On September 13th, 1852, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a letter saying:
“Orson Pratt… is appointed by us… to write and publish periodicals, pamphlets, books, &c., illustrative of the principles and doctrines of the Church… we request the Elders and other officers and members of the Church to give diligent heed to his counsels as the words of life and salvation”
This letter reflects the high regard in which Pratt’s theological teachings were held by church leadership and gives blanket approval for them moving forward. Pratt let people know about this support by publishing it in the first volume of his publication, The Seer, which he used as a platform for theology.
Pratt took this commission and developed a unique theological framework of the Holy Spirit in The Seer, an article in the Millennial Star dated October 15th, 1850 and entitled “The Holy Spirit” and its follow-up from November 1st, 1850, as well as a tract from 1856 also entitled “The Holy Spirit”. The perspective that Pratt presented the Holy Spirit as the “Great First Cause,” which is a philosophical concept that is historically revered as “The Unmoved Mover” or “The Prime Mover.”
Given his status as an apostle and apparent ecclesiastical endorsement of his theology, the leaders of the Church became quite concerned. Consequently, on October 21st, 1865, the First Presidency, alongside the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, issued a formal proclamation repudiating Pratt’s doctrinal assertions. The statement read in part:
“[Pratt’s writings] are mere hypotheses, and should be perused and accepted as such, and not as doctrines of the Church… [Pratt’s writings] contain doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it.”
Given the explicit support Pratt had initially received, it is understandable that Church leadership sought to issue a definitive statement disavowing these theological positions.
Similarly, on June 1st, 1853, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a letter saying:
“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.”
The following year, The Journal of Discourses was published and served as a repository of doctrinal instruction, theological exegesis, and ecclesiastical counsel. The significance of this publication is evident in various prefatory statements over its many volumes. A synthesized perspective from multiple prefaces affirms its doctrinal authority:
“The Journal of Discourses is a vehicle of doctrine, counsel, instruction [10], information on eternal life [15], God’s law’s, and the Gospel of Christ, all of which are lucidly explained [20]. By the writings in these books, a man may gauge his progress towards eternal life [2]. When it’s teachings are adapted to your life it will help you gain the favor of God [23] and exaltation [21] in the Celestial Kingdom [15]. It is the sacred writings of inspired men [16] and the word of God [4]. It ranks as a standard work and scripture of the Church [8], as it is where the prophet declares “Thus saith the Lord;” [9]. It is the written embodiment of the fire of the Almighty that burned in His prophets and Apostles [4]. No saint can afford to do without the teachings found within [11], and all saints are expected to sustain it’s publication [12].
It unnecessary to dwell on how important the Journal of Discourses is, because it is so significant [5].”
For generations, this status remained largely unchallenged. Even today, The Journal of Discourses continues to be referenced extensively in instructional materials and handbooks. Consequently, many within the Mormon tradition, myself included, regard its contents as pseudo-canonical.
However, in recent decades, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has actively sought to distance itself from The Journal of Discourses. This shift could be attributed to the evolution of the Church’s theological and social positions, which now significantly diverge from the discourses in the Journal.
In recent years, a significant justification for this disregard has been Lajean Caruth’s work (1, 2, 3). This researcher gained access to George D. Watt’s original shorthand transcriptions and analyzed them. Her findings revealed that substantial editorial modifications remain in the final product of The Journal of Discourses. These editorializations have provided a rationale for dismissing the Journal of Discourses as a whole as an authoritative doctrinal source.
It is imperative to clarify that I acknowledge the importance of Caruth’s scholarship, as it enhances our understanding of textual transmission within LDS historical documents. This is similar to the textual analysis performed by Royal Skousen concerning the Book of Mormon.
I remain skeptical of efforts to categorically discredit the Journal of Discourses based solely on these editorial modifications. Unlike Orson Pratt, whose theological innovations elicited explicit condemnation from Church leadership, George D. Watt’s editorialized publications retained their ecclesiastical approval. If significant inaccuracies had been present, it stands to reason that Church authorities would have issued a similar denunciation against Watt’s work as they did with Pratt. In fact, this would have been even more likely, considering apostles and future presidents of the Church served as editors for the Journal.
The absence of a contemporary rebuke or retraction suggests that, despite Watt’s editorial liberties, the leadership at the time found the content of The Journal of Discourses sufficiently representative of their teachings and doctrinal positions.
and now a meme to lighten the mood:
