And if they aren't part of the standard works...? Go on, I said it was a circular argument. Feel free to complete the other half of the circle any time.
That is a silly comment (And if they aren't part of the standard works...?) bc I produced proof the JoDs are part of the LDS accepted standard works, the JoDs state it (vol.8, Preface page) and the LDS church/leaders signed off on it by allowing the JoDs to be published and sold to LDS members. There are no 'what ifs' about what was written 1854-1886 in the JoDs. AND, bc no one back then said anything against what had been written (what JoDs teach)- not for a few generations- that to bring it up some 100 years later shows, to me and many others, a distinct attempt to 'change' LDS doctrine and deceive everyone.
Because my point was that they were NEVER part of the standard works. To refute that, all you need to do is cite ONE (1) source other than the JoD that says they were part of the standard works.
I'll do better than that. I will post books where the LDS church and its highest leaders, over the last hundred years or so, have quoted the JoDs. That shows that the LDS church/leaders still thot JoDs were, very much, a part of the doctrines, beliefs and teachings of LDS church. It has taken me this long to reply to this bc I have never been faced with the 'JoDs are not doctrines/beliefs' as has been asserted here. But, it also shows, I believe, that those LDS who say that don't know as much about their church as they suggest. Which, to me, is a bigger concern. In my recent study I found that even the Relief Society study guide uses (quotes) the JoDs. I pulled one off the shelf and looked through it (Relief Society Personal Study Guide 1 from 1989).
But, it also, as does most of the books I have examined so far, quotes many of the books written by the highest of LDS church leaders from the 1850s to the time of it being written/printed. It is, I firmly believe, wrong to say the JoDs, or any of those early LDS written/published books, are not full of LDS doctrines or beliefs- especially since the LDS church, in one way or another, published those books. The LDS simply cannot have it both ways. They JoDs can't be quoted often and by the highest LDS church officials but not be doctrinal or beliefs of the LDS church. That would be, in my mind, both the height of irony and hypocrisy.
To say they have rejected founding doctrines, first you have to show that these were doctrines. You have not done so.
There's that word again. You have not demonstrated that the JoD was a source of doctrine.
See above- book titles with JoD quotes coming soon (I'm still looking thru my 3 foot deep pile of early and modern LDS-printed and published books).
It's not that hard to understand: they wanted to have the sermons overseas. They were sermons, not statements of doctrine.
Really? Sermons are speeches of beliefs and doctrines. What other point are they for, especially since nearly all, if not all, were given in LDS churches or the Tabernacle or in other important LDS events, buildings. Plus, many (most?) of the sermons (whoever heard of a sermon that didn't teach beliefs/doctrines? Ridiculous!) are found in other LDS sources that repeat the same as doctrines/beliefs. Your denial doesn't make it true. It took about a hundred years for the LDS to realize their god's unchangeable doctrines/beliefs needed to be changed. Thus why no one spoke up back then. Also, lest we forget, the LDS god, as I read him, states that any LDS leader that even 'tries' to lead his church astray will be "quickly swept off the earth". Since that never happened he must have agreed with all that was written, taught, printed then published, right? Else there would be many dead LDS leaders from that time. Believe it or not, I believe it, the LDS backed themselves into this corner by the things they taught- they speak face to face with God, he directs/leads the LDS church, he won't allow them to lie or lead the church astray, all of BY's 'sermons' are LDS Scripture and so on. You can't have it both ways. None of us can.
At least, not unless we show by such actions/words that, imo, we have been successfully altered in our mind to believe that God never changes, knows everything and sees everything from the Universe's beginning to the end of time but then we make allowances for him not knowing everything before there was anything (so why would he need to change? Does God really need to edit his words to man?), or admitting that he isn't everywhere in time all right 'NOW', or that he isn't all-powerful and can't stop mere mortals from making him change. To me, God never lies or changes and He really can see the future, that is why so many of the Bible's prophecies have come to pass compared with, I believe, none of the LDS god's- at least I haven't seen one that has yet. I've said enough for now. I'm still studying.
They didn't need the sermons to be statements of doctrine because statements of doctrine already existed on both continents: the standard works.
Before the D&Cs were in print how many of the LDS church's doctrines/beliefs were in the BoM? I can't find hardly any.
It's like asking why we have "My Utmost for His Highest" when we already have the Bible. One is a set of sermons, the other is a statement of doctrine.
My Utmost hi-lites biblical verses/passages and expounds on them. There is nothing new or added scripture to them.
Treating the sermons like they are statements of doctrine will lead to the exact same kind of foolishness as you are trying to foist on us.
Again, I didn't say the JoDs were standard works, the LDS leaders who authorized their publication did. I wasn't there in the 1850s-80s when they were collected from those who taught them (and said then that they were teachings or doctrines) and then published them. Notice the preface page of volume 1 in the photo I've added. What does it say about where they were printed and who signed off on it? The JoDs are "by BY, his 2 counsellors [sic] and the 12 apostles". And, they were printed at the "LDS book depot" as so many other LDS books of the time was, according to Joseph Fielding Smith.
Couldn't upload that file but it is here...
Vol. 01 Journal of Discourses :: Journal of Discourses
