Question for the LDS Church

2,278 Views | 113 Replies | Last: 18 yr ago by Hank Hill
bizag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gerald E. Jones, director, LDS Institute of Religion, Berkely, Califorina

quote:

Many queries come from students concerning these twenty-six volumes first published in England between 1853 and 1886. The original intent of their publication was to provide income for George D. Watt, their stenographer and publisher. Many Church members in England desired to read the sermons delivered by the General Authorities of the Church in Utah, and Brother Watt’s books filled that need. He obtained clearance from the First Presidency 1 June 1853. Addressed to Elder Samuel Richards, missionary printer in England, and to “the Saints abroad” this statement introduced volume one:

“Dear Brethren—It is well known to many of you, that Elder George D. Watt, by our counsel, spent much time in the midst of poverty and hardships to acquire the art of reporting in Phonography [shorthand], which he has faithfully and fully accomplished; and he has been reporting the public Sermons, Discourses, Lectures delivered by the Presidency, the Twelve, and others in this city, for nearly two years, almost without fee or reward. Elder Watt now proposes to publish a Journal of these reports, in England, for the benefit of the Saints at large, and to obtain means to enable him to sustain his highly useful position of Reporter. You will perceive at once that this will be a work of mutual benefit, and we cheerfully and warmly request your cooperation in the purchase and sale of the above named Journal, and wish all the profits arising therefrom to be under the control of Elder Watt.” (Signed by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Willard Richards.)

The first four volumes were reported by Elder Watt, but after that other reporters are included—one a sister, Julia Young. Brother Watt reported through volume twelve, when David W. Evans became the prime reporter. He was followed by George W. Gibbs, a secretary to the First Presidency.

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 publication.

We should remember that the times were different then. A major concern of the early Saints was physical survival. Sermons often dealt with the practical problems of the time and so may seem quaint in our day, even if much of the advice is still valid.

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 which our children learn in Primary and Sunday School. Remarks were frequently impromptu. Close, friendly audiences frequently invited informal discussion of varied topics. There was occasional speculation about doctrines which have since been determined unimportant or even misleading.

The general membership of the Church has progressed in knowledge of gospel principles, which is as it should be. In our organizations, we have been taught the gospel for more than one hundred years now. Because of modern revelation and because of “line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept” progression, we have answers that were not yet given when the Journal of Discourses was published.

We also should be aware of priorities in our studies. It seems to me that we should first become very familiar with the four books of Scripture accepted as standard works. The words of our current living prophet are also most valuable for us in our time. The official statements of the First Presidency are standards for doctrine and practice in the Church. We should be familiar with the manuals and courses of study provided for us in our day. For further inspiration and instruction by the General Authorities, we can study general conference addresses, beginning with the most current and moving back in time.

Even after digesting these materials, some persons may still have time and inclination to peruse the Journal of Discourses. We can be grateful that records of the early sermons were kept to help us understand the growth of the Church and the testimonies of our early leaders. If we find the time to read them, however, we should avoid getting caught up in their uniqueness and should concentrate on the inspiring thoughts and experiences related to us by choice men.


http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1978.htm/ensign%20august%201978%20.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#LPTOC2

[This message has been edited by bizag (edited 3/30/2006 11:21p).]
ibmagg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Soup -that he didn't do. They tried to kill him by forcing him to drink a vial of poison, chipping one ofhis teeth in the process, as they were tarring and feathering him. Had he done those acts the offended party could have simply shot him dead and no jury would have convicted him, assuming there was the evidence to back up the claim of this crime.
RAB91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bizag - That sounds a lot like 'we believe in the bible except where its not translated correctly'......... or, when all else fails, change the rules.
Guitarsoup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Soup -that he didn't do. They tried to kill him by forcing him to drink a vial of poison, chipping one ofhis teeth in the process, as they were tarring and feathering him. Had he done those acts the offended party could have simply shot him dead and no jury would have convicted him, assuming there was the evidence to back up the claim of this crime.


Sure, they could have shot him or cut his throat, but they were torturing and humiliating him.

As they intended to castrate him as well, I understand many mormons consider it a miracle of God that they didnt castrate him - that an act of God prevented them when they de-trousered him.

But if he wasnt doing sexual things, why the motive of castrating him? He either was sleeping with their sister, or they thought he was doing so.
ibmagg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wonder what the girl in question had to ay.; and maybe even his wife. Thye spent the night removing the tar and feathers (very painful) and trying to attend to the broken flesh. The next morning in Church he preached a sermon (three were baptised) and the irony was that there were some of the little mob that attacked him present in the congregation. I always wondered why they did not dare finish the job. If they had any proof, most of the people would have probably supported their actions.
DJ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
He was tarred and feathered on 23 March 1832 for having intimate relations with the sister of men with apparently extra tar and feathers...As they intended to castrate him as well, I understand many mormons consider it a miracle of God that they didnt castrate him - that an act of God prevented them when they de-trousered him.

But if he wasnt doing sexual things, why the motive of castrating him? He either was sleeping with their sister, or they thought he was doing so.

Guitarsoup--You and ibmagg seem to have a difference of opinion as to the motives for this torture of Smith. Do you have a credible reference for the castration attempt, as well as the motives for it? That might be helpful in this discussion.
Guitarsoup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
DJ - I dont see where imbagg has given any reason for the attack on Smith.

However, what is not in dispute is that mob led by Eli Johnson was sufficiently upset as to nearly kill Smith and to completely maim and humiliate Smith. Eli Johnson is the son of John Johnson, who was boarding Smith and Emma and the brother of Marinda Johnson, whom Smith allegedly had an affair with.

Marinda Johnson later married one of the Mormon apostles (Hyde, I think), but while married to Hyde, Smith took her as a plural wife. In 1870 Hyde divorced Marinda (he had 7 other wives.)


So what made Eli Johnson so mad? Some say that Smith was fooling around with Marinda. Some say Smith wanted to take all their land for his own or as a commune. I have never heard any other explanition, but maybe there are some out there.
Hank Hill
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hold on Guitarsoup, are you saying that someone is speaking evil of Joseph Smith?

Wow thats hard to believe.

This is silly, Mormons back then were law abiding citzens who tried to live their religion. These people attacked them, not the other way around. I guess the Jews brought the whole Holacost thing on themselves? They shouldn't have been so Jewish.

Mormons were driven out of every state they lived in, not because they were bad neighbors but because they were organized and politically and economically active. That was their real sin, not Polygamy.

Thats the non-Mormons real dirty little secret about the persecution of the Saints. There was no higher cause at work. They were just trying to get rid of the competition.

BTW to find out what I'm telling is the truth all one has to do is read some of the Journals kept by Mormons of the day, it tells a different story then the one GuitarSoup and others are trying to paint.

Guitarsoup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Mormons back then were law abiding citzens


This is clearly not true. Polygamy was illegal by Illinois state law before the Mormons showed up there. They were in defiance of that law.

Smith also set up a theocratic government in Navoo where he destroyed the rights of people living there by doing things such as destroy newspapers - violating the Constitutions of the United States as well as Illinois.

Smith had been in legal trouble from before the time he began the BOM and it continued until his death.
Hank Hill
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fact Joseph Smith was never convicted of any crime.

Being accused does not mean he actually did what he was accused of.

Christ was accused of many things, do you still worship him as savior? According to Jewish law he was guilty of Blasphemy a law punishable by death.

Your real problem is that you get all your facts from books written against the LDS church, there is no unbiasness in them.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.