Close Topic Options

Journal of Discourses - Page 7

First, let me say, I took the time to read all of the postings in this thread and enjoyed them all.  This thread is great and really got me to think.  I enjoy some of the lighter hearted threads, but occasionally I like to have my mind challenged.   ;D  This thread does that.

[quote]For the same reason that it doesn't on Gospel Doctrine, The Miracle of Forgiveness, The Kingdom of God, or a host of other books.  Many study manuals quote from all of these books, because they contain good, useful information.  Just as the JoD does.[/quote]

Nighthawk, I think this quote of yours sums it up nicely.  When a member gives a Sacrament talk or teaches a lesson they will often quote from books published by General Authorities and other well known members.  These books are not official Church doctrine and it is possible that what is being quoted could be less than 100% accurate in it's depiction of absolute truth.  When we listen to talks in Church (other than General Conference) we do so with the knowledge and understanding that we are receiving a talk based upon the speaker's experiences and views and they provide evidences they find to justify their viewpoint.

General Conference talks are approved in advance so we can be sure that whatever is quoted there is official, whatever it's source, including JoD.  This is true also of any officially published Church instruction manual.  So, the parts of the JoD quoted in Institute manuals and in General Conference talks can be taken as Church Doctrine, but other than that we would need to say it is something useful to read, but we must use our own judgement in deciding what is true or not.

The Church probably doesn't take a position regarding it as doctrine or not, because some of it is flawed so they can't say the JoD as a whole is official Church doctrine, but to say that it is not useful at all would be untrue as well.  So, they remain silent.  While it would be helpful if someone within the Church would go through and pull out all that is true and say this is doctrine and the rest is not, this is probably not going to happen anytime soon for a number of reasons.  

One, is the time involved.  More importantly, though, it is likely at this time that no one really is in a position to say without any doubt that "all of this is true and all of this is false."  Even our Church leaders learn line upon line and new understandings are gained in each prophet's dispensation so, it is possible that something that President Hinckley today doesn't fully understand may be revealed in a more complete understanding to a future prophet.

In the meantime, we can be aware that much in the JoD is good just to think and ponder and much is Doctrine and perhaps even much is mistaken.  If we want to know if a particular thing contained in the JoD is doctrine we will need to see if it is quoted in a General Conference Talk or other Church published instruction manual.  Beyond that it is probably just not for us to know at this time.

[quote]Farseer, thanks for your input. Although I totally agree with you in everything you said in my opinion the Church then should not quote from it since in the Journal of Discourses there is a big amount of opinions about different matters...we cannot quote what it sounds good and what it sounds ridiculous to just leave it. If they quote from it, it's because is a great source of talks by different Church Presidents...but what about the controversial part of it? isn't better to just not quote from it?.[/quote]

All of this leads me to believe that we as everyday members of the Church shouldn't quote from the JoD to support our doctrinal beliefs unless we are giving a talk in General Conference .  I believe this because as LDS points out, it isn't right for us to pick and choose what we want to believe when supporting evidence of doctrine.  However, this isn't true, in my opinion of General Authorities.  So, I believe, we can quote from a Church instruction manual or a General Conference talk and say that the quote out of the manual or given bby the speaker comes from the JoD, but we probably shouldn't just pull information out on our own to quote since we don't know what is doctrine and what is not.  Just my opinion for whatever that is worth .

Discourses Journal

This thread has progressed nicely. Nighthawk's post was put across well, although I do not know what was meant by:
[quote] Anyway, much of what I have learned is uncomfortable, to the point that I don't speak of very much of it to anyone.  If I even speak of some of it to my wife, I get funny looks.  I am not even saying that I believe these things, they are just concepts that I find I need to explore in more detail. [/quote]
That however is another thread, maybe or maybe personal wrestling that should not even be here? *shrugs*

Now all this leads to another question.

What is the determinant of what is official and what is not?

Yes, you may say that the standard works and Ensigns are official, that is fine, but there are other books that were 'required' reading on my mission, etc. People always refer to this as official and that as not, what referrence do they use to decide that? Maybe the Church should publish an official list. Maybe there is one already and someone can point to it?

Journal of Discourses Studies Doctrine Mormon

[quote]Yes, you may say that the standard works and Ensigns are official, that is fine, but there are other books that were 'required' reading on my mission, etc. People always refer to this as official and that as not, what referrence do they use to decide that?[/quote]

It is my understanding that any officially endorsed Church publication or book will have on it's title page or inside cover:  "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"  If this is not there it is not an official Church publication regardless of who the author is.  Teachers are instructed to only quote from books that have this "stamp" of approval.

Page 7 Discourses Journal

[quote] Personally, I believe that there is a tremendous body of doctrine that is contained within the JoD, the personal journals, various other periodicals, etc, that the members of the Church don't know (in general).  The problem is that most of us don't want to know!
Knowledge of a doctrine, especially real knowledge, requires action.  It is much easier for us to just coast along, enjoy Sunday School with its lessons designed for the least common denominators, and not have to stretch too much.

Also, real knowledge of doctrines that most of us don't want to know about creates problems.  It is uncomfortable.  It can create pride and arrogance (as well as true humility and spirituality).  When someone tries to discuss some of these things that he/she has learned, through study and faith, she may very well be labeled "apostate" and even experience disfellowship and excommunication. [/quote]

GREAT, GREAT post Nighthhawlk, I agree with you 100%. There is a bunch of members who do not know all these things but then we have another bunch of members who don't want to know about it and they close their eyes and they cover they ears because the information is too much to handle, I don't blame them...it is not easy to read all those things and not have an official source that can explain you what's going on. It's only between you and the Lord but I feel strongly that the Church should take a position and clarify all those issues. May be not necessary for 'salvation' like some leaders like to say, but I think that as members of the Church we have a right to know. Of course, this is my opinion.
Yes, those members who study deeply the scriptures, Church History or other books feel afraid to speak out because maybe the Bishop will call them for a 'worthiness interview', I think is awful, I think is awful that our members may be threaten in any way for sharing some things they learn and that they are part of our history, of course, if its done with a good intention and spirit. But I do think that if the Church will take the time to resolve the doubts and answer some key questions we will not have so many members going to look in the wrong sources for answers...why we should feel afraid of sharing these things in the Church? why is everybody so quiet about it?. I don't think it is fair. Don't take me wrong people, I love this Church and that's why I'm here but I think the Church has the obligation to let the new converts know about what the Church believed and believe today. When the new converts discover the past of our Church they get very dissapointed NOT because of the past itself but because nobody told them about it.  Isn't better for the Church to explain all these things before having them joining the Church?. Just my thoughts.

[quote] So, the information, the doctrine (both true and false) is there.  Very few members take the time to actually read any of it, other than the minimal quotes in other, approved, sources.  Only those who are seeking, who are willing to put forth the effort, will find the valuable nuggets of doctrine.[/quote]

Very true, I still looking for answers.....

Discourses Journal

[quote]It's only between you and the Lord but I feel strongly that the Church should take a position and clarify all those issues. ... Isn't better for the Church to explain all these things before having them joining the Church?[/quote]

I would disagree here, very strongly.  I think that "the Church" has stepped in and defined too many doctrines, and clarified too many issues.

I can give some examples, but I think they would be deemed "off topic" here.

Whenever the Church defines doctrine, any straying from that doctrine causes severe consequences.  Many times, that definition isn't even official, yet it still carries consequences.  Joseph Smith said that he taught correct principles, then let the saints govern themselves.  Yet, because the Church has defined some doctrines and policies, if I try to explore outside the bounds that some person has set, I may be subject to disfellowship or excommunication.  This is not allowing the saints to govern themselves.

Yes, there are basic doctrines that must be clearly defined.  The reality of the Resurrection.  The essential principles and ordinances.  The problem is, that when "the Church" defines or clarifies principles, all too often it is done by "the arm of flesh" rather than the Spirit.

Yes, some of these doctrines can cause new or weak members to stumble.  That is not a good thing.  But Joseph Smith openly told the saints that if he tried to explain to them even a small fraction of eternal truth, they would turn against him.  By not interfering, the Church allows each of us to explore them for ourselves, and utilize the Spirit to learn the truth.  If someone interferes, even with the best of intentions, they can cause many to falter in their progress.  This happened with Mormon Doctrine, although it wasn't an official, or even sanctioned work.

NightHawk

Journal of Discourses

Tenaheff [quote] It is my understanding that any officially endorsed Church publication or book will have on it's title page or inside cover:  "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"  If this is not there it is not an official Church publication regardless of who the author is.  Teachers are instructed to only quote from books that have this "stamp" of approval.[/quote]
I just looked at my copy of 'Jesus the Christ' by Talmage and it does not have the name of the Church on it. Yet is was recommended reading in official papers of the Church for missionaries. In fact, I read this on my mission. Then there must be an addition to what you mentioned?

[quote] Whenever the Church defines doctrine, any straying from that doctrine causes severe consequences.[/quote]
:spock: Well it depends on what those consequences are... for instance plural marriage which was practised before (see 'In that day sevwn women...' thread within this board), others are easier. To understand where you are coming from... would the Church's definition of tithes be a 'sever consequence'? Many battle now over gross and net.

[quote] Yes, there are basic doctrines that must be clearly defined.[/quote]
I really wonder if any doctrine is really 'basic'. Once you define one, it goes into more questions. The subject of faith alone can cover planets and stars.

[quote] Yes, some of these doctrines can cause new or weak members to stumble.  That is not a good thing.  But Joseph Smith openly told the saints that if he tried to explain to them even a small fraction of eternal truth, they would turn against him.  By not interfering, the Church allows each of us to explore them for ourselves, and utilize the Spirit to learn the truth.  If someone interferes, even with the best of intentions, they can cause many to falter in their progress.[/quote]
I believe that is because they (those that learn more truth or hidden secrets) try to impose or broadcast it to those who are either ignorant or 'know better'. It is one thing to say, 'In my opinion' and another to say, 'This is the way it is...' or 'Thus saith the Lord...'

Journal Discourses - Page 7

[quote]would the Church's definition of tithes be a 'sever consequence'? Many battle now over gross and net.[/quote]

Yes, I think it would.  Any time the Church "defines" such things, it gives the self-righteous, whichever side of the question they are on, the ammunition to persecute others.  And it gives those on the "wrong" side of the question justification for their disgruntlement.  All the Prophets have taken a great position on this particular subject - hands off.  It is a matter between each individual and God.

[quote]I believe that is because they (those that learn more truth or hidden secrets) try to impose or broadcast it to those who are either ignorant or 'know better'.[/quote]

Some do.  Some just try to explain their insights.  Many others just quietly go about their business.  Some take action upon their knowledge, and are labelled "apostate" and are cast out, because of their deeply held beliefs, which may or may not be correct.

NightHawk

Journal Discourses Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 7

Okay I understand where you are coming from and agree with some of it, but the only thing I think is 'shady' ground is to say that the Prophet is somehow 'wrong' in making official statements about a principal. If anything, my opinion would be that having the Brethren tell us some 'specific' about a particular issue gives something to go to the Lord with it.