LDS Scripture - What's What

[skippy740]

I did. In this thread:

http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/41536-why-arent-prayers-answered-5.html

My post was post #44 and your reply in #48.

But you said that you didn't like the 14 fundamentals of following the prophet... because it was originally given in a talk by Ezra T. Benson... and he's a deceased prophet.

Of course, it was quoted 2x in the October 2010 General Conference sessions by 2 different speakers, but who's counting?

Edited September 1, 2011 by skippy740
Had to find the post and link it here

[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.

As with all terms there are intensions and extensions. As we investigate concerning the meaning of things we may consider the extent of meaning and we may also drill down to the heart of the intent of meaning. For our discussion I would simply point out - even using your definitions - The term scripture canon is not part of any actual context of scripture canon. Thus your reference on the matter is rhetorically self defeating - or shall we say “flawed”. That by any intent or extent of the definition would make the term improper or non-canon or non-standard to describe our scripture. Also it is interesting to note that your reference would indicate the best or "proper" designation for understanding would be "open canon" over just the term "canon".

One may argue that the term “standard works” also is not concurrent in the Standard Works. However, it is important to note that in the context of “Solemn Assembly” where according to covenant such scriptures are defined the one and only term used is Standard Works. It is important t note that this is not by arbitrary consideration but according to divine commandment.

My point is that if we are to get official and technical and in the official context of scripture we may say that the Standards Works are “similar” or “like” canon but the proper designation, by divine commandment as appointed by Solemn Assembly is - “Standard Works”. Now it may seem like a most minor point but this leaves me wondering - “Why would anyone want to change or alter that designation?”

The Traveler

[Backroads]

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

I'm not sure what pure scripture is, I was merely waiting for the two of you to make your your minds and be clear about it.

[rameumptom]

Backroads,

I think Snow is just dissembling. He hasn't really answered others questions, just questioned their answers. He's really good at it. First he states that the Standard Works are the only "scriptures", and then when quotes come out, he questions the quotes from D&C, etc. Of course, he quotes the 20 year old Encyclopedia of Mormonism as authoritative, even though many of its authors are: 1. not General Authorities, and/or 2. Dead.

The current statement regarding scripture/doctrine is at the Church's newsroom website as I showed above. Those statements made that are one-offs, are for each of us to gain our own testimony of, otherwise they are not binding. What is binding are the core doctrines, which are included in the Standard Works, official proclamations, etc.

Thus, while Songs of Solomon are in our Standard Works, as they are not inspired, they are not necessarily scripture, and they particularly are not doctrine. That they are an ancient Jewish writing that may go back to Solomon and his lover/wife, is not at issue here. Whether they have spiritual binding power IS the issue. And that is what connotes scripture (again, see D&C 68). While we have Standard Works, meaning they are binding upon all members, there are additional scripture that binds an individual according to his reception of the Holy Spirit. This may include Gen Conference talks, a lesson from a manual, or a talk by a teenager in Sacrament meeting. If I hear/read it, and the Spirit witnesses to me that it is true, then it is bound to me as my personal scripture.

So, let's break this down some:

Scriptures = any spiritual work (book, talk, etc) that binds a person via the Holy Spirit.

Standard Works = a set of scripture that binds the Church members via their baptismal covenant.

Teaching = Anything taught in scripture or by a person that may or may not be true in all/any cases. An eisegesis of doctrine or scripture that may contain some or all truth. Examples: reasons for the priesthood ban, Nephite nation covered all of North America during BoM times, etc.

Doctrine = Any true teaching from a Church leader or the Spirit. Some doctrines, while true today, may be made obsolete or updated by new revelation (OD1, OD2).

Core Doctrine = Any key teachings necessary for our salvation. These are never changing: God lives, Jesus is the Christ, the Priesthood is eternal, etc.

[rameumptom]

Here is something that Bible scholar Larry Hurtado just blogged on. It will help people understand the difference between scripture and canon:

“Scriptures” and “Canon” Larry Hurtado's Blog

The reviewer’s core confusion here is to fail to differentiate between “scripture” and “canon”. A biblical “canon” of texts refers to “a fixed collection of scriptures” (to quote from the Introduction to L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders [eds.], The Canon Debate [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002], 11). Such a fixed collection of the 27 writings that make up our familiar NT is commonly dated from the late 4th century. But ”canon” refers to a fixed collection of texts functioning as “scripture”, and “scripture” refers more to the regard, function, and status of writings in given groups of people.

[Backroads]

Both of those were very helpful, Rammy.

[Snow]

Backroads,

I think Snow is just dissembling. He hasn't really answered others questions, just questioned their answers. He's really good at it. First he states that the Standard Works are the only "scriptures"

Tell me Ram - how do you benefit by misstating what I posted? Do you think that I can't go back and quote what I said and demonstrate what I really said - which is different from what you erroneously represent that I said?

Let me quote what I wrote:

"If it is not in the Standard Works, it is not recognized as scripture in the Church."

"And of those writings, what specifically does the Church officially recognize as scripture? The Standards Works - that's it."

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

"... but let's be clear. You are asserting that the Church officially recognizes as scripture, things outside of the Standard Works. It that correct?

"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?"

"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."

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."

Obviously, Ram, I am not denying that things spoken under the influence of the Holy Ghost are scripture. I said that exact thing. You claiming that I said something different doesn't change what I wrote. As you well know, my point and my question refer to what the Church officially RECOGNIZES as scripture.

, and then when quotes come out, he questions the quotes from D&C, etc.

Really? If you think you can produce a post of mine in this thread to that effect - go ahead, but when you don't I'll thank you to stop misstating what I post.

Of course, he quotes the 20 year old Encyclopedia of Mormonism as authoritative, even though many of its authors are: 1. not General Authorities, and/or 2. Dead.

1. I didn't quote the 20 year old Encylopedia. I claimed the current one that is maintained by BYU and it is different than the 20 year old one.

2. The point is obviously lost on you. The point isn't that the EoM set official LDS doctrine, the point is that authors and editors of the EoM are the experts who understand the material. Who is more credible - a guy with a fake name on the internet (you) or:

EDITOR IN CHIEF

Daniel H. Ludlow-Brigham Young University

SENIOR EDITORS

Robert J. Matthews-Brigham Young University

Charles D. Tate, Jr.-Brigham Young University

Robert K. Thomas-Brigham Young University

EDITORS

Stan L. Albrecht-Brigham Young University

S. Kent Brown-Brigham Young University

Richard L. Bushman-Columbia University

Ronald K. Esplin-Brigham Young University

Addie Fuhriman-University of Utah

Jeanne B. Inouye-Provo, Utah

Truman G. Madsen-Brigham Young University

Terrance D. Olson-Brigham Young University

Larry C. Porter-Brigham Young University

Noel B. Reynolds-Brigham Young University

John W. Welch-Brigham Young University

That's not exactly a balanced teeter totter...

Thus, while Songs of Solomon are in our Standard Works, as they are not inspired, they are not necessarily scripture,

That's a factual claim...

1. I'd love to see you prove it.

2. I'd also like to see you produce some evidence that the Church, officially, agrees with you.

So, Ram, if you are done misrepresenting my posts, perhaps you want to take up where Skippy bailed. Care to give us a list of material -specific material - that the Church officially recognizes as scripture that are not in the Standard Works?

Edited September 2, 2011 by Snow
improved grammar

[Snow]

Now it may seem like a most minor point but this leaves me wondering - “Why would anyone want to change or alter that designation?”

The Traveler

I can't speak to other's motivations but if you do a search of LDS.org, you get 1470 hits.

[Connie]

Gospel Principles Chapter 10: Scriptures

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts four books as scripture: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These books are called the standard works of the Church. The inspired words of our living prophets are also accepted as scripture.

Through the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Lord has expanded our understanding of some passages in the Bible. The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph to restore truths to the Bible text that had been lost or changed since the original words were written. These inspired corrections are called the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. In the Latter-day Saint edition of the King James Version of the Bible, selected passages from the Joseph Smith Translation are found on pages 797–813 and in many footnotes.

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]

Gospel Principles Chapter 10: Scriptures

Connie,

Do you have a point you would like to express?

[HiJolly]

Gospel Principles Chapter 10: Scriptures

So the question is, when do we know the words of our prophet, apostles, etc. are "inspired"?

Answer: (A) when the membership of the Church decides by vote to include said words in the Standard Works, presumably because they have received the witness of the Holy Ghost that they are 'true'; (B) when the Holy Ghost witnesses to the individual that the words are 'true'.

HiJolly

[Traveler]

I can't speak to other's motivations but if you do a search of LDS.org, you get 1470 hits.

One last note on this subject: Thanks Tons to Snow!!! You have raised awareness of doctrine, got people thinking and perhaps even caused purposefull study.

There is an old saying - Great ideas upset almost everybody. So I will look forward to your next idea?

The Traveler