Posted on 04/30/2010 8:38:51 AM PDT by restornu
Journal of Discourses
A favorite source of material frequently cited by anti-Mormons is the Journal of Discourses. This twenty-six-volume collection of writings of early General Authorities was first published in England between 1853 and 1886 for the intent of providing an income for George D. Watt, the stenographer and publisher for the collection. (Watt, 55.)
The First Presidency approved the publication and the collected volumes filled the need of getting published conference reports into the hands of members in England. Gerald Jones notes however,
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 the publication.
...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 that our children learn in Primary and Sunday School. Remarks were frequently impromptu. Close, friendly audiences frequently invited formal discussion of varied topics. There was occasional speculation about doctrines that have since been determined unimportant or even misleading. (Jones, 200-01.)
The Journal of Discourses contains many interesting and insightful teachings by early church leaders and well as intriguing and speculative assumptions and hypothesis of these same leaders. The Journal of Discourses is not, and never has, carried the same weight as scripture (for a definition of scripture-- or “official” scripture-- see my forthcoming article “Journal of Discourses/As Good as Scripture”). It is also important to note that Latter-day Saints do not believe that their leaders (including the Prophet) is infallible. Prophets are entitled to their own opinions, prejudices, and errors, just like everybody else (this topic will be discussed in greater detail in my forthcoming “Doctrinal/Prophets Fallible”).
Anti-Mormon arguments which rely on quotations from the Journal of Discourses are often straw-man arguments, attempting to claim Mormon doctrine from speculative remarks by early leaders. As Stephen Robinson has expressed,
...time and time again the Latter-day Saints are denied ...[the] basic privilege of defining and interpreting their own doctrines. Quite frequently a Latter-day Saint attempting to explain the tenets of his or her faith to non-Mormons will be interrupted by some self-styled expert who says, “No, that’s not what you believe; this is what you believe!” There generally follows a recital of some hocus-pocus that is certainly not taught by the LDS Church. Ponder the absurdity of it-- “You don’t know what you believe, but I know what you believe; I know your thoughts better than you do!”
...When non-Mormons attempt to impose doctrines on the Latter-day Saints or interpret them for us, the resulting fictions generally fall into one of three categories: outright fabrications, distortions of genuine LDS doctrines into unrecognizable forms, or the representation of anomalies within LDS tradition as mainline or official LDS teaching. (Robinson, 1991, 9-10.)
LDS Caucus thread
Who can post? Members of the caucus and those specifically invited
What can be posted? Anything but the beliefs of those who are not members of the caucus!
There is no mention of another religion in this post
Caucus threads.
Who can post? Members of the caucus and those specifically invited What can be posted? Anything but the beliefs of those who are not members of the caucus
What will be pulled? Reply posts mentioning the beliefs of those who are not members of the caucus. If the article is inappropriate for a caucus, the tag will be changed to open.
This is a good description and refutation of large swaths of anti-Mormonism.
Thank you, thank you for posting this. It is very helpful. CTR.
Thank You
Thanks again, Resty! You ROCK! (As always!)
RM...
Should this be a Caucus ???
The article mentions other religious beliefs and view points...
“anti-mormons” and “non-mormons” are members of other religions..
As a “non-mormon” I feel that my beliefs are being discussed in the article but I am prevented from refuting them..
and therefore the “Caucus” privilege of this thread is null and void..
I feel that these following sentences could be considered religious baiting..
“Anti-Mormon arguments which rely on quotations from the Journal of Discourses are often straw-man arguments, attempting to claim Mormon doctrine from speculative remarks by early leaders.”
“...When non-Mormons attempt to impose doctrines on the Latter-day Saints or interpret them for us, the resulting fictions generally fall into one of three categories: outright fabrications, distortions of genuine LDS doctrines into unrecognizable forms, or the representation of anomalies within LDS tradition as mainline or official LDS teaching. (Robinson, 1991, 9-10.)”
I will wait for the decision of the honorable Mod..
Thank you,
Tennessee Nana
Non-Mormon
What can be posted? Anything but the beliefs of those who are not members of the caucus!
I guess that Official MORMON writings are ok to post?
I guess that Official MORMON wrintings will remain?
WE can discuss YOUR beliefs all we want - it's YOU posting your beliefs that gets you into trouble.
--MormonDude(See how that works?)
Actually:
“Who can post? Members of the caucus and those specifically invited”
So, nothing by someone who isn’t a member of the caucus or invited specifically.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.