What is LDS canon?

[richlittell]

As a spur from another thread, I have a question about what we LDS consider to be canon. I always supposed that General Conference was canon but some have suggested that General conferences are not canon but expoundings upon canon (which I suppose was meant the standard works). I don't want to mislead anyone, so please, let me know how you think we should explain "canon." Here is my quote from the other post. If anyone could clarify this, I'd appreciate it

I tend to use "scripture" "canon" "doctrine" all interchangeably. Nevertheless, Joseph F. Smith gave new doctrine in General Conference (DC 138), and if you do a search on lds.org, you'll see that our prophets constantly refer to our canon as "open canon" or "open scriptural canon" (as opposed to "closed canon") And since we are instructed that General Conferences are the place where the apostles and prophet give us specific instruction for the needs of our time, I would say they are canon, for where else do we recieve ongoing revelation or direct counsel to our times? However, others may disagree, so I think I'll start another thread and get some input on this from others (as we are already digressing quite a bit from the original topic of this post).

[Justice]

The (any) revealed Word of God.

[BenRaines]

As I understand it what comes from the mouth of Prophets is to be considered as if scripture. Not sure the definition of canon. Would say that the Standard Works are canon.

Ben Raines

[Prodigal_Son]

Our Canon is what we use to blast the unbelievers out of the water.

[rastler00]

Our Canon is what we use to blast the unbelievers out of the water.

Like this one?

[Snow]

As a spur from another thread, I have a question about what we LDS consider to be canon. I always supposed that General Conference was canon but some have suggested that General conferences are not canon but expoundings upon canon (which I suppose was meant the standard works). I don't want to mislead anyone, so please, let me know how you think we should explain "canon." Here is my quote from the other post. If anyone could clarify this, I'd appreciate it

General Conference talk are not canonical. They may be true or accurate or correct, as may anything that is spoken under the influence of the Holy Ghost.

From The Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

"[in one of its religious senses, the term "canon" refers to the literary works accepted by a religion as Scripture. The word derives from the Hebrew qaneh (reed), which came to mean "measuring rod" and then "rule." It thus indicates the norm or the standard by which all things are measured. Latter-day Saints accept a more extensive and more open canon of scripture than those accepted by other Christians and by Jews. Latter-day Saints accept, in addition to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These four scriptural collections are called the Standard Works."

Encyclopedia of Mormonism : Compound Object Viewer

By the way, not everything spoken in General Conference is completely guided by the Holy Ghost and not everything said there turns out to be true. An, btw, changes are sometimes made (corrections) to the General Conference talks before they are published in the Ensign.

[tubaloth]

I tend to use "scripture" "canon" "doctrine" all interchangeably.

In some cases you probably can use this, scriptures are the canon, and where we find the doctrine. But you can’t do that the other way. General Conference is a place to find Doctrine, but that doesn’t mean it is canon or scripture (yet).

you'll see that our prophets constantly refer to our canon as "open canon" or "open scriptural canon" (as opposed to "closed canon")

And your example of Joseph F. Smith is a good example of this. When we refer to open canon we mean that our scriptures aren’t close. In Oct Pres. Monson could receive another revelation that gets ADDED to our canon. But again that doesn’t mean that EVERYTHING that is at General Conference gets added. Even for something to get added to the scriptures it gets sustained on in General Conference (must like section 138 was, and the Declarations after that, and the whole Pearl of Great Price)

Our canon is really the scriptures. (those two words can be used interchangeably. Official Doctrines of the LDS church is a little broader, it would take into consideration Official publications by the LDS church. This come in the General Conference. Like I for one consider The Proclamation of the family doctrine, but I wouldn’t account it Canon yet. I do think one day we well add it to the canon.

[richlittell]

That makes sense to me. I think why I have in the past included General Conf. as scripture is because we always get the encouragement to go to Gen Conf and study/ponder the words of the living Apostles because they are akin to the words of Christ? Ever have a leader ask you. "If Jesus came to speak at Gen. Conf. and you knew ahead of time, would you go? Would you ponder the words spoken, and the words written in the Gen Conf issue? (or some such thing). I know I have. So I've always considered Gen Conf talks to be scripture, but maybe we really shouldn't use scripture and canon interchangeably? Some more thoughts on this anyone?

In fact is there any great scholar out there who might better define the terms scripture, canon, and doctrine (by LDS standard)?

this is good

"[in one of its religious senses, the term "canon" refers to the literary works accepted by a religion as Scripture. The word derives from the Hebrew qaneh (reed), which came to mean "measuring rod" and then "rule." It thus indicates the norm or the standard by which all things are measured. Latter-day Saints accept a more extensive and more open canon of scripture than those accepted by other Christians and by Jews. Latter-day Saints accept, in addition to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These four scriptural collections are called the Standard Works."

But do the Standard Works Equate alone as Canon?

I have to admit, this statement was quite a surprise to me, I never considered such a thing before:

By the way, not everything spoken in General Conference is completely guided by the Holy Ghost and not everything said there turns out to be true.

I know there is editing, but I have never considered that an Apostle/Prophet would never speak by the Holy Spirit at Gen Conf. As far as the Seventies go, even though I would think that at the moment of delivering their talk, they would have the mantle of the Holy Ghost upon them, yet I do give more credence, study, and ponder more the addresses of the Apostles/Prophet. But actually, I can't imagine anyone giving a talk at Gen. Conf without the mantle of the Holy Ghost.

Good point though. Anyone else?

Edited September 8, 2008 by richlittell

[Misshalfway]

I view the canon as the quad I carry to church with my in my spiffy zippered case. My sons would probably love those weaponry photos! :)

Next in line is General Conference. I get fuzzy with regards to labels here. I don't see it as canon, but I do see it as doctrine and continuing revelation and counsel above all other discourses and talks.

Everything else that comes from the brethren is counsel and testimony and witness. Occasionally, there may be words given as "scripture" or commandment for that group or that person. But I wouldn't characterize any of that as canon.

It is clear in the BofM that God commanded all the house of Israel to record/write their words. We have Judah and Joseph. So when Reuban or Asher or Dan's record is found.....I am sure then we will have something to add to the canon.

This is one thing that helps me put things like the King Follett Discourse into perspective. It wasn't added to our canon as Official Declaration anything. So...I get a little concerned when I hear that it is considered scripture....just because it came from the mouth of the prophet. Because I think people get confused and think it is part of the canon. Especially non members. Why wouldn't they get confused by such professions.

[richlittell]

Like this one?

That's a really big gun!

So far everyone seems to be in agreement and that really helps me out. Thanks.

So it seems best to use canon and the Standard works interchangeably. Doctrine would be that set of principles or ideas that come from the body of knowledge we call canon. As far as scripture, we could use that the same as canon or standard works, however, we all know that there are additional scriptures (or records) yet to be found/revealed, but not as yet part of our canon. Gen Conf would be to expound upon the scriptures and occasionally maybe some revelation or direction for our immediate needs, but not canon unless it is voted on and accepted and added to the standard works, such as DC138. Does that sound about right?

BTW, Prodigal_Son, love that signature quote, first time I ever saw it.

Edited September 8, 2008 by richlittell

[Prodigal_Son]

BTW, Prodigal_Son, love that signature quote, first time I ever saw it.

I made it up yesterday when I signed on.

[Avrham]

just wondering are talks in General conference offical statements or just personal/private thoughts .some people I know believe that everything spoken is canon a cannot be faulted

[HiJolly]

just wondering are talks in General conference offical statements or just personal/private thoughts .some people I know believe that everything spoken is canon a cannot be faulted

All it takes is several hours of reading the Journal of Discourses from the 1800's, and you'll know your answer.

GC may be official, but it's not doctrine, unless spoken by the power of the HG. We each must determine that for ourselves. If, later on, the Church puts it up to a vote and we add it to our scriptures, OR, if the First Presidency subsequently puts it into an official proclamation or declaration, then it is doctrine. That's how I see it.

HiJolly

[Traveler]

As a spur from another thread, I have a question about what we LDS consider to be canon. I always supposed that General Conference was canon but some have suggested that General conferences are not canon but expoundings upon canon (which I suppose was meant the standard works). I don't want to mislead anyone, so please, let me know how you think we should explain "canon." Here is my quote from the other post. If anyone could clarify this, I'd appreciate it

I thought the LDS canon was that thing that made a lot of noise every time the BYU football team scores on their home field.

In reality the LDS refer to a select set of scriptures as “Standard Works”. There is a reason that we use the term “Standard Works” over the traditional term “canon”. This is because we should believe that our covenants, doctrine, ordinances and organization that will comprise the “Kingdom of G-d” when Jesus returns as king is not completed as of now and therefore cannot be a “closed” done deal canon.

The Traveler

[justamere10]

Latter-day Saints should not be expected to respond to criticisms about things written anywhere except in their canon. They are bound only to the doctrines that constitute official LDS canon.

Below are some pertinent excerpts from the LDS Newsroom.

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared:

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

[rameumptom]

The scriptures are the ONLY set of writings we have sustained in Conference as a membership to be binding upon us. They are our canon.

The General Authorities teach us doctrines that come from the canon, and as such, their teachings may be considered authoritative and scriptural, though not canonical. In many instances in the D&C, Church leaders were told they were not to teach by way of commandment, as that was Joseph Smith's job. Still, their teachings were to be considered in light of the canon (scriptures) and modern teachings of the prophets as a whole.

In this we are different than other Churches. We have several layers of authoritative writings/teachings, not to mention an open canon and scripture, due to modern revelation through living prophets and apostles. While we are to believe and follow the teachings in the scriptures (as far as they are translated correctly), we are to prayerfully consider the teachings of others to verify the accuracy and authority of them.

[Vort]

The term "canon" as it applies to scripture was put into use by the Roman Catholic Church. It is based on the RC paradigm of God's relationship to man. As Latter-day Saints, we have a different paradigm. As such, the term "canonical scripture" really does not have as much meaning to a Latter-day Saint as it would to a Catholic (or a member of a Catholic offshoot).

We believe in whatever God tells us. Much of that is contained in the books we call the "standard works", and of course we believe we get further divine instruction from our leaders. Each of those sources would therefore qualify as "canonical", in a literalistic sense.

In my opinion, too many Latter-day Saints have accepted and adopted both the terminology and, to some extent, the underlying paradigms of larger "Christianity". This is understandable, perhaps inevitable, but somewhat lamentable.

[Misshalfway]

Revelation and doctrine are two different things.

When God gives us direction.....like avoid pornography......doctrine doesn't change one whit. The Law of chastity is timeless and trendless. It is the revelation that helps us live that doctrine with the temptations of our time.

[Snow]

The Law of chastity is timeless and trendless.

Not really.

It used to be acceptable, even instructed, to sleep with women to whom you were not legally married. Now you'd get ex'd in a minute.

[richlittell]

Latter-day Saints should not be expected to respond to criticisms about things written anywhere except in their canon. They are bound only to the doctrines that constitute official LDS canon.

Below are some pertinent excerpts from the LDS Newsroom.

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared:

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom

thanks so much for this. I think I'll hang on to it as a quick and easy way to respond to critics.

and to everyone else, I have a much clearer picture concerning doctrine and canon and especially considering the role of Gen Conf talks in all this and how better to explain to others.

To the idea that canon is a word derived from our Catholic friends, which I'd have to agree, I think it is okay that we have adopted for two reaons. First, in order to share the gospel we have to speak the language of the world, otherwise we fail to communicate, and canon is something that a large population of the world understands.

And second, because the fact is we need a sort of "stamped" set of writings that even we LDS need to make sure we are in agreement with concerning the Core principles of the Gospel. Just think how we might ourselves disintegrate if we didn't distinguish between the the canon (Standard Works, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith) and other works such as Mormon Doctrine or Journal of Discourse. We might ourselves forget what is really important and have major schisms in the church, as is what precisely happened when Lutheran broke off from the Catholic church, and hence has continued among our Protestant friends.

I especially appreciate how the leaders use the term "open canon," in this sense it clarifies and doesn't restrict us to the traditional use of the term.

[justamere10]

thanks so much for this. I think I'll hang on to it as a quick and easy way to respond to critics.

and to everyone else, I have a much clearer picture concerning doctrine and canon and especially considering the role of Gen Conf talks in all this and how better to explain to others.

To the idea that canon is a word derived from our Catholic friends, which I'd have to agree, I think it is okay that we have adopted for two reaons. First, in order to share the gospel we have to speak the language of the world, otherwise we fail to communicate, and canon is something that a large population of the world understands.

And second, because the fact is we need a sort of "stamped" set of writings that even we LDS need to make sure we are in agreement with concerning the Core principles of the Gospel. Just think how we might ourselves disintegrate if we didn't distinguish between the the canon (Standard Works, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith) and other works such as Mormon Doctrine or Journal of Discourse. We might ourselves forget what is really important and have major schisms in the church, as is what precisely happened when Lutheran broke off from the Catholic church, and hence has continued among our Protestant friends.

I especially appreciate how the leaders use the term "open canon," in this sense it clarifies and doesn't restrict us to the traditional use of the term.

At www.lds1.org there is a growing library of canned messages for LDS cyber missionaries to copy, edit, translate etc. and post anywhere to help further the work Elder Ballard has asked us to help out with. Come join us, submit your own messages to the "Copy and Paste" forum, and discuss the work. We're growing daily and have about 200 members now.

Ask a Mormon - LDS Cyber Missionaries Forum lds1.org • View forum - COPY AND PASTE. Free messages for LDS Cyber Missionaries!

[CrimsonKairos]

Each of those sources (scriptures and statements by leaders) would therefore qualify as "canonical", in a literalistic sense.

Not really.

The Canon signifies that which is the official doctrine of the Lord, as given to His Church.

The Canon is the yardstick against which we measure every doctrine.

The Canon sets the standard for doctrine and principle.

Statements by current leaders are not canonical unless:

1.) It is an official proclamation by the First Pres. and the Quorum of the 12 combined;

or...

2.) It is submitted for a sustaining vote in General Conference of the whole Church before being added to the standard works.

[justamere10]

Not really.

The Canon signifies that which is the official doctrine of the Lord, as given to His Church.

The Canon is the yardstick against which we measure every doctrine.

The Canon sets the standard for doctrine and principle.

Statements by current leaders are not canonical unless:

1.) It is an official proclamation by the First Pres. and the Quorum of the 12 combined;

or...

2.) It is submitted for a sustaining vote in General Conference of the whole Church before being added to the standard works.

I agree, except that I think any official statement or proclamation of the First Presidency alone should be assumed to have been first run by and agreed to by a quorum of the Twelve.

I think too that it is most likely the canon that we will ultimately be judged by as the laws that we know and are expected to obey. (In the case of the bible of course, assuming correct interpretation.)

Having said that, if the President of the LDS Church asked me to do something to help build the Kingdom, I would feel bound to sustain him and do my best at it, canonical or not. On his watch, to me the living prophet represents my Savior on this earth, I would follow him.

[CrimsonKairos]

Absolutely.

What you're talking about is related to counsel and direction, whereas I was speaking strictly of doctrine.

I'm not saying the Prophet can't direct me to use my priesthood to serve in a certain calling unless that request is added to the standard works! :)

[justamere10]

GC may be official, but it's not doctrine, unless spoken by the power of the HG. We each must determine that for ourselves. If, later on, the Church puts it up to a vote and we add it to our scriptures, OR, if the First Presidency subsequently puts it into an official proclamation or declaration, then it is doctrine. That's how I see it.

HiJolly

When we raise our hands in meetings, including general conferences, we are not "voting" in the sense that a majority wins, a minority loses.

What we are doing is sustaining (expressing support for) our leaders and their inspired decisions. It is our belief that the Lord will not allow the Prophet to lead the Church astray. It is the Prophet, the President of the Church, who speaks to all of us for the Lord. It is we as individuals who accept (sustain) that word from the Lord, or reject it.

Before anything is added to the Standard Works it would first be approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, and then presented to the entire membership of the Church to be "sustained" by the raising of hands of the members. Individuals of course can refuse to sustain the new doctrine and are free to raise their hand to the contrary.

It is extremely rare for any faithful Latter-day Saint to raise their hand to the contrary because it is the same Holy Spirit who speaks to the Prophet who speaks to us as individuals. We get the same message, sometimes accompanied by an almost overwhelming feeling of joy.

That's how I see it.