Replies

"The Journal of Discourses is a 26 volume compilation of LDS presidents and apostles sermons, covering about 35 years. There were several men who were officially assigned by the LDS Church to record the talks."

These talks were recorded by using a form of shorthand that did not have any notation for punctuation. Later they were recopied to longhand and published, but in many cases the printed version was not checked by the speaker for accuracy. Nor was any such thing as tape recorders or sound systems in existance.

"The Assistant Manager for Deseret Book Company, gave the following endorsement of the Journal of Discourses in a a letter dated June 12, 1963:"

The Assistant Manager for Deseret Book Company has no authority to declare what is or is not cannon.

"The Journal of Discourses is listed as an official publication of the LDS Church in the following books: "

The JoD is not an official publication of the Church, it was not published by the church either. Nor are official publication automaticly cannon to us. I rather doubt those books specificly refer to it as an official publication of the church but I don't have the means to check this moment. If so it is unfortunate error that could have been caused by a poorly informed editor of those books.

"The Journal of Discourses is quoted repeatedly in LDS publications and in LDS conference reports."

So are C.S. Lewis and Shakespear. Big deal. Quoting a passage from something doesn't make the whole book cannon.

"It is inconsistent of the Mormons to question the accuracy of the Journal of Discourses while the LDS leaders continue to quote from it. "

No it isn't. Just because something is not 100% accurate doesn't mean it is 100% false. We don't think the Bible is 100% accurate and we quote it far far more than the JoD.

And it isn't just 'questioning', there are cases where JoD accounts of a sermon do not match with accounts by others who were there. The whole Adam-God thing is a prime example of that. It appears that the JoD account has a critical ommision that changes the meaning of much of the sermon.

And it isn't just 'questioning', there are cases where JoD accounts of a sermon do not match with accounts by others who were there.

Guess what? We audio and sometimes video tape our services at church, and there are those who sat through and HEARD the sermon that disagree with the TAPES!

Now are we (gullible Gentiles) supposed to be convinced that just because there is a 'report' of 'someone' in one of your past sessions that 'heard' something different than that was transcribed, that is somehow 'proof' enough to throw out ANYTHING that HAS been preserved????

Not in THIS courtroom, buster!