Comments on: Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/14/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-smith/ A Mormon Blog Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:27:40 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Randy B. http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/14/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-smith/#comment-87966 Randy B. Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:27:27 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-smith/#comment-87966 Point taken, Nick. I suppose I was projecting a bit. If the correlation committee had in fact omitted potentially embarrasing material without properly noting as much, as your original post suggested, I would have found that more than merely amusing. Point taken, Nick. I suppose I was projecting a bit. If the correlation committee had in fact omitted potentially embarrasing material without properly noting as much, as your original post suggested, I would have found that more than merely amusing.

]]> By: Nick Literski http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/14/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-smith/#comment-87965 Nick Literski Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:34:47 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-smith/#comment-87965 #65 & #66: That's one thing to remember about the Brigham Young manual. Most of it is an expurgation of <i>Discourses of Brigham Young</i>, which was itself an expurgation of the <i>Journal of Discourses.</i> #65 & #66:
That’s one thing to remember about the Brigham Young manual. Most of it is an expurgation of Discourses of Brigham Young, which was itself an expurgation of the Journal of Discourses.

]]> By: Nick Literski http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/14/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-smith/#comment-87964 Nick Literski Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:31:51 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-smith/#comment-87964 #63 Randy: <i>What is leaving me underwhelmed is your apparent claim that the omission of “until His system was charged with it” from the above quote is some great offense on behalf of the correlation committee.</i> Hehe...No, that's not what I was saying, Randy. If you look back to my original post, I was <i>amused</i> by it. I thought it was funny that they had altered a blatant Adam-God statement, and frankly, even the resulting misquote retains elements of Adam-God. Now, does the historian in me cringe at this sort of editing? Well, yes. I like authenticity. I think it's unfortunate that they had to tweak a statement of Brigham Young in order to make him appear to say what they wish he'd said. But "great offense?" No, that wasn't my point. :-) #63 Randy:
What is leaving me underwhelmed is your apparent claim that the omission of “until His system was charged with it” from the above quote is some great offense on behalf of the correlation committee.

Hehe…No, that’s not what I was saying, Randy. If you look back to my original post, I was amused by it. I thought it was funny that they had altered a blatant Adam-God statement, and frankly, even the resulting misquote retains elements of Adam-God. Now, does the historian in me cringe at this sort of editing? Well, yes. I like authenticity. I think it’s unfortunate that they had to tweak a statement of Brigham Young in order to make him appear to say what they wish he’d said. But “great offense?” No, that wasn’t my point. :-)

]]> By: Randy B. http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/14/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-smith/#comment-87963 Randy B. Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:03:58 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-smith/#comment-87963 opps, make that "had been _omitted_ from a quote" opps, make that “had been _omitted_ from a quote”

]]> By: Randy B. http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/14/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-smith/#comment-87962 Randy B. Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:54:55 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-smith/#comment-87962 To follow up on Left Field's initial point in #65, I didn't teach the BY manual and so can't speak to that, but I did teach the Wilford Woodruff manual. And, thanks to Justin, read virtually every original source from which the manual was taken for nearly every lesson. Like Left Field, I don't recall any failures to include elipses in the proper places. Indeed, the only changes not explicitly noted in the manual that I recall finding were corrected spelling and gramatical errors. Now there were, as is inevitable in this sort of endeavor, places where a quote had been stripped out of its context. One that springs to mind is a general quote included in the manual about listening to the promptings of the spirit, which, in context, was an explanation at the outset of a conference talk as to why Woodruff (as was common back then) had no prepared remarks. We obviously do things a little differently today, and it made for a fun class discussion. But again, no failures, at least that I found, to note that material had been from a quote. To follow up on Left Field’s initial point in #65, I didn’t teach the BY manual and so can’t speak to that, but I did teach the Wilford Woodruff manual. And, thanks to Justin, read virtually every original source from which the manual was taken for nearly every lesson. Like Left Field, I don’t recall any failures to include elipses in the proper places. Indeed, the only changes not explicitly noted in the manual that I recall finding were corrected spelling and gramatical errors.

Now there were, as is inevitable in this sort of endeavor, places where a quote had been stripped out of its context. One that springs to mind is a general quote included in the manual about listening to the promptings of the spirit, which, in context, was an explanation at the outset of a conference talk as to why Woodruff (as was common back then) had no prepared remarks. We obviously do things a little differently today, and it made for a fun class discussion. But again, no failures, at least that I found, to note that material had been from a quote.

]]> By: Randy B. http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/14/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-smith/#comment-87961 Randy B. Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:32:22 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-smith/#comment-87961 Left Field, exactly right. Sorry I wasn't clear. The phrase is in DBY, and there are no ellipses. Left Field, exactly right. Sorry I wasn’t clear. The phrase is in DBY, and there are no ellipses.

]]> By: J. Nelson-Seawright http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/14/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-smith/#comment-87960 J. Nelson-Seawright Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:26:41 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-smith/#comment-87960 LifeOnaPlate, we can find at least dozens of private sources -- journals, church meeting minutes, letters, etc. -- that make the explicit claim that on various occasions Brigham Young explicitly taught that Adam was God the Father of Jesus Christ. Don't rely too heavily on individual sources when there's a broader picture to consider. LifeOnaPlate, we can find at least dozens of private sources — journals, church meeting minutes, letters, etc. — that make the explicit claim that on various occasions Brigham Young explicitly taught that Adam was God the Father of Jesus Christ. Don’t rely too heavily on individual sources when there’s a broader picture to consider.

]]> By: J. Stapley http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/14/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-smith/#comment-87959 J. Stapley Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:39:29 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-smith/#comment-87959 Lifeonaplate, it is important to note that individuals edited and approved their discourses before printing in the <em>JD</em>. As to the Widtsoe edition, it is not edited with historic sensibility. Jared*'s link above is a great examle. Lifeonaplate, it is important to note that individuals edited and approved their discourses before printing in the JD.

As to the Widtsoe edition, it is not edited with historic sensibility. Jared*’s link above is a great examle.

]]> By: Left Field http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/14/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-smith/#comment-87958 Left Field Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:23:39 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-smith/#comment-87958 Thanks, Randy. Just to be clear, I read you as saying that the phrase is there, not that the phrase is also ellipsied in DBY? Thanks, Randy. Just to be clear, I read you as saying that the phrase is there, not that the phrase is also ellipsied in DBY?

]]> By: LifeOnaPlate http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/14/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-smith/#comment-87957 LifeOnaPlate Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:20:11 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-smith/#comment-87957 It should be noted here that Charles C. Rich, who served in the quorum of the 12 at the time, was present for Pres. Young's sermon and wrote by hand in his personal copy of the Journal of Discourses a correctionary note. The sermon clearly mentions Michael, Jehovah and Elohim, hearkening to the creationary account of the temple. Elder Rich noted that Brigham explicitly did not try in that sermon to preach that Adam was God the Father. He is God, a father, though, namely the father of the mortal human race, meaning our mortal head of the family, the Ancient of Days. In many other sermons this was clearly taught by Pres. Young. Thanks for the heads up on the manual; I went out and got it yesterday afternoon, and sure enough, it is very exciting! It should be noted here that Charles C. Rich, who served in the quorum of the 12 at the time, was present for Pres. Young’s sermon and wrote by hand in his personal copy of the Journal of Discourses a correctionary note. The sermon clearly mentions Michael, Jehovah and Elohim, hearkening to the creationary account of the temple. Elder Rich noted that Brigham explicitly did not try in that sermon to preach that Adam was God the Father. He is God, a father, though, namely the father of the mortal human race, meaning our mortal head of the family, the Ancient of Days. In many other sermons this was clearly taught by Pres. Young.

Thanks for the heads up on the manual; I went out and got it yesterday afternoon, and sure enough, it is very exciting!

]]>