Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
https://ldsfreedomforum.com/
George Albert Smith Thread -Reactions of Church leaders
Authorities of the Church have denounced portions of the account. In General Conference in October 1918 Joseph Fielding Smith made the following comments:
I have discovered that people have copies of a purported vision by the Prophet Joseph Smith given in Nauvoo, and some people are circulating this supposed vision, or revelation, or conversation which the prophet is reported to have held with a number of individuals in the city of Nauvoo. I want to say to you, my brethren and sisters, that if you understand the Church articles and covenants, if you will read the scriptures and become familiar with those things which are recorded in the revelations from the Lord, it will not be necessary for you to ask any questions in regard to the authenticity or otherwise of any purported revelation, vision, or manifestation that proceeds out of darkness, concocted in some corner, surreptitiously presented, and not coming through the proper channels of the Church. Let me add that when a revelation comes for the guidance of this people, you may be sure that it will not be presented in some mysterious manner contrary to the order of the Church. It will go forth in such form that the people will understand that it comes from those who are in authority, for it will be sent either to the presidents of stakes and the bishops of the wards over the signatures of the presiding authorities, Or it will be published in some of the regular papers or magazines under the control and direction of the Church or it will be presented before such a gathering as this, at a general conference. It will not spring up in some distant part of the Church and be in the hands of some obscure individual without authority, and thus be circulated among the Latter-day Saints. Now, you may remember this.
The White Horse Prophecy, in any of its variant forms, has never been submitted, or even considered, for such a process that would be required to make it canon or binding on the Church membership. It simply has not occurred!
Joseph Fielding Smith's father and President of the Church, Joseph F. Smith, followed immediately after his speech and said:
The ridiculous story about the "red horse," and "the black horse," and "the white horse," and a lot of trash that has been circulated about and printed and sent around as a great revelation given by the Prophet Joseph Smith, is a matter that was gotten up, I understand, some ten years after the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith, by two of our brethren who put together some broken sentences from the Prophet that they may have heard from time to time, and formulated this so-called revelation out of it, and it was never spoken by the prophet in the manner in which they have put it forth. It is simply false; that is all there is to it.
Elder Bruce R McConkie also comments on the “prophecy” in his book Mormon Doctrine:
From time to time, accounts of various supposed visions, revelations, and prophecies are spread forth by and among the Latter-day Saints, who should know better than to believe or spread such false information. One of these false and deceptive documents that has cropped up again and again for over a century is the so-called White Horse Prophecy. This supposed prophecy purports to be a long and detailed account by the Prophet Joseph Smith concerning the wars, turmoils, and difficulties which should exist in the last days.
Note that the substance of the condemnation is that some thoughts or sentences from one source or another may have been put together to form this so-called revelation. The memory of the men involved may not have been sufficient to remember all that occurred in the short conversation they reportedly had with the Prophet. It is likely that they had parts from here and parts from there that formed the basis of their memory of the event. Note also that it is the descriptions of the various horses and what they represent that are condemned as false. In addition, the details of the last days are also declared false. It is clear that the text of the White Horse Prophecy as reported by Theodore Turley and Edwin Rushton and recorded in the diary of John J. Roberts is not accepted as verified, binding prophecy by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It has never been accepted and it has been soundly denounced. The acceptability of the document should not be an issue with any commentator. No authority of the Church has ever spoken in support of this document—not once! This really is not an issue that can responsibly come up in any discussion regarding the Church of Jesus Christ.
I believe that if one were to speak candidly and "off the record" to one of the "brethren", they would say something to the effect of:lundbaek wrote:If one were to ask a member of the First Presidency or an Apostle what we should do about the George Albert Smith and the White Horse prophecies, what reply might one receive?
pritchet1 wrote:
I still have my copies of the Journal of Discourses that discuss a few things that are no longer true
That's quite funny! So they were true - but now are untrue? Maybe it's the modern mormon that is false - that has rejected the words of the Prophets of the restoration?Mahonri wrote:pritchet1 wrote:
I still have my copies of the Journal of Discourses that discuss a few things that are no longer true
such as? As many examples as possible would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
I don't understand how this works either. It seems to me that if it was written down as prophecy at one point it still should be true...but There may be details that we don't understand. for instance it could be a personal journal that expressed a theory or opinion.LukeAir2008 wrote:That's quite funny! So they were true - but now are untrue? Maybe it's the modern mormon that is false - that has rejected the words of the Prophets of the restoration?Mahonri wrote:pritchet1 wrote:
I still have my copies of the Journal of Discourses that discuss a few things that are no longer true
such as? As many examples as possible would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
I was a Protestant. I joined the LDS church because I believed that Joseph Smith and his successors were true Prophets who actually knew who God and Christ were. It seems that today members want to reject the doctrines of the restoration and just be mainstream Christians. The word apostasy springs to mind.
Even antimormon sources such as http://mrm.org/journal-of-discourses contains some kernels of truth.The Journal was highly esteemed in its day. The preface to the 8th volume, written by Apostle George Q. Cannon, stated:
"The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every Number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector of 'the light that shines from Zion's hill."
Today, however, the LDS Church has expressed some reservations about the Journal. Below is the current, official position of the church on the issue:
"The Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a compilation of sermons and other materials from the early years of the Church, which were transcribed and then published. It includes practical advice as well as doctrinal discussion, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest. ... Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions. Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been documented. The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine."
Interpretations of some of the themes in the Journal have and are currently under debate between many anti-Mormons and Mormons. Some of the issues under debate between these groups include blood atonement, the Adam-God theory, plural marriage, and the exclusionary Negro doctrine.
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai161.htmlMichael Parker, "Did Brigham Young Say that He Would Kill an Adulterous Wife with a Javelin?," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, November 2004) Anti-Mormon critics frequently comb through 19th century writings and sermons looking for comments that can be used to disparage Latter-day Saint leaders. Their goal is to persuade members, investigators, and those outside the Church that those leaders were undeserving of any claim to divine inspiration and that consequently the Church itself must be false. Such snippets can only achieve the intended shock value when pulled from their literary and cultural environments. One frequently-used comment was made by Brigham Young in 1865. In an address delivered in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, President Young spoke of being able to put a javelin through an adulterous wife's heart. Standing alone, such as statement is shocking to readers today. What eager critics fail to do is to explain then context in which this was given, particularly the Biblical allusion to Numbers 25:6-15. In his paper, Parker discusses this and other statements involving "blood atonement" and shows how modern anti-Mormons misrepresent the statements of early Church leaders.
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/resp ... eer_jd.htmIn 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 principal 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 that 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 that 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 should 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.
I have read the sermons Brigham Young published in the Journal of Discourses - some of them - they are in my library, and I presume are considered correct as published. They are published by the church of which I am President. They are correct in so far as every man had a chance to correct his own discourses, or should do so if he has a chance.
Sermons reported by G. D. Watt, one of the official reporters, were considered reported correctly, and when they are found in the Journal of Discourses, they are considered correct. Some of my own sermons are published there, and they are correct. - Wilford Woodruff
Brother Heber says that the music is taken out of his sermons when brother Carrington
clips out words here and there; and I have taken out the music from mine, for I know
the traditions and false notions of the people. Our sermons are read by tens of thousands
outside of Utah. Members of the British Parliament have those Journals of Discourses,
published by brother Watt; they have them locked up, they secrete them, and go to
their rooms and study them, and they know all about us. They may, perhaps, keep
them from the Queen, for fear that she would believe and be converted. I know that I
have seen the day when, let men use language like brother Heber has today, and many would
apostatize from the true faith. In printing my remarks, I often omit the sharp words, though
they are perfectly understood and applicable here; for I do not wish to spoil the good I
desire to do. -Brigham Young JD 5:99
We regret that the circulation of the Journal of Discourses is so limited. Its importance
would warrant a thousand-fold greater extension of this work. We anticipate a time, not
distant in the future, when a copy of the present volume will be more precious than gold. It is
even now almost impossible to obtain a complete series. Copies should therefore be
carefully preserved by all subscribers. Joseph F. Smith JD 18:Preface
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, without any special command to one man to go here, and to another to
go yonder, or to do this or that, or to go an settled here or there.Brigham Young JD 9:286
So, Pritchet. Which statements in the JD, are "no longer" true? If you are not willing to back up a statement, please do not make itI 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 ... Let this 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. Brigham Young JD 13:95
Some of the issues under debate between these groups include blood atonement, the Adam-God theory, plural marriage, and the exclusionary Negro doctrine
But you did, plus your last post smacks of mocking the Prophets. But that's ok because they are dead, right?pritchet1 wrote:Not my decision to make.
Hyrcanus wrote:Unfortunately there are items in the JoD that ended up being clearly incorrect. I don't think that impinges the integrity of the Gospel, but it should remind us that we have to use discernment individually. You can attribute the problems to whatever suits you, I doubt any one reason explains all the issues.
Just as an example, I believe it was George Q. Cannon that said Brigham Young would become the President of the United States. I don't remember the exact date, 1855 or 1856 I think. There are probably around a dozen instances where various Apostles said the Saints would return to Jackson County before those living had passed away. I'll scan the quotes when I get home tonight if there is interest.
Woah, I don't think it damages the gospel or quality of the scriptures at all. Like I said, I think there are several different reasons why some of them didn't happen. I don't think any of them include a degradation of Prophet's, Apostle's or Scriptural authority. I only phrased that the way I did because I don't think a discussion of why they didn't come to pass is going to be useful, so I was acknowledging a reason existed without speculating on what it could be.Mahonri wrote:Hyrcanus wrote:Unfortunately there are items in the JoD that ended up being clearly incorrect. I don't think that impinges the integrity of the Gospel, but it should remind us that we have to use discernment individually. You can attribute the problems to whatever suits you, I doubt any one reason explains all the issues.
Just as an example, I believe it was George Q. Cannon that said Brigham Young would become the President of the United States. I don't remember the exact date, 1855 or 1856 I think. There are probably around a dozen instances where various Apostles said the Saints would return to Jackson County before those living had passed away. I'll scan the quotes when I get home tonight if there is interest.
These kinds of comments really bug me, they assume way too much, and are anti scriptural.
As for a "prophecy" not being fulfilled, who is to say it wasn't some outside factor? If the people were righteous, Brigham probably would have been President. If we were righteous, we probably would be back in Jackson county.
Why do we insist on following the rantings of anti Mormons and make excuses for what needs no excuse?
Did God make a "false" prophecy when he told Jonah he was going to destroy Nineveh but ended up sparing it?
The problem does not ly within the comments made by the prophets. It is within the writings themselves. The JoD is not a completely accurate account of what the prophets said. The scribe made errors when writing down the details of the conversation or talk. The prophet did not error, the writer may have. To say this, is not an apology for the truth, it is stating errors were made, which is the truth. That is one of the reasons why the JoD is not cannonized as scripture.These kinds of comments really bug me, they assume way too much, and are anti scriptural
NoGreaterLove wrote:The problem does not ly within the comments made by the prophets. It is within the writings themselves. The JoD is not a completely accurate account of what the prophets said. The scribe made errors when writing down the details of the conversation or talk. The prophet did not error, the writer may have. To say this, is not an apology for the truth, it is stating errors were made, which is the truth. That is one of the reasons why the JoD is not cannonized as scripture.These kinds of comments really bug me, they assume way too much, and are anti scriptural
I have two roughly related thoughts.Mahonri wrote:Where does this idea come from? There are so many occasions where so many of the Brethren of the time have said that they have gone over the JoD and said they are accurate.NoGreaterLove wrote:The problem does not ly within the comments made by the prophets. It is within the writings themselves. The JoD is not a completely accurate account of what the prophets said. The scribe made errors when writing down the details of the conversation or talk. The prophet did not error, the writer may have. To say this, is not an apology for the truth, it is stating errors were made, which is the truth. That is one of the reasons why the JoD is not cannonized as scripture.These kinds of comments really bug me, they assume way too much, and are anti scriptural
There are a bunch more than this, but this should help us see more clearly on the subject, instead of using the logic we read in apologetics websites that are as intellectually dishonest as anti's. Let's not live on borrowed light. Let's really find out by going to the source, those that said it, and the Lord.
