  The Secretaries in the other departments wouldn't be bound by these, and this is true of any decision rendered by the Quorusm of the First Presidency and the Twelve, if it is not presented to the Quorums of the Priesthood and the General Membership then it is binding only on the Quroum of the Twelve and the First Presidency.

I grow weary when I hear members and non-members attempt to give to writings of individual Apostles and Prophets an importance to them which does not exist.  Even General Conference talks are not 'official doctrine' but is nothing more then 'expounding the scriptures' and if it be more then that and doesn't come from THE PROPHET, SEER, and REVELATOR, and is not presented to the Quorums and the general membership then we can know that the speaker is not speaking by inspiration but merely on his own.  If any talk is given, any book written, that adds to or re-intreprets the scriptures and it has not come from the President, has not been sustained by the Quorum of the Twelve and a General Assembly of the members then we can know that is is merely the writings of those people.  I don't care if it is one Apostle, two apostles or all of them.  If they aren't willing to put it before the General membership for a sustaining vote it is either because they don't believe it to be revelation and 'official doctrine' of the Church or they were not inspired in the first place and it is not revelation and they know it.  It really scares me to see people putting up such books, writings, memos, and inter-office communication as 'official doctrine'  If the Articles of Faith is an official publication (which it is not, it is merely endorsed by the Church) and thus is 'official doctrine' then it is just as true that a memo from the First Presidency to the Apostle Boyd K. Packer is official doctrine.  I cry at the thought that someone could actually place such writings above the will of the membership.  If the Articles of Faith is so important, and is so essential and is 'OFFICIAL' then why hasn't it been presented to the membership.  The answer can only be three things, 1) it is not revelation and the President know this and thus doesn't present it to the membership, 2) it is revelation and the Prophet believes the people are so wicked that they won't accept it (like the Lord wouldn't even give us the opportunity to accept it or to reject it), 3) the Lord just doesn't care enough about us for it to become official doctrine even though it was received by revelation.  Every time we attend Church we take part in the gospel principle of "common consent' We sustain our leaders, we sustain the Book of Mormon and many other doctrinally important facts but we surely don't receive the opportunity to sustain the Articles of Faith.  Why is that?

I believe it to be quite simple, it is not revelation for the Church nor is if 'official doctrine' but is nothing more then an Apostle expounding from the Standard Works.  We begin to draw near apostasy when we take such men and place them on a pedestal.  

In summary I am being entirely subjective in my analysis of this issue, I cannot believe that every word uttered by or endorsed by the Church is 'official doctrine' and I believe that those who do are in all liklihood anti's or apostates because the yare seeking for some piece of information or idea that backs up their positions which cannot be found in the Standard Works.  If it is in the Standard Works then I am for it, if it is not then I question why someone would need to go to another source and attempt to make it more 'official' so that their own agenda can be proved.

God bless and peace to all those who are on this board, and I look foward to hearing your responses.

Journal Discourses Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 10

Edward, do you always reply in essay form? First of all have you read this whole thread? If not, then you may be bringing up topics already discussed, please review.

[quote]I don't want to have to disagree with you[/quote]
Please re-read my post again and note where I am getting the information from. In addition to this, please note... if you stand up in Church and teach from the Sunday School manual for that year then you are using an official manual of the Church and would be right in doing so. If you chose to teach from something else rather than the assigned material, such as your own thesis or favorite GA, then your membership status could actually come into question because the 'other' is not official.