Scripture

[Ray]

What's the real difference between scripture and writings from a man who is inspired by God?

Personally, I believe there really is no real difference.

But that's what I think.

What do you think?

And as you respond, try to imagine responding to someone who was writing some scriptures.

Thank you.

Have fun.

I'm outta here. :)

[StrawberryFields]

What's the real difference between scripture and writings from a man who is inspired by God?

Personally, I believe there really is no real difference.

But that's what I think.

What do you think?

And as you respond, try to imagine responding to someone who was writing some scriptures.

Thank you.

Have fun.

I'm outta here. :)

WOW

[LionHeart]

And as you respond, try to imagine responding to someone who was writing some scriptures.

Okay, wait a minute, are you implying that your words should be considered scripture?

[isaiah28]

D&C 68:3-4.

[Gwen]

the bible dictionary (as printed by the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints) says,

The word scripture means a writing, and is used to denote a writing recognized by the Chruch as sacred and inspired. It is so applied to the books of the O.T. by the writers of the N.T. (Matt. 22:29; John 5:39; 2 Tim. 3:15). For an account of the process by which the books of the O.T. and N.T. came to be recognized as scripture, see Canon. Latter-day revelation identifies scripture as that which is spoken under the influence of the Holy Ghost (D&C 68:1-4).

I personaly beleive that I can receive scripture for me (inspired writtings, as defined in the last part above) but i would never go as far as to call it "scripture". I consider the standard works, the church mag. publications (ensign, friend, new era, etc.) and general conference talks as "scripture". i personaly use the term carefully (focusing on the first part of the defination rather than the second), things that are for me i call personal revelation, not scripture. i wouln't want to be found accountable at the last day for confusing others by my own desire to sound more important by loosly using the word "scripture". to me using the word scripture means it has come from god through his appointed earthly leadership. i'm not the prophet, i don't write scripture, and unless the prophet (or those aproved by him to speak or write) quotes me (in an official manner) affirming the truth of my words to the church as a whole i never will.

but that is my personal opinion on what it means to use the word "scripture". :)

[prisonchaplain]

What's the real difference between scripture and writings from a man who is inspired by God?

Personally, I believe there really is no real difference.

Catholics do not believe the Pope is always infallible. He's infallible when he's speaking ex cathedra. In other words, there are times when he claims God has anointed him to speak prophetically and infallibly. Likewise, I don't believe LDS believe that every word that proceeded from the mouth of Joseph Smith was a direct revelation from God. The Apostle Paul said much that did not make it into Scriptural canon.

So, it's not the anointed man who sets the standard. It's God's anointing. And, when it comes to Scripture, sometimes the anointing is only for a specific account.

[Ray]

Can I have some more input concerning this thought?

What's the real difference between scripture and writings from a man who is inspired by God?

And btw, I believe other thoughts associated with this topic, concerning what scripture is, include:

How do we know what scripture is?

How do we know who wrote or writes scripture?

What is the difference between writing about scripture and writing more scripture?

[prisonchaplain]

The short answer is that we rely on our God-ordained church leaders to prayerfully determine what belongs in the canon. For Protestant Christians, nothing has been added since the Bible's 66 books was finalized roughly in the late 300s. For Catholics, the deutercanonicals were approved in the Middle Ages. For LDS, you have an open canon, and your leadership can approve additions and edits.

[prisonchaplain]

sorry--post 8 duplicated as post 9, so I edited it with this explanation.

[ljr0]

And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins. (2 Nephi 25:26).

The "we" here is not an imperial we, at least, not in my opinion. Another word for prophesy is to testify or testimony (see Rev 19:10). If we take the passage as a parent talking to his children (in which case, that is what Nephi was doing), then certainly; anyone keeping a journal who testifies of Christ is writing scripture. Moses said he would that all the Lord's people were prophets (Num 11:29). And Paul said covet to prophesy (1 Cor 14:39).

I think it is not beneath us to prophesy and if you write it then is it not scripture?

So what is the difference between Canonical scripture and personal scripture? For the Old and New Testament, it was accepted by most of the Christian world by a conference of church leaders. What constitutes the Old and New Testament varies from one Christian church to another. But in the LDS church, for personal scripture to become Canonical, the entire church raises their hand in consent as proposed by church leaders in a general conference.

I believe this was the case for the four standard works and every addition to the Doctrine and Covenants since it's inception.

[pam]

This shows how long PC has been a member of the site since his last post on this thread was in 2006.

[ljr0]

Yes. I noted that his posts were about 1/3 the number of your posts. I didn't mean the resurrect this thread. I found it on a google search. I was looking for a conference talk where the General Officer stated that she didn't write scripture.

The search string was lds general conference don't write scripture (I couldn't remember if she said, we don't or I don't).

[Spartan117]

I didn't mean the resurrect this thread.

Resurrecting a thread that's pushing 6 years old might be a record.

[prisonchaplain]

This shows how long PC has been a member of the site since his last post on this thread was in 2006.

I saw this thread on my new posts page and thought, "Ray's back?"

Edited February 19, 2012 by prisonchaplain

[prisonchaplain]

BTW, I understand the thought behind "personal scripture." However, it seems a little squishy to me. "God said such & such to me," would sit with me better than saying that I wrote down a personal revelation, and this is now my personal scripture.

The topic is interesting though. Today, in my church, somebody spoke out in tongues, and another offered an interpretation, saying that God had prepared salvation and healing for us, and that we should not be afraid to come to his altar and take it. Later, the sermon touched on receiving God's grace--especially the forgiveness of sins and infilling of the Holy Spirit. We could not plan this things, but they work so well when the Spirit orchestrates them.

In spite of a great, anointed service, nobody records these incidents and calls them personal or congregational scripture. The Church needs to embrace any writings on a worldwide scale for them to be deemed scripture...at least that seems to be how it's worked out.

[HEthePrimate]

What's the real difference between scripture and writings from a man who is inspired by God?

The only thing I would say is that scripture would be what that person writes under inspiration from God. That is, scripture is the result when God tells a person to write a message for people, and the person does write it. The same person could could also, of his own accord, write a cookbook (or a novel, or his opinion about religion), and that would not be scripture because it's not under the direction of God.

[friedmann]

I personally have to say that I have a pretty streightforward opinion about what scriptures are and what not. And I would definitely not extend the scripture range too far, because there is a too high chance of error if everything we receive as answers from God was considered scripture. See:

We have received the Holy Ghost as our companion after our baptism. We know that, even without having received it, we can pray for revelations at any time, if we do so sincerely. Now here's the thing: The Holy Ghost can be withdrawn from us, or work not in its complete way, if we are not ready to receive it. In this case, also other influences might occur which are not of God, although they look as if they were. It's dangerous to think that we are guaranteed a life-long influence of the Holy Ghost without living up to the standards this requires. Even if there's a slight chance of us not being under the influence of the Holy Ghost alone while receiving a revelation, there is no way it should be scripture. We, as "ordinary" members, need to find truth in the scriptures that are already there, before we even consider our revelations as true. If my revelations were opposing the existing scriptures completely, guess with which one I would go... If the scriptures are true, and if revelations are true, they must be receivable to anyone who believes, and anyone who prays sincerely to receive the revelation as well (remember the revelations of the Tree of Life). Most revelations we receive are not applicable to everyone though, but they meet our personal needs. And then imagine, in addition to our 2,500 page canon, everyone carrying a book full of revelations given to any member of the Church of any generation, of any nation and of any origin. Alas, no one could handle it. There is no way every personal revelation is scripture, even if it's written down.

Then there's General Conference addresses, and those are a bit more difficult. Generally, it's another No in my opinion (but here one could well argue another way). We should take a look at the nature of most GC talks, and soon we'll see that many don't have a lot of content that adds anything new. They have a tendency to stress and to talk about (basic) principles of our faith that are already known and that can be found elsewhere too. With literally no exception, they refer to other scriptures and apply them to "real life". In fact, I've never heard of, nor read of a talk that would not widely fit into that scheme. I personally think that General Conference addresses are without a doubt a great way to understand the scriptures better and a suggestion to apply the endorsed standards to our life. Which does not necessarily make them scripture, because here again, especially some past GC addresses have shown to be opposing to the teachings of the Church. It would just make things a lot more confusing and certainly not "more true" to adopt every General Conference talk as scripture. The ones that are, are canonized already, except for maybe the Family Proclamation, which I could well see as an official part of the canon in the future.

My take is just that people can receive and reveal and say great things under the influence of the Holy Ghost, without that we should immediately feel compelled call it scripture. The Old Testament, the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price are, in my opinion, the scriptures of our Church. There are so many truths and so much information on what to do and what not to do in those books that it's enough for more than one life...Everything else just helps us to understand.

From Germany with love. :)

Edited February 20, 2012 by friedmann

[Guest tomk]

What's the real difference between scripture and writings from a man who is inspired by God?

Personally, I believe there really is no real difference.

But that's what I think.

What do you think?

And as you respond, try to imagine responding to someone who was writing some scriptures.

Thank you.

Have fun.

I'm outta here. :)

I think the difference is in the level of stewardship involved.

Scripture, as we all typically think of scripture, is for the world as a whole. It is intended to illustrate God's dealing with mankind and to invite and entice mankind to forge a relationship with God.

All Christians universally accept the Bible as the word of God. Mormons, who are also Christians, claim to have another book of Scripture, the Book of Mormon. With the exception of a few splinter groups (FLDS and the like) this book makes us unique in the world as far as what people claim to be scripture. Of course, there is the Talmud and other books unique to various other religions, but among Christians, the Book of Mormon is unique to us.

As far as personal scripture, I believe this is possible. We can converse with what is essentially the entire Godhead (I think if you talk to One, you are talking to all Three) and we can record the reply in words. I think what they communicate to man is more pure than words. Even so, I think it is a rewarding and worthwhile endeavor to make the attempt.

But, I do not think that what we record is for public consumption. It is personal scripture for our own lives. It does not have any application to the world at large. It may have application for those under our Priesthood line of authority and stewardship. For example, the things that I talk to the Lord about may have application to my wife or to my children. When that happens - I must proceed with love. We are not to exercise compulsion or unrighteous dominion, particularly among our own family members. As it says in the D&C - amen to the priesthood of that man if he attempts such a thing.

I may be able to receive revelation regarding those I home teach (or for women, for those they visit teach). I can ask how I can help so and so with something or other and receive an answer. But what I should not do is go to that person and begin with "Thus saith the Lord" - even if I feel the course I am pursuing comes from Him.