LDS Scripture - What's What

[skippy740]

Snow, we need to slow down and clarify what we are trying to define before trying to "battle it out".

Let's start here: What is the definition of scripture?

[Backroads]

Snow, we need to slow down and clarify what we are trying to define before trying to "battle it out".

Let's start here: What is the definition of scripture?

The impression I'm getting is that both Snow and Skippy aren't being clear on the difference between cannonized works and pure scripture.

[Guest gopecon]

I concerns me when people discount the value of the current messages that we receive from our leaders, whether it be through conference, the Ensign, letters from the 1st Presidency, books, or other messages. Sure they can make mistakes, but I'd say that following these as if they were scripture is a better path than writing them off. Continuing revelation is one of the benefits of the restoration, lets not throw it out too quickly.

[jerome1232]

I think you guys forget just what the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Pearl of Great Price are. They are simply a collection inspired writings of prophets. I think it's pretty clear from quotes of prophets provided in this thread that the church considers the writings and addresses of modern day prophets to be scripture.

Seeing as we believe in modern revelation that makes perfect sense.

[HiJolly]

I concerns me when people discount the value of the current messages that we receive from our leaders, whether it be through conference, the Ensign, letters from the 1st Presidency, books, or other messages. Sure they can make mistakes, but I'd say that following these as if they were scripture is a better path than writing them off. Continuing revelation is one of the benefits of the restoration, lets not throw it out too quickly.

I agree. For some perspective, though, add the passage of time.

If you go back to Conference talks back in the 1840's 50's and 60's, you'll see that a lot that was presumed to be true then, is certainly not accepted as such today. In or out of the Church.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

I think you guys forget just what the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Pearl of Great Price are. They are simply a collection inspired writings of prophets. I think it's pretty clear from quotes of prophets provided in this thread that the church considers the writings and addresses of modern day prophets to be scripture.

Seeing as we believe in modern revelation that makes perfect sense.

Nope.

When Joseph & the brethren were preparing the revelations for printing, Joseph made some changes to them. David Whitmer objected, especially where the revelations said "Thus saith the Lord:" -- he felt as such, they were perfect truth and any alteration was to lose the word of God in it's purity.

Joseph insisted, and Whitmer subsequently left the Church over this.

But see, Joseph knew what scripture is, and David didn't. Joseph didn't have any problem with changing the Bible, either. And he was within his rights to do so.

I don't mind if you take the modern talks and books of the Apostles & Prophets as 'carte blanc' TRUTH. But I won't be making that mistake. I'll only accept them, or specific parts of them, as TRUTH if the Holy Ghost witnesses it to me.

I need to add: I love listening to the Prophets, Apostles, General leaders, Stake leaders, Ward leaders and my neighbors as well. I *never* know when they, any of them, might say something by the power of the Spirit that will be a blessing to me. I love those moments when another person says a *truth* and I 'get it'. Beautiful.

HiJolly

Edited August 31, 2011 by HiJolly
added comment

[Traveler]

I agree with Snow with most of his thoughts except one minor point that may be the biggest problem in this discussion. I do not agree that "Standard Works" = "Canon". There is a reason that we LDS use the designation of Standard Works and never refer to our "official" scriptures as canon.

As I think about this - I also believe that the "Church" has provided some additinal "Things" as part of our "Standard Works". For example there is a "Bible Dictionary" and "Topical Guide" published with our "Standard" Bible, a "Pronouncin Guide" and "Index" published with our Standard Book of Mormon and an Index published with the Pearl of Greap Price and Doctrine and Covenants - note that in the triple combination that the indexes are combined.

There is something else to consider and that concerns covenants. It has been "explained" to us that certain scriptures apply to specific covenants and thus we are "under obligation" concerning those scriptures by covenant. Snow is correct in recognizing that only the standard works are driectly connected to our temple covenants. However, there are other covenants that concern the priesthood - in particular D&C 84 that direct us specific to what is spoken by our sustained leaders - and I believe this does apply to conference that is shortly to take place.

Therefore in summary, I believe that there are scriptures in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that are not yet sustained and thus not a part of our Standard Works. But - We do have standard works that are not canon but standard works. Let us not confuse Standard Works with canon. It makes discussion difficult and confussing - things we should avoid - especially among ourselves.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

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.

Oh, I recognized you were debating canon, not what qualifies as scripture. I was just chiming in that they are two separate items even though people (me included) tend to use them interchangeably and there is a possibility of cross talk.

[Maureen]

lds.org defines Canon & Scriptures as:

Canon

See also Bible; Book of Mormon; Doctrine and Covenants; Pearl of Great Price; Scriptures.

A recognized, authoritative collection of sacred books. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the canonical books are called the standard works and include the Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

Canon

Scriptures

See also Bible; Book of Mormon; Canon; Chronology; Doctrine and Covenants; Pearl of Great Price; Word of God.

Words, both written and spoken, by holy men of God when moved upon by the Holy Ghost. The official canonized scriptures of the Church today consist of the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. Jesus and the writers of the New Testament regarded the books of the Old Testament as scripture...

Scriptures

M.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Maureen

[Dravin]

Maureen, are you trying to make a point? Or are you just trying to be helpful?

[HiJolly]

Maureen, are you trying to make a point? Or are you just trying to be helpful?

Maybe both?

Nice job, Maureen.

HJ

[Dravin]

Maybe both?

Nice job, Maureen.

HJ

I'd be curious to know what her point is. While it's usually clear to those making the point, quoting definitions and not saying anything else can be an extremely ambiguous method of communicating points (particularly when it isn't specifically directed at someone). If it's just being helpful by trying to provide/suggest a baseline understanding for mutual communication it works just fine, message received.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Dravin

[Maureen]

Dravin, lds.org is your church's official website; whatever is stated there is official LDS information. If you want to know how the LDS church defines something, go to the official source. So instead of beating around the bush with definitions, lds.org states them perfectly.

M.

[Dravin]

Dravin, lds.org is your church's official website; whatever is stated there is official LDS information.

Yes but it doesn't own the English language. The utility in LDS.org defining a word in a certain way is limited if someone else isn't using said definition. The word scriptures has been and will continue to be used colloquially by members to mean the canon of scripture/standard works. Thus earlier comments in the thread pointing out said distinction. People weren't scrambling for lds.org quotes because for, it appears, most in the thread are aware of the distinction, they were just being imprecise in their language.

I fully understand the point of agreed upon definitions, but such wasn't your obvious point. I wasn't sure if you were just trying to be helpful by providing some terms to be used instead of more casual speech, if you were disagreeing with someone, where astonished about the distinction, thought the distinctions were silly, weren't seeing the distinction or various other possibilities.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Dravin

[Snow]

Snow, we need to slow down and clarify what we are trying to define before trying to "battle it out".

Let's start here: What is the definition of scripture?

There's no mystery and no special meaning. I use the term in it's common LDS parlance; it is that which is spoken or written that is God-breathed or under the influence of the Holy Ghost or as revealed by God.

[Snow]

The impression I'm getting is that both Snow and Skippy aren't being clear on the difference between cannonized works and pure scripture.

What, pray tell, is "pure scripture?" It is scripture like the Book of Mormon and then something else that is more pure than that?

If you think that I am factually mistaken about anything, feel free to correct me.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Snow
rewording

[Snow]

I concerns me when people discount the value of the current messages that we receive from our leaders, whether it be through conference, the Ensign, letters from the 1st Presidency, books, or other messages. Sure they can make mistakes, but I'd say that following these as if they were scripture is a better path than writing them off. Continuing revelation is one of the benefits of the restoration, lets not throw it out too quickly.

You say that as if you think someone in this thread "discount(s) the value of the current messages that we receive from our leaders."

Would you please say specifically what you mean rather than being oblique?

[bytebear]

I wanted to make a comment but my PC froze up last night, so I hope it's not too disjointed. But there was a comment about how in 1981 the Book of Mormon had some changes, and the implication was that they were done due to doctrinal and policy changes - specifically how "white' was changed to "pure" in conjunction with the extension of priesthood to blacks. But this is not the case. From my understanding, the change was made to fit with the documents and notes we had from earlier editions, and this was strictly an attempt to correct long standing errors or add corrections that Smith intended, but for whatever reason never made it into previous editions. Case in point, the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon still used the phrase "white and exceedingly pure and delightsome" in 2 Nephi 5:21 which is still in current editions. If the changes to the edition were to "correct" doctrinal concepts, the church would have changed this verse along with the others.

[skippy740]

I wanted to make a comment but my PC froze up last night, so I hope it's not too disjointed. But there was a comment about how in 1981 the Book of Mormon had some changes, and the implication was that they were done due to doctrinal and policy changes - specifically how "white' was changed to "pure" in conjunction with the extension of priesthood to blacks. But this is not the case. From my understanding, the change was made to fit with the documents and notes we had from earlier editions, and this was strictly an attempt to correct long standing errors or add corrections that Smith intended, but for whatever reason never made it into previous editions. Case in point, the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon still used the phrase "white and exceedingly pure and delightsome" in 2 Nephi 5:21 which is still in current editions. If the changes to the edition were to "correct" doctrinal concepts, the church would have changed this verse along with the others.

Yes, that is true. But you can see how using the term "white" vs "black" could easily be misinterpreted as to matters of race, instead of countenance and spirituality. There were plenty of other changes - this just being one of them.

[bytebear]

Yes, that is true. But you can see how using the term "white" vs "black" could easily be misinterpreted as to matters of race, instead of countenance and spirituality. There were plenty of other changes - this just being one of them.

Absolutely, and there is real danger of misinterpretation on verses like these. It's one of the most frustrating things when discussing scripture with someone who picks and chooses various verses and not only concludes their own interpretation but insist that it is the only interpretation (or worse, tell everyone it is the common Church interpretation). The Book of Mormon clearly teaches that all are equal to God, so what do you do when two verses seem to contradict each other. You realize that it's the interpretation that is flawed.

[Snow]

I agree with Snow with most of his thoughts except one minor point that may be the biggest problem in this discussion. I do not agree that "Standard Works" = "Canon". There is a reason that we LDS use the designation of Standard Works and never refer to our "official" scriptures as canon.

As I think about this - I also believe that the "Church" has provided some additinal "Things" as part of our "Standard Works". For example there is a "Bible Dictionary" and "Topical Guide" published with our "Standard" Bible, a "Pronouncin Guide" and "Index" published with our Standard Book of Mormon and an Index published with the Pearl of Greap Price and Doctrine and Covenants - note that in the triple combination that the indexes are combined.

There is something else to consider and that concerns covenants. It has been "explained" to us that certain scriptures apply to specific covenants and thus we are "under obligation" concerning those scriptures by covenant. Snow is correct in recognizing that only the standard works are driectly connected to our temple covenants. However, there are other covenants that concern the priesthood - in particular D&C 84 that direct us specific to what is spoken by our sustained leaders - and I believe this does apply to conference that is shortly to take place.

Therefore in summary, I believe that there are scriptures in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that are not yet sustained and thus not a part of our Standard Works. But - We do have standard works that are not canon but standard works. Let us not confuse Standard Works with canon. It makes discussion difficult and confussing - things we should avoid - especially among ourselves.

The Traveler

Hi Traveler,

I disagree, Standard Works does equal our canon. The highly competent editors of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism agree:

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.

[Snow]

Skippy,

I've asked twice for clarification on you point and since answered your request for clarification. You could have answered my questions in less that 60 seconds. Obviously you are not interested so I am moving on. My first post is correct.

[Guest gopecon]

You say that as if you think someone in this thread "discount(s) the value of the current messages that we receive from our leaders."

Would you please say specifically what you mean rather than being oblique?

D&C 68:4 (already cited in this thread) defines scripture as any direction that comes under the inspiration of the Spirit (paraphrasing). It seems to me that those who are arguing that scripture is limited to the Standard Works have implied that other forms of scripture are less than reliable. As has been taught in conference, a living prophet is more important to us today than the prophets of the past.

[rameumptom]

I go with D&C 68:4 -

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

So it isn't just the standard works that are scripture, but anything said by anyone, while moved upon by the Holy Spirit. That said, it does not make such scripture doctrine, nor is it necessarily binding upon the hearer. It becomes doctrine and binding, when the individual receives a testimony of it via the Holy Spirit.

The official Church site also has a description of Church "Doctrine", which I think is more important than the definition of "scripture".

From Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom we read:

• 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.

[Snow]

D&C 68:4 (already cited in this thread) defines scripture as any direction that comes under the inspiration of the Spirit (paraphrasing). It seems to me that those who are arguing that scripture is limited to the Standard Works have implied that other forms of scripture are less than reliable. As has been taught in conference, a living prophet is more important to us today than the prophets of the past.

I didn't see that. Who is arguing that - what post #?