No Ma'am, That's Not Doctrine

[Elphaba]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Sorry, I added an edit while you were writing. You may not be done yet.

Elphaba

Not to worry El - you can disagree with me anytime.

I've got to turn in so I catch up tomorrow. Goodnight and shouldn't you go to bed too?

Whoops - sorry about that - I've messed up your post. I apologize. I must have hit edit instead of quote but I don't think I can fix it.

See you tomorrow.

Sleep Well! You're gonna need it!

Elphie

[Gaia]

I was concerned enough about this I asked the mods to close the thread. I would still like a thread where I could "discuss" the Quroum of the Annointed," without it being turned into a "Women still hold the Priesthood" thread. That is the last thing I wanted to happen, but you seem convinced that I did.

Proof positive you did not actually read MY posts.

Eddited to add for clarification: In my posts I never claimed women still had the Priesthood. That's where the thread got out of control and other people came in, taking it into many different directions.

Numerous times Snow has claimed I did say women still held the Priesthood. I did not. I do not have an opinion on that one way or another, and even said so in that thread. Yet Snow insists he read all of MY posts.

Elphaba

GAIA:

I just want to confirm this. As anyone who actually reads what El wrote can tell for themselves, HER post was confined to a specific issue at a specific historical period in Church history; in fact she specified that she was NOT making any statements on current doctrine, women or Priesthood.

For example, here's a quote from post #63 of the thread, "Did Women EVER Hold the Priesthood", posted on Sept 10:

P.S. To be clear, I am not saying women have the priesthood today or should be activists to do so. I have no opinion on that. E.

IN fact, and as i've already stated, I am the one who drew the discussion out into broader territory ; in fact, (in post # 68 of the same thread, also posted Sep 10) she asked me to avoid continuing in that manner:

However, on this thread I am adamant that I want to stick with the Quorum of the Anointed in the late 1830s and early 1840s. I find your posts going far beyond this particular moment of history, and therefore going way off point.

So, would you please, if you still wish to discuss women and the priesthood in the fashion you've posted here, start a new thread?

Thank you,

Elphaba

And Elphaba, i want to formally, deeply apologize for drawing that thread off into other territory which you never intended and clearly did NOT wish to discuss.

Sincerely --

~Gaia

[Snow]

GAIA:

I just want to confirm this. As anyone who actually reads what El wrote can tell for themselves, HER post was confined to a specific issue at a specific historical period in Church history; in fact she specified that she was NOT making any statements on current doctrine, women or Priesthood.

For example, here's a quote from post #63 of the thread, "Did Women EVER Hold the Priesthood", posted on Sept 10:

P.S. To be clear, I am not saying women have the priesthood today or should be activists to do so. I have no opinion on that. E.

IN fact, and as i've already stated, I am the one who drew the discussion out into broader territory ; in fact, (in post # 68 of the same thread, also posted Sep 10) she asked me to avoid continuing in that manner:

However, on this thread I am adamant that I want to stick with the Quorum of the Anointed in the late 1830s and early 1840s. I find your posts going far beyond this particular moment of history, and therefore going way off point.

So, would you please, if you still wish to discuss women and the priesthood in the fashion you've posted here, start a new thread?

Thank you,

Elphaba

Yes Gaia,

We read that the first time she posted it.

[rosie321]

.......................................

Any knowledgeable Mormon knows that Council Minutes, Signature Books books, blessings, etc DO NOT constitute LDS doctrine, just as any knowledgeable Mormon knows that regardless of whether they like it or not, women do not have the Priesthood - not according to LDS doctrine.

In a recent press release, the Church said this:

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith."

A fuller discussion of what constitutes doctrine can be found at:

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp...0004e94610aRCRD

and

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/What...on_Doctrine.pdf

I'm stepping into this discussion late but I have to take huge issue with your quote above because I have also been taught within the church differently.

Around each conference time, members are instructed that what is taught there is modern day scripture.

I've been looking very indepth at the priesthood and modern day revelation due to some posts.

Here are some references to look at:

Joseph Fielding Smith - "What is Scripture? When one of the brethren stands before a congregation of the people today ( I would take that as priesthood) , and the inspiration of the Lord is upon him, he speaks that which the Lord would have him speak. It is just as much scripture as anything you will find written in any of these records, and yet we call these the standard works of the Church." Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 186 (1954)

In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. 'We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God' (Articles of Faith 1:9)." Gospel Principles, p. 55 (1992)

D&C 68:3-5

"... if the Prophet of God should tell me that a certain principle or theory which I might have learned was not true , I do not care what my ideas might have been, I should consider it my duty, as the suggestion of my leader, to abandon that principle or theory." Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 83 (1857)

"What man or woman on earth, what spirit in the spirit-world can say truthfully that I ever gave a wrong word of counsel, or a word of advice that could not be sanctioned by the heavens?" Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, p. 127 (1867)

"I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime, perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything of the kind in this place, but in the councils of nations -- that Brigham Young has said 'when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture.' I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God." Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264 (1870)

"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 ... 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." Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95 (1870)

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan — it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way." Desert News, p. 5 (May 26, 1945)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right now it is made clear women do not have the priesthood and are taught as lesser beings dependent on the brethren.

As far as women in the priesthood who knows what the future will bring? Blacks were not supposed to hold the priesthood either until the revelation came down allowing them to hold it.

[Snow]

I'm stepping into this discussion late but I have to take huge issue with your quote above because I have also been taught within the church differently.

That's an official release of the LDS Church and you have a HUGE issue with it. At least we know where you are coming from.

Around each conference time, members are instructed that what is taught there is modern day scripture.

That is unture. Members are not so instructed at each conference. In fact Conference talks are sometimes edited prior to publication to clean up errors in what is said in Conference. The belief is that whatever is spoken in official capacities - AS INSPIRED BY GOD - is true. Obviously lots of people say things in Conference that aren't inspired.

Joseph Fielding Smith - "What is Scripture? When one of the brethren stands before a congregation of the people today ( I would take that as priesthood) , and the inspiration of the Lord is upon him, he speaks that which the Lord would have him speak. It is just as much scripture as anything you will find written in any of these records, and yet we call these the standard works of the Church." Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 186 (1954)

Note the disclaimer.

In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. 'We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God' (Articles of Faith 1:9)." Gospel Principles, p. 55 (1992)

Note the disclaimer

"What man or woman on earth, what spirit in the spirit-world can say truthfully that I ever gave a wrong word of counsel, or a word of advice that could not be sanctioned by the heavens?" Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, p. 127 (1867)

Please post the rest of the quote in context. I know what it says - do you?

"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 ... 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." Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95 (1870)

Note the disclaimer... by the way, do you represent that the Journals of Discourse constitute official doctrine of the Church?

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan — it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way." Desert News, p. 5 (May 26, 1945)

Please state the author of that quote and the Church's official response to it.

Right now it is made clear women do not have the priesthood and are taught as lesser beings dependent on the brethren.

Stupid point.

[snipe123]

Right now it is made clear women do not have the priesthood and are taught as lesser beings dependent on the brethren.

WHAT?Where is it taught that women are lesser beings dependent on the brethren exactly? This is absolutely false! I hasten to add that it is one of the most ignorant, and retarded statements I have seen in these threads.

[rosie321]

Right now it is made clear women do not have the priesthood and are taught as lesser beings dependent on the brethren.

WHAT?Where is it taught that women are lesser beings dependent on the brethren exactly? This is absolutely false! I hasten to add that it is one of the most ignorant, and retarded statements I have seen in these threads.

As far as the post quoted above I refer back to oft quoted scriptures thrown out and to the current church operation.

The way our church exists without the priesthood no ordinances be performed.

Relief society is UNDER the Priesthood and the priesthood must approve of what goes on there and in all auxillaries. Since no women are in the priesthood I would say that makes the women dependent on the man The established spiritual thoughts whether truly under the direction of God or whether dependent on the mans interpretation or own desires it is expected to be followed. If a brethren says something it is so. But if a sister says something is it? No. So in the church women are dependent on the man.

I have more to say but don't have time to respond adequately to your post now Snow

I do know what the J&D reference points to. Rather than type out the whole section here is a link to the J&D http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.p...10004&REC=4

The early church was taught the J&D and valued it as scripture and the word of God. Many doctrines were presented to people during that time. They were expected to follow it as it was spoken by God itself. Though this is not gospel look up J&D under Wikipedia. It brings up some thoughts in this regard and a statement by Elder Cannon who ranked it as one of the standard works (I did not look back at his statement in the J&D). I have read journals and writings by early members of the church who did express belief in the words. As I said many rank the conferences (from the local levels up to the general conference) as scriptures

I would ask that you at least consider the confusion created if its scripture, no its not, or only when in written in the name of the Lord, or in the spirit. Some have been instructed that what is spoken by leaders are words to be followed as gospel or modern day revelation only to seem to have that recinded at a later time or translated in a different way by a priesthood holder.

[Snow]

As far as the post quoted above I refer back to oft quoted scriptures thrown out and to the current church operation.

Specifically what thrown out scriptures? Please quote them. Who threw them out? Where are they now?

The way our church exists without the priesthood no ordinances be performed.

The quick brown fox over lazy dog.

I have more to say but don't have time to respond adequately to your post now Snow

The early church was taught the J&D and valued it as scripture and the word of God.

You don't have to guess about this stuff. The Church canonizes what it officially holds as scriptural and doctrinal. All Mormons understand that. Were the Journals of Discourse canonized?

It brings up some thoughts in this regard and a statement by Elder Cannon who ranked it as one of the

standard works (I did not look back at his statement in the J&D).

And...

So...

Are we to understand that you think that Elder Cannon's opinions are binding on the Church?

[Gaia]

I'm stepping into this discussion late but I have to take huge issue with your quote above because I have also been taught within the church differently.

GAIA:

Hello Rosie --

Quite true, and your quotes were certainly relevant to the discussion.

In fact here's another from the D&C (clearly according to anybody's "book", accepted LDS scripture) :

(Doctrine and Covenants 68:4

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

[CrimsonKairos]

Snow has already pointed out that not everything taught at Conferences is guaranteed to be inspired by the Spirit.

That's why we as members are counseled to cultivate the Spirit's influence in our lives, so we may test and try the teachings and hold fast to that which is true and of God.

To claim that everything in Conference is scripture makes where something is said, and not what is said, the standard for truth.

It's always telling when someone has to appeal to non-canonical, unofficial sources to support a point or doctrine.

[rosie321]

Snow has already pointed out that not everything taught at Conferences is guaranteed to be inspired by the Spirit.

That's why we as members are counseled to cultivate the Spirit's influence in our lives, so we may test and try the teachings and hold fast to that which is true and of God.

To claim that everything in Conference is scripture makes where something is said, and not what is said, the standard for truth.

It's always telling when someone has to appeal to non-canonical, unofficial sources to support a point or doctrine.

thats just it crimson

Snow said..., brother so and so said... I missed their names in the canon.

There are more quotes in scriptures that indicate otherwise. The D&C says, as above, that what men speak in the spirit is scripture. The priesthood SHOULD be acting with the spirit all the time or their actions to the contrary clearly made known. The writings in the canon indicate that we should trust their word and authority not just at certain times. That when they speak it is as the Lord has spoken it.

The Bible doesn't spell out the specifics of it is the "standard for truth" or gospel law when this or that happens. Instead it is indicated what comes out should be trusted.

As far as the conference goes I cannot tell you the number of times I have heard around conference time that people are instructed to go because the words spoken there is the scripture God is giving us for our day.

[CrimsonKairos]

Not everything a General Authority says will be scripture, or infallible, or 100% accurate.

That is why we have the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Case in point: Elder McConkie and the priesthood ban.

The point isn't to doubt our leaders, but to seek spiritual confirmation that what they teach is true.

Not everything will be.

That is why we have the Spirit to guide each of us. That is the meaning of the Parable of the Ten Virgins:

56 And at that day, when I shall come in my glory, shall the parable be fulfilled which I spake concerning the ten virgins.

57 For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived—verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day. (D&C 45:56-57)

Of course our leaders' words are "scripture" when they speak by the Spirit. The question is, when are they speaking by the Spirit, and when are they going off of an opinion or personal perspective?

That is what the Spirit is for. In addition, that is what the standard works are for. They establish the standard of our doctrines. The standard works are the ruler against which all teachings and doctrines are measured and compared.

If something contradicts the standard works, it is probably false. If it is not false, but is a reversal of a previous policy (polygamy, priesthood ban, etc...) then that is when the Spirit's confirmation becomes invaluable, to assure us of what is true and what is not.

Standard Works + Spirit's Guidance = A Perfect Measure of Truth

Does anyone seriously dispute that?

[snipe123]

Right now it is made clear women do not have the priesthood and are taught as lesser beings dependent on the brethren.

WHAT?Where is it taught that women are lesser beings dependent on the brethren exactly? This is absolutely false! I hasten to add that it is one of the most ignorant, and retarded statements I have seen in these threads.

As far as the post quoted above I refer back to oft quoted scriptures thrown out and to the current church operation.

The way our church exists without the priesthood no ordinances be performed.

Relief society is UNDER the Priesthood and the priesthood must approve of what goes on there and in all auxillaries. Since no women are in the priesthood I would say that makes the women dependent on the man The established spiritual thoughts whether truly under the direction of God or whether dependent on the mans interpretation or own desires it is expected to be followed. If a brethren says something it is so. But if a sister says something is it? No. So in the church women are dependent on the man.

I have more to say but don't have time to respond adequately to your post now Snow

I do know what the J&D reference points to. Rather than type out the whole section here is a link to the J&D http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.p...10004&REC=4

The early church was taught the J&D and valued it as scripture and the word of God. Many doctrines were presented to people during that time. They were expected to follow it as it was spoken by God itself. Though this is not gospel look up J&D under Wikipedia. It brings up some thoughts in this regard and a statement by Elder Cannon who ranked it as one of the standard works (I did not look back at his statement in the J&D). I have read journals and writings by early members of the church who did express belief in the words. As I said many rank the conferences (from the local levels up to the general conference) as scriptures

I would ask that you at least consider the confusion created if its scripture, no its not, or only when in written in the name of the Lord, or in the spirit. Some have been instructed that what is spoken by leaders are words to be followed as gospel or modern day revelation only to seem to have that recinded at a later time or translated in a different way by a priesthood holder.

Right now it is made clear women do not have the priesthood and are taught as lesser beings dependent on the brethren.

WHAT?Where is it taught that women are lesser beings dependent on the brethren exactly? This is absolutely false! I hasten to add that it is one of the most ignorant, and retarded statements I have seen in these threads.

As far as the post quoted above I refer back to oft quoted scriptures thrown out and to the current church operation.

The way our church exists without the priesthood no ordinances be performed.

Relief society is UNDER the Priesthood and the priesthood must approve of what goes on there and in all auxillaries. Since no women are in the priesthood I would say that makes the women dependent on the man The established spiritual thoughts whether truly under the direction of God or whether dependent on the mans interpretation or own desires it is expected to be followed. If a brethren says something it is so. But if a sister says something is it? No. So in the church women are dependent on the man.

I have more to say but don't have time to respond adequately to your post now Snow

I do know what the J&D reference points to. Rather than type out the whole section here is a link to the J&D http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.p...10004&REC=4

The early church was taught the J&D and valued it as scripture and the word of God. Many doctrines were presented to people during that time. They were expected to follow it as it was spoken by God itself. Though this is not gospel look up J&D under Wikipedia. It brings up some thoughts in this regard and a statement by Elder Cannon who ranked it as one of the standard works (I did not look back at his statement in the J&D). I have read journals and writings by early members of the church who did express belief in the words. As I said many rank the conferences (from the local levels up to the general conference) as scriptures

I would ask that you at least consider the confusion created if its scripture, no its not, or only when in written in the name of the Lord, or in the spirit. Some have been instructed that what is spoken by leaders are words to be followed as gospel or modern day revelation only to seem to have that recinded at a later time or translated in a different way by a priesthood holder.

I was challenging the idea that women are "lesser beings" not that they are dependent upon men (who have the priesthood) with regards to priesthood function...

To say that they are "lesser beings" (simply because they do not hold the priesthood) is retarded...

[Snow]

Snow has already pointed out that not everything taught at Conferences is guaranteed to be inspired by the Spirit.

That's why we as members are counseled to cultivate the Spirit's influence in our lives, so we may test and try the teachings and hold fast to that which is true and of God.

To claim that everything in Conference is scripture makes where something is said, and not what is said, the standard for truth.

It's always telling when someone has to appeal to non-canonical, unofficial sources to support a point or doctrine.

This whole discussion - whether or not the theory that women have the priesthood is doctrinal, it one of the most moronic conversations about Mormonism I've ever heard.

Setting aside the theory for a moment - people are disiputing official Church promulgations of what constitutes doctrine and instead putting up the Journals of Discourse or excommunicated apostates... as if the Church itself doesn't know what it believes.

Of course anything that is inspired and accurately conveyed is LIKE scripture - or scripture worthy if you will. However, the only things the Church officially stands behind as scriptural - that is inspired enough, with enough certainity that it will go on record as proclaiming as doctrinal are the Standard Works and the other things I quoted in the opening post.

It's like arguing the Fall of Rome with a bunch of teenagers who don't even know that there was a Roman Empire to begin with. The point is not whether a speaker can be inspired, the point is that the Church will only declare as doctrinal (read inspired) a very limited collection. All else must be considered interpretation or opinion.

[Gaia]

GAIA:

Since the validity of the Journal of Discourses has been (yet again) impugned, i thought the following might be appropriate:

Volume I of the _Journal of Discourses_ was printed in 1854. The following quote is from the letter from the First Presidency at the beginning of that volume:

LETTER FROM THE FIRST PRESIDENCY.

Great Salt Lake City, Utah Territory, June 1, 1853.

Elder Samuel W. Richards, and the Saints abroad.

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, which he has faithfully and fully accomplished; and he has been reporting the public Sermons, Discourses, Lectures, &c., 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 co-operation 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.

BRIGHAM YOUNG,

HEBER C. KIMBALL,

WILLARD RICHARDS,

First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

* * *

It is also important to remember that many of these discourses were given during General Conferences and/or Priesthood Conferences, and that many were published in other official LDS periodicals before they were published in the _Journal of Discourses_ .

Wilford Woodruff also stated that Brigham Young had a chance to review the Journal of Discourses, and that he (Wilford Woodruff) had also reviewed his sermons, and that the reporting in the JD was accurate.

(then) President Brigham Young said:

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.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 13: 95.)

~Gaia

[Snow]

GAIA:

Since the validity of the Journal of Discourses has been (yet again) impugned, i thought the following might be appropriate:

False. No one is questioning the validity of the Journals of Discourse. What we Mormons understand is that the Journals, however good, enlightening, illuminating or interesting, are not part of the Standard Works and do not represent official doctrinal pronouncements.

Volume I of the _Journal of Discourses_ was printed in 1854. The following quote is from the letter from the First Presidency at the beginning of that volume:

LETTER FROM THE FIRST PRESIDENCY.

Great Salt Lake City, Utah Territory, June 1, 1853.

Elder Samuel W. Richards, and the Saints abroad.

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, which he has faithfully and fully accomplished; and he has been reporting the public Sermons, Discourses, Lectures, &c., 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 co-operation 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.

BRIGHAM YOUNG,

HEBER C. KIMBALL,

WILLARD RICHARDS,

First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

UNBELIEVABLE: Why didn't you tell us before that Elder Watt had developed a skill in phonography and that we was going to publish information in England.

Why - this changes everything.

* * *

It is also important to remember that many of these discourses were given during General Conferences and/or Priesthood Conferences, and that many were published in other official LDS periodicals before they were published in the _Journal of Discourses_ .

Wilford Woodruff also stated that Brigham Young had a chance to review the Journal of Discourses, and that he (Wilford Woodruff) had also reviewed his sermons, and that the reporting in the JD was accurate.

So what. It's irrelevant.

(then) President Brigham Young said:

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.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 13: 95.)

~Gaia

Two questions:

1. Exactly how many of those sermons did BY correct? Which ones?

2. Does the Prophet and 12 Apostle believe that the JoD are the same as scripture?

I am looking forward to your answers.

[Gaia]

GAIA:

Hello Rosie -- Thanks for sharing your thoughts/ feelings. It is certainly true that many LDS women feel as you have indicated.

It's interesting to note -- and you should remember -- that when women tell the truth about their experiences in patriarchal systems, they (or their feelings, thoughts or experiences) are frequently accused of being stupid, crazy, irrational, bad, unworthy, or sinful.

Illegitimi non carborundum !!!

~Gaia

[rosie321]

GAIA:

Since the validity of the Journal of Discourses has been (yet again) impugned, i thought the following might be appropriate:

False. No one is questioning the validity of the Journals of Discourse. What we Mormons understand is that the Journals, however good, enlightening, illuminating or interesting, are not part of the Standard Works and do not represent official doctrinal pronouncements.

Ahh... yes the standard works-"as far as they are translated correctly" (but then again should we even be concerned about what the Articles of Faith say?

Volume I of the _Journal of Discourses_ was printed in 1854. The following quote is from the letter from the First Presidency at the beginning of that volume:

LETTER FROM THE FIRST PRESIDENCY.

Great Salt Lake City, Utah Territory, June 1, 1853.

Elder Samuel W. Richards, and the Saints abroad.

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, which he has faithfully and fully accomplished; and he has been reporting the public Sermons, Discourses, Lectures, &c., 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 co-operation 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.

BRIGHAM YOUNG,

HEBER C. KIMBALL,

WILLARD RICHARDS,

First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

UNBELIEVABLE: Why didn't you tell us before that Elder Watt had developed a skill in phonography and that we was going to publish information in England.

Why - this changes everything.

* * *

It is also important to remember that many of these discourses were given during General Conferences and/or Priesthood Conferences, and that many were published in other official LDS periodicals before they were published in the _Journal of Discourses_ .

Wilford Woodruff also stated that Brigham Young had a chance to review the Journal of Discourses, and that he (Wilford Woodruff) had also reviewed his sermons, and that the reporting in the JD was accurate.

So what. It's irrelevant. irrelevant? a prophet speaking is irrelevant? People were taught in their day that this was a standard work. Tomorrow the Bible is irrelevant too. Well actually Joseph Smith STARTED to correct it..

[

quote](then) President Brigham Young said:

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.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 13: 95.)

~Gaia

Two questions:

1. Exactly how many of those sermons did BY correct? Which ones?

2. Does the Prophet and 12 Apostle believe that the JoD are the same as scripture?

I am looking forward to your answers.

Brigham Young doesn't seem to be the apologetic type . I don't believe he really corrected anything did he? However, the church has done a lot of editing and damage control post B.Y.

The Prophet and 12 apostles do all they can do to distance themselves from the J&D because of the controversies that have arisen from it. While it might be good to steer away from the controversy I can understand the view of people who feel that the apostles are changing things. If theses truths were as powerful as BY. and others proclaimed at that time then I would think it would remain as important today. How can something referred to as scripture one day become worthless another.

[sixpacktr]

GAIA:

Hello Rosie -- Thanks for sharing your thoughts/ feelings. It is certainly true that many LDS women feel as you have indicated.

It's interesting to note -- and you should remember -- that when women tell the truth about their experiences in patriarchal systems, they (or their feelings, thoughts or experiences) are frequently accused of being stupid, crazy, irrational, bad, unworthy, or sinful.

Illegitimi non carborundum !!!

~Gaia

Emma,

Do you have two computers?? You and Gaia sound eerily alike...

[Elphaba]

Emma,

Do you have two computers?? You and Gaia sound eerily alike...

No, I am not Gaia.

Our "truth" is an important thing is all she is saying. We each have one, and have the right to tell it.

Historically, men have always been the one to tell the "truth," and women have usually been silenced with oppression, and often with horrific violence, such as witch burnings. I don't believer, however, that this is true today as it has been in the past.

In fact, I believe it is now fully acceptable for women to tell their truths as it is for men to tell theirs, thanks to the brave women, and men, of the last few centuries who insisted we have the right to do so. If she finds herself in a situation where someone tries to stop her from telling her truth, she can leave, and go someplace else where someone will cherish her truth. Mere centuries ago women did not have this choice.

Everyone has the right to tell his/her "truth." Even you. Do you keep a journal? Even if not, I suppose someday you will tell your truth, perhaps to your grandchildren. Our "truths" are beautiful things. I imagine yours will be very interesting one day.

Elphaba

[RajahManchou]

___Snow___

In one of the Priesthood - Women thread it is asserted that according to LDS doctrine women hold or may hold the priesthood. In promotion of the view that women, according to LDS doctrine, hold the priesthood, a number of quotes and sources were posted - Council Minutes, blessings to individual members, writings of excomunicated Mormons, etc.

Any knowledgeable Mormon knows that Council Minutes, Signature Books books, blessings, etc DO NOT constitute LDS doctrine,

---

But these things can suggest the historical context in which certain doctrines develop.

___Snow___

as any knowledgeable Mormon knows that regardless of whether they like it or not, women do not have the Priesthood - not according to LDS doctrine.

----

If by "Priesthood" you mean ecclesiastical position in the Church, then LDS history does not suggest that women were to hold such a thing. However, it would also seem that early Mormonism took a much broader view of Priesthood than mere ecclesiastical position. Remnants of this broader view are still visible in such things as female administrators in the Temple.

It may be true that the modern Church disavows such doctrines as women holding the Priesthood, and that they are even uncomfortable in the Priesthood role they share when it comes to the Fulness of the Ordinances. It seems true that the Church has taken a different evolutionary path, and has abandoned not only this concept, but a myriad of other interrelated concepts, such as plural marriage, adoption, the United Order, Brigham Young's Adam teaching, and so forth. These were all laid aside in what historian Thom Alexander has called the period of Mormon Transition, extending roughly from 1870 ~ 1930.

To be evenhanded, I suppose that far fewer women would be enthusiastic about sharing in the Priesthood, if it meant the resurrection of polygamy. <cough> But there you have it, like love and marriage.

;-)

Kindest,

Rajah Manchou

[RajahManchou]

It's always telling when someone has to appeal to non-canonical, unofficial sources to support a point or doctrine.

Well. The idea that the entire doctrine of the Church is found within the Standard Works is a relatively late development, coming at the close of a more openly prophetic phase of Church history.

I'd ask CrimsonKairos where one finds scriptural justification for the current expanded Priesthood role of the 12 Apostles within the Standard Works? As I recall, that role is clearly defined in D&C 107. However, that does NOT describe the of the modern Q12 at all.

Is this similarly "telling"?

:-)

I'm just sayin'

Kindest,

Rajah Manchou

"God hath sworn to give an inheritance to His people where transgressors perished."

[RajahManchou]

If something contradicts the standard works, it is probably false. If it is not false, but is a reversal of a previous policy (polygamy, priesthood ban, etc...) then that is when the Spirit's confirmation becomes invaluable, to assure us of what is true and what is not.

This is the precise argument used against the truthfulness of Christian teaching by early Jews.

In LDS history, it is problematic for quite a number of reasons. Folks who thought this way were the ones who tended to reject any innovative doctrine in the Church, including vicarious baptism. It was of such a view that Joseph Smith spoke when he said that whenever he taught anything new to the Saints they flew apart like breaking glass.

"No scriptural precedent" is the argument I've heard from the Temple Lot group, from the RLDS/CofC, and numerous others who disliked this or that doctrinal innovation in Mormonism.

Further, at what point does polygamy cease to be a doctrine, and simply become a change of Church policy? Is that an honest assessment of the role polygamy played in the early LDS Church? I myself feel that this cheats the point a bit.

Kindest,

Rajah Manchou

"My People Are No More"

[Snow]

But these things can suggest the historical context in which certain doctrines develop.

Agreed.

If by "Priesthood" you mean ecclesiastical position in the Church, then LDS history does not suggest that women were to hold such a thing.

No, that is only a part of what I mean. I mean simply - priesthood.

However, it would also seem that early Mormonism took a much broader view of Priesthood than mere ecclesiastical position. Remnants of this broader view are still visible in such things as female administrators in the Temple.

It may be true that the modern Church disavows such doctrines as women holding the Priesthood, and that they are even uncomfortable in the Priesthood role they share when it comes to the Fulness of the Ordinances. It seems true that the Church has taken a different evolutionary path, and has abandoned not only this concept, but a myriad of other interrelated concepts, such as plural marriage, adoption, the United Order, Brigham Young's Adam teaching, and so forth. These were all laid aside in what historian Thom Alexander has called the period of Mormon Transition, extending roughly from 1870 ~ 1930.

To be evenhanded, I suppose that far fewer women would be enthusiastic about sharing in the Priesthood, if it meant the resurrection of polygamy. <cough> But there you have it, like love and marriage.

;-)

Kindest,

Rajah Manchou

If you want to claim that historically some authorities in the Church have held views about women and the priesthood that are not currectly held today - that's fine, and true. If you want to claim that it appears that some early leaders believed that in some sense women had a form of the priesthood - that's fine, and true. That's about as far as it goes however. The Church has a process and system to define it's doctrine. In no regard is women holding the priesthood doctrinal.

Well. The idea that the entire doctrine of the Church is found within the Standard Works is a relatively late development, coming at the close of a more openly prophetic phase of Church history.

That is not what is being claimed - refer to the OP.

I'd ask CrimsonKairos where one finds scriptural justification for the current expanded Priesthood role of the 12 Apostles within the Standard Works? As I recall, that role is clearly defined in D&C 107. However, that does NOT describe the of the modern Q12 at all.

I don't know what role you are referring to but lots of things are not "doctrinal" nor need they be. Things can be procedural or matters of policy.

Historically, men have always been the one to tell the "truth," and women have usually been silenced with oppression, and often with horrific violence, such as witch burnings. I don't believer, however, that this is true today as it has been in the past.

For example - the time the patriarch gave you an opinion you didn't like - that kind of horrific violence and oppression?

[CrimsonKairos]

Well. The idea that the entire doctrine of the Church is found within the Standard Works is a relatively late development, coming at the close of a more openly prophetic phase of Church history.

I didn't say the entire doctrine is in the standard works, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. What I said--and that rather clearly--was that if a doctrine contradicts a teaching in the standard works (of course the most recent taking precedence, i.e. sacrament over necessity of passover feast), then that teaching is false UNLESS a revelation is presented and accepted by common consent and added to the standard works. Next time, why not take more time and read my post more carefully? Thanks.

I'd ask CrimsonKairos where one finds scriptural justification for the current expanded Priesthood role of the 12 Apostles within the Standard Works? As I recall, that role is clearly defined in D&C 107. However, that does NOT describe the of the modern Q12 at all.

See above.

This is the precise argument used against the truthfulness of Christian teaching by early Jews.

Wrong. My view allows for further revelations and even reversals of earlier revelations. Judaism accepted no additions to their canon at the time of Jesus. Again, read my comments more carefully please.

Folks who thought this way were the ones who tended to reject any innovative doctrine in the Church, including vicarious baptism.

See above.

"No scriptural precedent" is the argument I've heard from the Temple Lot group, from the RLDS/CofC, and numerous others who disliked this or that doctrinal innovation in Mormonism.

That comment was pretty useless. It didn't address the reasonableness of my view (which you misunderstood anyway), all it did was lump me with apostate groups. Thanks for trying I guess.

Further, at what point does polygamy cease to be a doctrine, and simply become a change of Church policy?

Five days before or after the Summer Equinox, give or take a full moon or two.