In all honesty, when I first asked the question, I was open to the idea that JS was an okay guy who started a new religion.
As the day went on, I did some reading…it got ugly.
So, fair enough, there probably isn’t anything you could say at this point that would satisfy me on the subject about JS as prophet. It would be interesting for the LDS to show another side of him, though.
One thing I would like an LDS perspective on, I truly don’t understand, is about the Journal of Discourses. Can you shed some light here?
I have already apologized about mistaking you for another poster, and reacting badly. I’ll do so here again.
As to the Journal of Discourses…it’s a 'secondary source." Perhaps even a 'tertiary source."
What it is, is a collection of speeches given by several leaders of the church at disparate meetings. They were taken down by listeners, sent to England and published there. Most of the men who gave those speeches were never aware that those speeches WERE taken down, much less published, until they had copies of the journals in their hands. NONE of them were able to proofread those speeches for accuracy.
That alone destroys the use of the Journal as a primary source. However, it IS an incredibly valuable source of information on the culture, politics, attitude and thinking of the people at the time; not about the doctrine as it officially was, but what people THOUGHT about it. There is an incredible amount of speculation and bombast in it, and I, quite frankly, love reading those speeches. Some of them are worlds of fun.
And yes, we use them—but again, NOT AS A PRIMARY SOURCE OF DOCTRINE. We use them as and when they support the doctrine we get from OTHER sources, those doctrinal sources that were asked for.
We also use them when we study the workings of the early church, of the thinking of the leaders, and to help us understand the politics and feelings of the times.
I accused you of having a 'favorite quote" from the JoD, when I had mistaken you for someone else. That quote is from BY, and goes like this: “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.” (JoD 13:95) I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen this quote posted, right here in CAF, as a matter of fact, as “proof” that we Mormons have to take the JoD as authoritative scripture. After all, wasn’t this Brigham Young, the prophet, preaching this in a scripture? Didn’t he just SAY this?
In reality, it’s one of the classic ‘out of context’ ploys that anti’s dearly love to pull. It’s actually one of my favorites, too…because put in context it’s actually quite a disclaimer:
Brigham Young JoD 13:95:
Well, brethren and sisters, try and be Saints. I will try; I have tried many years to live according to the law which the Lord reveals unto me. I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture.* Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve.*** The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this [discourse] go to the people with “Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. But if they are plead with, and led along like children, we may come to understand the will of the Lord and He may preserve us as we desire
Please note the italics and the bolded lines. Remember what I wrote about none of the speakers getting to proofread or fact check their speeches? Well…that takes care of that. However, if that’s not enough, the bit about "go[ing] to the people with “Thus saith the Lord” really caps the thing. It had to be identified AS scripture…and for us, that’s a rather specific and important process—and not something that can be done impromptu as a general rule. Certainly NOTHING in the JoD qualifies on either count.
On the other hand, these WERE church leaders who were opening their hearts and minds. There is little doubt that, absent transcription errors, what we read in the JoD is what they honestly did think. However, there ARE those pesky transcription errors, and these WERE men, not God. Fallible; they could be, and were, mistaken. They could be, and were, prone to flights of speculation that ultimately were reigned in.
But do we use those things that have stood the test of time and comparision to primary doctrinal sources? Of course we do. Why not? Don’t Catholics use the very early church fathers in the same manner, even when some of
their stuff borders on what is now called heresy?
What we do NOT do, though, is allow our critics to use them in some underhanded attempt to make us see them as they are not. It just seems to me that it should be the Mormons who get to tell OTHER people where we get our doctrines from. They are, after all, our doctrines.
(It no longer exists.)
My rosaries are close by.