What has changed since 1850.

[deacon blues]

I've been doing a fast read of the Journal of Discourses. right now I'm in 1857, and the talks are quite similar to the talks one might hear in General Conference in this century; but there are some differences. I'll make a list of the most common 1857 topics:
1. Obedience- follow the prophet and you will prosper.
2. Apostacy- There must have been more than a few apostates back then, because they talk about them- a lot
3. Polygamy- It is a law of God. Get with the program.
4. The U.S. Army is coming. There is talk about having faith in God and leaders. Be ready to fight, keep a gun under your pillow. God will deliver us.
5. Brigham Young is just as inspired as Joseph Smith was.
6. Be kind to Indians. They are Israelites. There are covert hints that they will help us against the army.
7. Husbands should rule over wives. Put downs of men who let their wife/wives tell them what to do. This pops up a lot.
8. We believe in the Constitution, but Brigham is going to rule us, not the non-entities the U.S. Govt. sends out.
9. We will return to Jackson County, but we can't say when.
10.We are modern day Israel. The world is Egypt. Utah is the promised land.
11. Why Jews won't join the Church? They have to have their blood purged/changed first? This was a little confusing, but they seemed to have believed something like this.

[jfro18]

This is fascinating - I'm not sure how many of these are actually changes though.

1. Still the same - follow the prophet and you'll do better in all aspects of life.
2. They still talk about apostates and demonize those who leave.
3. This one they just run away from today.
4. This one they definitely don't emphasize since they're now a state and #3 is not a day-to-day issue.
5. This is true today although they will absolutely throw Brigham under the bus as needed to protect both Joseph Smith and whoever the prophet currently is.
6. This is the same, although they really don't want to talk about it since DNA shows they were 100% incorrect in their beliefs (and still are).
7. This is still true, although they don't make fun of them in public because they are so desperate to be a mainstream religion.
8. This is true - I believe Bednar just gave a talk about gov't overreach.
9. This is still true - I was told this as a member that some day the church would be called back. It's never going to happen, but they do whisper it.
10. This is still true, although not emphasized... America in general is the promised land that was held empty for the chosen people.
11. This is just crazy.

This is a fascinating post, deacon - you'll have to keep updating it as you go through the JoD!

[wtfluff]

11. Why Jews won't join the Church? They have to have their blood purged/changed first? This was a little confusing, but they seemed to have believed something like this.

Does this have anything to do with the magick that happens with "lineage" in patriarchal blessings?

[Mormorrisey]

You have more patience then I to pour through this long-winded drivel, deacon. Good on ya. But that's a great report, and in fact the list you made really does mirror what was going on during the great Mormon Reformation. I knew a little about this period, which the Mountain Meadows Massacre plays a great part, but Lindsay Park Hansen has a couple of great episodes on the Mormon Reformation in her Year of Polygamy podcast. I can't remember which particular early ones talked about this, but her later episodes 113 to 116 talks specifically about the Reformation years. It's really fascinating. It will provide a lot of context to the list you made, and why that list is so fascinating.

[Corsair]

We know from Elder D. Todd Christofferson that doctrine is what all apostles are saying. Any discussion of plural marriage can be cast aside as non-doctrinal now that only Oaks and Nelson have the slightest interest in polygamy. No other apostle will be discussing it, after all. Nelson and Oaks should either amend the status of their second marriages or simply stop worrying about the previous marital status of any divorced or widowed person who shows up at a temple for a sealing ceremony. As long as no one is violating bigamy laws the temple should simply be grateful that someone willingly wants to be there.

On the other hand, we have several topics that remain constant over time which includes distrusting the government and obedience to the living prophet. In truth I doubt there is any single American who fully trusted their government on both January 19 and January 21 depending on how they cast their vote on November 3. Plus, many of us are skeptical of both presidential office holders on either of those dates, but that's hardly something that the LDS church can fix.

Still, it seems clear that any trust and obedience for someone like Thomas Monson would have to be tempered by his whole "I'm a Mormon" campaign during his tenure in office. This clashes directly with Nelson's "Damn it, we're not Mormons" campaign since October 2018. If you want to strictly and literally trust the "LIVING" prophet then you better buy new copies of the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square music albums at the very least.

[wtfluff]

...
Nelson's "Damn it, we're not Mormons" campaign
...

THIS - Needs to be "shouted from the rooftops" as Nelson's legacy.

[moksha]

Nelson's "Damn it, we're not Mormons" campaign

If a COVID variant appears in Utah, President Nelson may insist that it be called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Variant.

[LSOF]

I know Adam had a brief stint as God.

[2bizE]

I think the biggest advance in the church since lifting the priesthood ban in 1978 has been allowed couples throughout the church to be married civilly and then go to the temple. The ban on non-temple folks seeing their children get married was the most humiliating, anti-family, anti-human policy imaginable.

[Corsair]

I know Adam had a brief stint as God.

Right. I met a fan of that brief stint at Sunstone

[wtfluff]

The ban on non-temple folks seeing their children get married was the most humiliating, anti-family, anti-human policy imaginable.

Don't forget siblings... EVERY human on planet earth who has not yet reached the age of 18/been "endowed" is UNWORTHY to attend a temple sealing.

[2bizE]

The ban on non-temple folks seeing their children get married was the most humiliating, anti-family, anti-human policy imaginable.

Don't forget siblings... EVERY human on planet earth who has not yet reached the age of 18/been "endowed" is UNWORTHY to attend a temple sealing.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. This policy has been more detrimental to people than any other I can think of outside of the corporate racism.

[deacon blues]

One curious thing that has turned up in my studies of the Wilford Woodruff Journal, not the Journal of Discourses: In 1860-64 Brigham Young invented an alphabet and was promoting all the schools in the Utah territory should convert over to this alphabet. A brief summary of the discussion was nobody else thought it was a good idea, but they didn't want to tell Brigham that because disagreeing with Brigham was a very disagreeableprospect. So Brigham's advisors countered with two main arguments: 1. It's cheaper to buy books in English than print books in a Deseret alphabet, and, 2. The people don't have the faith to learn a new alphabet.

Wilford Woodruff records the following conversation: "I spent the day in the office Compiling History. President Young Called into the office and spent an hour with us. Brother R. L. Campbell showed President Young a small Book to be Printed for Children. President Young again took up the Deseret Alphabet and Conversed upon that subject.
He spoke of what he had done to introduce that subject to this people. He had sent East, and got a font of the best deserett type made that Could be got and Still the regency and superintendent of Common Schools, the Teachers nor people none of them have faith Enough to introduce the Deserett Alphabet into the schools. I will not give my Consent or furnish any type to publish that Book or any other for Children with the Errors now Exhisting in the English arthography. By doing this we teach our Children fals principles which they have to wallow through all there lives. If I Cannot present to my Children true principles in there language I do not want to present any thing to them. Neither will I use my priesthood to force it upon the people. If the people will not assist me to introduce it for the benefit of the rising generation they may go without it. But we Can buy those gentile school books for Children much Cheaper than we Can make them Here, and I dont wish to have any of that Class of Books made here.
Brother Campbell tryed to argue the point with Presidet Young But he gained nothing by it. We had long dispatches by Telegraph to day." (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 6, p. 47)

[Reuben]

Kids these days and their oldfangled alphabets. No wonder they can't think.

[Hagoth]

There's only one reason to insist that English speaking children be schooled only in a unique local alphabet, and that is to control peoples' minds by making it impossible for them to learn learn anything from outside of your influence. Can you imagine if Brigham had been successful in stopping children from learning English script and only allowing them to be literate in his personal language of propaganda? Yikes.

[moksha]

Wilford Woodruff records the following conversation: "I spent the day in the office Compiling History. President Young Called into the office and spent an hour with us. Brother R. L. Campbell showed President Young a small Book to be Printed for Children. President Young again took up the Deseret Alphabet and Conversed upon that subject.

He spoke of what he had done to introduce that subject to this people. He had sent East, and got a font of the best deserett type made that Could be got and Still the regency and superintendent of Common Schools, the Teachers nor people none of them have faith Enough to introduce the Deserett Alphabet into the schools. I will not give my Consent or furnish any type to publish that Book or any other for Children with the Errors now Exhisting in the English arthography. By doing this we teach our Children fals principles which they have to wallow through all there lives. If I Cannot present to my Children true principles in there language I do not want to present any thing to them. Neither will I use my priesthood to force it upon the people. If the people will not assist me to introduce it for the benefit of the rising generation they may go without it. But we Can buy those gentile school books for Children much Cheaper than we Can make them Here, and I dont wish to have any of that Class of Books made here.

Brother Campbell tryed to argue the point with Presidet Young But he gained nothing by it. We had long dispatches by Telegraph to day." (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 6, p. 47)

Not using the Deseret alphabet, as Brigham Young wished, allowed future Mormons to blend in with America. However, there is nothing wrong with BYU requiring its religion classes to be taught in the Deseret Alphabet to keep students from asking uncomfortable questions.

[Palerider]

One curious thing that has turned up in my studies of the Wilford Woodruff Journal, not the Journal of Discourses: In 1860-64 Brigham Young invented an alphabet and was promoting all the schools in the Utah territory should convert over to this alphabet. A brief summary of the discussion was nobody else thought it was a good idea, but they didn't want to tell Brigham that because disagreeing with Brigham was a very disagreeableprospect. So Brigham's advisors countered with two main arguments: 1. It's cheaper to buy books in English than print books in a Deseret alphabet, and, 2. The people don't have the faith to learn a new alphabet.

Wilford Woodruff records the following conversation: "I spent the day in the office Compiling History. President Young Called into the office and spent an hour with us. Brother R. L. Campbell showed President Young a small Book to be Printed for Children. President Young again took up the Deseret Alphabet and Conversed upon that subject.
He spoke of what he had done to introduce that subject to this people. He had sent East, and got a font of the best deserett type made that Could be got and Still the regency and superintendent of Common Schools, the Teachers nor people none of them have faith Enough to introduce the Deserett Alphabet into the schools. I will not give my Consent or furnish any type to publish that Book or any other for Children with the Errors now Exhisting in the English arthography. By doing this we teach our Children fals principles which they have to wallow through all there lives. If I Cannot present to my Children true principles in there language I do not want to present any thing to them. Neither will I use my priesthood to force it upon the people. If the people will not assist me to introduce it for the benefit of the rising generation they may go without it. But we Can buy those gentile school books for Children much Cheaper than we Can make them Here, and I dont wish to have any of that Class of Books made here.
Brother Campbell tryed to argue the point with Presidet Young But he gained nothing by it. We had long dispatches by Telegraph to day." (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 6, p. 47)

It's interesting to see Wilford take such a strong personal stand against what the "prophet" was teaching, but as all of his peers, he didn't have the intestinal fortitude to tell Brigham to his face that his proposal was wrong headed.

If that isn't government by coercion I don't know what is.

[deacon blues]

Here's another fun topic that pops up in several discourses around 1858-60. Church Leader: "Don't sell any grain or supplies to the army. Remember they only came here to kill us."
Then, a little later, Leader: "Some say Brigham sold grain to the army, but he really didn't. Yes, it was the Church that sold grain to the army for the building up of the kingdom."

1860 NOM's

[Palerider]

Sounds like 1860's apologists.

Which reminds me....I was lurking over at Mormon Discussion today. Hadn't been there for a long while. I was dismayed by how utterly petty and mean spirited they are in splitting hairs in order to shade the truth in their favor.

They can't possibly be winning souls that way.

[Reuben]

Sounds like 1860's apologists.

Which reminds me....I was lurking over at Mormon Discussion today. Hadn't been there for a long while. I was dismayed by how utterly petty and mean spirited they are in splitting hairs in order to shade the truth in their favor.

They can't possibly be winning souls that way.

Well, that's not what it's for. I've noticed that discussions in political echo chambers are often like that, too, against their own interests.

I think when people polarize, those nearest the poles can get pretty insecure about their ideologies. They bolster their sense of identity and worth by forming communities and talking about how right they are and how wrong their opponents are. I only noticed this after I became an outsider and saw how often the insiders' words had become vanity and noise to me. After a while, I saw it everywhere.

The amount of pettiness, mean-spiritedness, and hair splitting seems to correlate with the amount of insecurity, whether it's because they're wrong, losing, paranoid, or a minority.