It is very amazing how times have changed. Now a days, LDS claim the JoD cannot be trusted. Yet they they still do use it, some Examples are, The King Follet Discourse, it is said to be JS greatest teaching ever. We also have many prophets of today, quoting from the JoD. But when people like me quote from it, then we are told, it cannot be trusted or used. The JoD is made up of 1,438 speeches by 55 leaders in the Church.
In these 26 volumes of the JoD, Presidents of the Church, members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, members of the seventy, were all part of the people who gave speeches. Brigham young Authorized his sermons to be printed. Please Click onto each photo in order to enlarge it and be able to read it better.
8 comments:
Interesting comments, Rick, but you might be interested to know a couple of things (since you've reproduced several pages of the "publisher's" comments.
The JoD has never been published by the LDS Church.
While Brigham Young did authorize his discourses to appear in the collection, he corrected several of those sermons and the uncorrected version appears in the volumes. Most Mormons who are familiar with the JoD look at it the same way they view today's discourses by LDS leaders. Sometimes they speak by the Holy Spirit and sometimes they don't. It's up to the student to understand the difference.
I read the 26 volumes about 20 years ago and found much of value - particularly sermons by Brigham Young, Orson Hyde, Joseph F. Smith and George Q. Cannon. I highly recommend Cannon's discourses from volume 19.
OK, I'm new to this blog, and I see a few things that sends up a few red flags. Please explain your view.
1. Why did you put publisher in quotes? Are they not really a publisher?
2. If the text was never published by the LDS church, who gave the publisher permission to put the text into print?
3. Why does a speaker have to correct things he's already said?
4. You're not always letting the Holy Spirit speak through you, not to mention, you leave students to discern what is and isn't the Holy Spirit?
5. Why would you recommend one teacher's teachings over another's if you are all teaching the same thing?
Please see my comments at Mormonism - Fact Over Fiction.
Here is a link to the article What is Considered LDS Doctrine
All Comments Welcome
3. Why does a speaker have to correct things he's already said?
Are you saying that BYoung is a sinner for correcting things?
Are you saying that he should get it right the first time?
Are you saying that if he were really a prophet, it would have been said and recorded by the scribe perfectly the first time?
If there is a mistake by a prophet or by a scribe, is it a sin to leave it and realize that the believers know how to deal with it?
Would if another prophet of God came along and changed something BYoung (a prophet of God) was quoted as saying and gave no excuses for changing it?
Does this mean you trust none of what BYoung said?
Does this mean either BY was not a prophet, or the one changing the quote is not?
If I give you an example in the Bible of the same thing happening, a latter person of God changing an earlier prophets written word, would you be any easier on BY?
The OT Bible says "an eye for an eye".
Who wrote that? Moses? A scribe?
That verse was written in what the Jews considered the "journals" of the believers.
Christ contradicted it.
Was he calling his own prophet wrong? Or do you think it was a mis quote by a scribe?
I don't have a problem with a few mistakes, a few changes and a few corrections. If I did, I'd have to condemn my Lord for committing the same crime.
SD511 said: "I don't have a problem with a few mistakes, a few changes and a few corrections. If I did, I'd have to condemn my Lord for committing the same crime. "
Simple question for sheepdog511: Are you saying that Jesus or God made mistakes?
Just curious. Wouldn't want to miss your point.
Roaming Gnome>OK, I'm new to this blog, and I see a few things that sends up a few red flags. Please explain your view.
I was new to this blog as well, RG. In fact, I forgot that I posted here until I found it a couple of minutes ago.
RG>1. Why did you put publisher in quotes? Are they not really a publisher?
I put it in quotes for emphasis. (I'm new to HTML formatting) Publishers always think their work is highly significant. In this case the publisher wasn’t the LDS Church so I’d take their views with the proverbial NaCl.
RG> 2. If the text was never published by the LDS church, who gave the publisher permission to put the text into print?
The stenographers of the speeches published what they had recorded. They didn’t need permission; but the speakers weren’t averse to the project.
RG>3. Why does a speaker have to correct things he's already said?
He doesn’t necessarily; but sometimes a stenographer records what he thought he heard rather than what was actually said. Have you ever been quoted in the newspaper? I have, and more often than not, the quote is faulty.
RG>4. You're not always letting the Holy Spirit speak through you, not to mention, you leave students to discern what is and isn't the Holy Spirit?
I’m not sure I understand this question.
RG>5. Why would you recommend one teacher's teachings over another's if you are all teaching the same thing?
They’re not all teaching the same thing, and some discourses given 150 years ago aren’t as topical as others.
Wow this is wild,never heard so much contradiction in my life..OK lets try this.."IF" these JoD's were not/are not endorsed by the LDS..why bother to have them around,seems to me to add opnly more confusion..? "IF" Corrected copies exist as you claim,and only a fool would bel;ieve that this topic has only appeared as of today,and not gone on for many a generation. Then why hasn't the LDS printed these supposed corrected manuscripts to stifle this error of printing...?
Leaving things up to students to decided what is of the Spirit and what is not...Isn't that like handing a loaded gun top a baby or a monkey...? Wheres the actual teaching,the guidance,the direction..Is it all left up to the "self"...Then what is written in the Bible is so plain to understand.... " All things are righteous in mans own eyes". And if this way of doing life continues there will be no need for God at all very soon.
Christ contradicted the Bible...?
In quoting an "eye for an eye"...You are missing out on some really "DUH" aspects of the actual events occuring from Scripture. First off,God simply gave Moses the Ten Commandments,with instruction to deliver them to the people....You do not find God informing Moses to enforce anything...Christ in conversation with the Pharasee's Clearly stated that "it is Moses" who condems you.
God simply allowed the people the free will to choose,but they were too blind to realize that,and hence forth why they wandered for 40 years in the desert.As written."till all the wicked generation had passed"..Things got atad goofy out there in the desert when Moses returned with the Commandments of God....NO where did God command Moses to kill anyone...Moses turned from God,and to himself....And things worsened after Jethro showed up....Still going by the title of"High Priest of Midian",He tells Moses what he needs to do with all the judging of the people...Again further turning from God and unto themselves....NO where does one find God,nor an angel of God coming to Jethro to deliver this concept to Moses....Ever notice that the Midians were not 1)The chosen of God..ie. Hebrews 2) Enslavened by Egypt...? And even Jethro admits to this concept of Multiple gods amongst men back them,more than likely paid homage to them all too. Sorta like the pope does during ecumenical gatherings in Rome today...ie.Taking the mark of Sheva,from a high priestess.
As for the questions posed by sheepdog,they all make sense,but first try and answer them one by one,instead of trying to turn them into only an excuse not to.
Alma while I would venture a guess in the world of gradeschool academia quoting parts of the periodic table would impress a child....They are not a requirement for one to exist in this world...or a good portion would not be here today simply upon that assumption one does.Simply say SALT,not every one who reads this will grasp your wit,and only find a self demonstrated attempt at looking down upon others instead...In other words KISS...Savvy?
I would like to add that I have known Rick now for several years,we met at another site which I still frequent...I recall Rick informing us at that site of a trip to UTAH LDS Central a short time back....Made a video of that trip,sent myself a copy.I watched it and found myself realizing that about the only ones Rick missed the boat on were the street people he met there.The urging God laid upon Rick was not for the LDS folks,that became obvious by their reaction to his questions...No different than what I find here on his Blog. Same attitudes,same reactions and responses. All robotic like the Jehovaw Witness crew's that come knocking upon my door...The denomination and "their" religion,is more worthy to uphold than Gods simple words. The words of the Devil come to mind when I see and hear such displays "I will be like the Most High"....plain obvious arrogance,just like the Pharasee's.
Believe I shall return here more often,seems to be need of that third party response to those who cannot answer any question out right,and beat around the bush to avoid doing so.
Till He returns or calls me home.
David..Not the King
Honestly, I'm not beating around the bush, or fleeing from the questions at hand. I simply have not had time to read over all the content that Rick has here for us and to think about how to send a kind, loving response.
This is to everybody who's read my responses. I'm going to post on my blog later today, if you'd like to see where I sit in my belief, read that.
Post a Comment