LDS Scripture - What's What

[Snow]

In another thread, now closed, some erroneous information was posted that may be confusing to some readers. I think that should be clarified.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a canonized set of Scriptures called the Standard Works. If it is not in the Standard Works, it is not recognized as scripture in the Church.

The Bible dictionary, footnotes, chapter descriptions are not scripture. The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is not scripture, except for that part that is in the Pearl of Great Price: Matthew 23:23-39 through 24:51 and those parts that are contained in the Book of Moses.

The Bible dictionary, which itself states, "t is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth." was composed by Robert Matthews, a BYU professor. He composed it by taking the Cambridge University Press Bible Dictionary, with permission, and adapted some of it to be LDS centric, other parts of it were incorporated wholesale.

I don't know when or how the Matthew chapter and a half of the JST was added to the canon but that notwithstanding, the last addition to our open canon was the Official Declaration - 2 about the priesthood being available to all worthy men regardless of race or skin color in 1978 through common consent.

Despite some people not liking it, the Song of Solomon is scripture.

The Proclamation to the World is not scripture.

Being scripture, doesn't make something true, but, according to scripture, 2 Timothy 3:16, all scripture is god-breathed (inspired).

[john doe]

Article of Faith #8:

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

[skippy740]

LDS.org - Lessons Chapter - Scriptures

Words of Our Living Prophets

In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith 1:9).

[Snow]

Article of Faith #8:

It may be the word of God but that doesn't necessarily make it true or at least make people think that it is true.

For example, Mormons don't believe what Paul wrote about divorce - and their disagreement doesn't turn on it's translation.

Prophets, for example Brigham Young, thought some Old Testament stories to simply be fairy tales told by people who lacked understanding.

[Snow]

LDS.org - Lessons Chapter - Scriptures

And of those writings, what specifically does the Church officially recognize as scripture?

The Standards Works - that's it.

Being scripture doesn't necessarily make it true and not being scripture doesn't necessarily mean it's not true.

[skippy740]

Please find an official statement or quote from LDS.org that backs up your statement.

[Snow]

Please find an official statement or quote from LDS.org that backs up your statement.

What statement? That the Church officially recognizes just the Standard Works as scripture? Seriously?

Q

I probably could but it's common knowledge known by all Mormons. Since you, apparently, are claiming that the Church officially recognizes more than that, you bear the burden... But really, if you are going to be disagreeable, couldn't you pick something a little bit more likely to hang your hat on?

[skippy740]

I'm not being disagreeable. I posted my post from the Gospel Principles manual.

The burden of proof is on you. You are deflecting it.

"Common knowledge"? I thought we were trying to specify in this thread?

One would think that LDS people knew what they believed.

So, please find the statement or quote on LDS.org that backs up your statement.

[skippy740]

Here's a little trivia for you:

You are asserting that the last official scripture added was Official Declaration 2.

What is the copy write date of your scriptures? Mine say 1981.

Do you think that there were things added or edited to the scriptures that the Brethren want us to know - especially since the #1 news story for the church in the last century was the 1978 revelation?

Where do you think the Brethren would put this additional light and knowledge for us to search?

[skippy740]

Lesson Outline For Teachers | BlacksInTheScriptures.com

“Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and light line upon line and precept upon precept (2 Ne. 28:30; Isa. 28:9-10; D&C 98:11-12; 128:21). We have now had added a flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, all the views and all the thoughts of the past.

Explain that with the additional light and knowledge, we received a new edition of the LDS scriptures 3 years later in 1981, which helped to clarify all that was misunderstood, and if they’d follow each new footnote added, that they will find that there are no loose ends, that all have been accounted for.

Follow new footnote “d” on the word “skin” to 2 Nephi 30:6. As you or a volunteer read this passage aloud, encourage the class to ask themselves individually, “what does the Lord want me to understand about “skin” that He inspired a new footnote to be put on the word and directed me to this passage?

• 2 Nephi 30:6

Read and point out that before the 1981 edition, the word “pure” was actually “white”. Then point out the new footnote on the word “scales” and follow it to the bottom of the page where it states clearly that “TG darkness spiritual, TG spiritual blindness”, indicating that the “skin” being spoken of is spiritual and not a literal, physical skin color, which is consistent with everything we’ve covered thus far.

There are things that we need to learn with the helps of the footnotes.

Yes, I know that this isn't an official LDS.org link. What I'm trying to illustrate is that the footnotes and other study helps are ways for us to study and dive into the scriptures and learn what the Lord needs us to learn.

Edited August 31, 2011 by skippy740

[skippy740]

My patriarchal blessing is scripture. It's not "official" scripture, but it's scripture to me.

Conference talks may not be "canon", but they are scripture to me.

If we can agree on this one thing, we might be able to agree agreeably: The Church would say (somewhere) that their official canon of scripture are The Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, Pearl of Great Price and the Bible.

However, we should be inspired to read and apply the words of the living prophets as scripture to us... even if it's not "official", it's good counsel for us to follow.

[Snow]

I'm not being disagreeable. I posted my post from the Gospel Principles manual.

The burden of proof is on you. You are deflecting it.

"Common knowledge"? I thought we were trying to specify in this thread?

One would think that LDS people knew what they believed.

So, please find the statement or quote on LDS.org that backs up your statement.

I really don't think this is in your best interest. You were already found to be making erroneous statements about what constitutes scripture on the other thread, but if you are really anxious to argue it out, I guess I could oblige you tomorrow evening... but let's be clear. You are asserting that the Church officially recognizes as scripture, things outside of the Standard Works. It that correct? That's what you are asserting? Moreover, you believe that someone disagreeing with you about that has the burden of proof? Right?

[skippy740]

Please read my last 3 posts.

[skippy740]

I really don't think this is in your best interest. You were already found to be making erroneous statements about what constitutes scripture on the other thread, but if you are really anxious to argue it out, I guess I could oblige you tomorrow evening... but let's be clear. You are asserting that the Church officially recognizes as scripture, things outside of the Standard Works. It that correct? That's what you are asserting? Moreover, you believe that someone disagreeing with you about that has the burden of proof? Right?

You also asserted that footnotes, chapter headings and other study helps were not scripture.

Yet, why were we given a new edition of the scriptures in 1981?

[Dravin]

Snow, there is a distinction to be made between canon and scripture. The Doctrine and Covenants (68:4 (which is canon)) gives a definition of scripture (or at least a definition of scripture), such that, something can be scripture but not canon.

Edit: On further reading it appears that Skippy has pointed out this distinction already. Feel free to ignore me.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Dravin

[applepansy]

What statement? That the Church officially recognizes just the Standard Works as scripture? Seriously?

Q

I probably could but it's common knowledge known by all Mormons. Since you, apparently, are claiming that the Church officially recognizes more than that, you bear the burden... But really, if you are going to be disagreeable, couldn't you pick something a little bit more likely to hang your hat on?

No its not. What is common knowledge among Mormons and what has been stated by the church is:

Words of Our Living Prophets

In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith 1:9).

I guess you didn't notice that Skippy's quote is from the church website.

[RipplecutBuddha]

I thought that General Conference talks were considered scriputre. We don't add them all to the canon of the Standard Works, yet they are scripture for the next six months of the year, or until the next GC.

[HiJolly]

I thought that General Conference talks were considered scriputre. We don't add them all to the canon of the Standard Works, yet they are scripture for the next six months of the year, or until the next GC.

They *could* be. But this is determined by each individual, for themselves, as inspired by the Holy Ghost. This also applies to everything Skippy was saying.

But official doctrine resides in only 3 sources, according to the Church: (1) The 4 Standard Works (2) The official statements & declarations of the First Presidency of the Church and (3) The Articles of Faith.

This excludes the manuals, the magazines, General Conference talks, and much, much more.

Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

You also asserted that footnotes, chapter headings and other study helps were not scripture.

Yet, why were we given a new edition of the scriptures in 1981?

Do you really want the answer, or are you just arguing from ignorance, thinking that's a real answer?

HiJolly

[skippy740]

I gave my answer in post #10. If you have something to add, I'm open to learning about it.

[Connie]

Scripture Reading and Revelation - Ensign Jan. 1995 - ensign

Because of our belief in continuing revelation, we Latter-day Saints maintain that the canon (the authoritative body) of scriptures is open. In fact, the scriptural canon is open in several ways, and continuing revelation is crucial to each of them. ... Public revelations on the meaning of earlier scriptures come through those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. Examples of public revelations are the numerous additions and clarifications in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible and in the Doctrine and Covenants revelations on the meaning of Bible passages.

The Blessing of Scripture - general-conference

Consider the magnitude of our blessing to have the Holy Bible and some 900 additional pages of scripture, including the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Then consider that, in addition, the words of prophets spoken as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in settings such as this, which the Lord calls scripture (see D&C 68:2–4), flow to us almost constantly by television, radio, Internet, satellite, CD, DVD, and in print. I suppose that never in history has a people been blessed with such a quantity of holy writ. And not only that, but every man, woman, and child may possess and study his or her own personal copy of these sacred texts, most in his or her own language. How incredible such a thing would have seemed to the people of William Tyndale’s day and to the Saints of earlier dispensations! Surely with this blessing the Lord is telling us that our need for constant recourse to the scriptures is greater than in any previous time. May we feast continuously on the words of Christ that will tell us all things we should do (see 2 Nephi 32:3).

LDS.org - Mormon Messages

[HiJolly]

I gave my answer in post #10. If you have something to add, I'm open to learning about it.

I'll add something.

Skippy: Yes, I know that this isn't an official LDS.org link. What I'm trying to illustrate is that the footnotes and other study helps are ways for us to study and dive into the scriptures and learn what the Lord needs us to learn.

I agree with the thought that you are illustrating.

I just don't think its helpful to anyone for you to overstate your case by saying that footnotes, dictionary, etc. are scripture when they are not.

HiJolly

[Snow]

Please read my last 3 posts.

I'll get to all your posts tonight. but can you please answer my clarifying questions so that I know what I am answering to?

Is it your assertion that the Church officially recognizes material outside the Standard Works as scripture?

And, if that is your position, you believe that someone who disagrees with you on that matter bears the burden of proof.

I made posts (#5 and 7) and they you responded in posts (#6 and 8) so I think the above is the point you are making but I'd like clarity before responding - let's make sure we are talking about the same thing.

In the meanwhile, could you please print of list of some of the things outside of the Standard Works that you believe the Church has officially recognized as scripture so I can see what you are thinking of.

[Snow]

Snow, there is a distinction to be made between canon and scripture. The Doctrine and Covenants (68:4 (which is canon)) gives a definition of scripture (or at least a definition of scripture), such that, something can be scripture but not canon.

Edit: On further reading it appears that Skippy has pointed out this distinction already. Feel free to ignore me.

I am not disputing that something that is uttered while inspired is scripture or can be considered scriptural. My posts refer to what the Church will go on record as recognizing as scripture.

[Snow]

I thought that General Conference talks were considered scriputre. We don't add them all to the canon of the Standard Works, yet they are scripture for the next six months of the year, or until the next GC.

Temporary scripture?

If something is scripture today, how does it become non-scripture tomorrow?