LDS Canon of Scriptures

[Letrell]

Was it not men inspired by God who wrote all the books in the Bible and men moved by the Holy Spririt who decided what to include in the Holy Scriptures?

Are you sure?

You just answered the question as did I. :) "moved by the Holy Spirit"... the Lord told them what to include.

Am I sure? Nothing wavering. Yep.

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

Yep. Already done. The book is called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. :)

All digital and ready for searching... well, back to 1970 or so for the Ensign magazines that include the majority of latter day prophet statements and talks.

I would hardly call that "easy referrencing". As I recall, each Ensign also includes stories from members and letters from the leadership. Makes it a little bit difficult to filter through what are revelations from the prophet.

[selek]

I would hardly call that "easy referrencing". As I recall, each Ensign also includes stories from members and letters from the leadership. Makes it a little bit difficult to filter through what are revelations from the prophet.

Have you actually TRIED it?

Keyword and topic searches either pull up official references (from the Bible Dictionary or Index) or a specific article citing the author's name and ecclesiastical office.

That site isn't a blog where just anyne can opine, but the official Church website, carefully vetted and correlated.

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

Have you actually TRIED it?

Keyword and topic searches either pull up official references (from the Bible Dictionary or Index) or a specific article citing the author's name and ecclesiastical office.

That site isn't a blog where just anyne can opine, but the official Church website, carefully vetted and correlated.

I have done just that, but there is nothing distinguishing what is doctrine based on a current or recent revelation and what is stated in a General Conference. My question is if any of the writings of prophets past and present "in this dispensation" will be considered doctrinal and consolidated into one volume or a set of volumes with a similar chapter and verse format as the Bible, BoM, D&C, etc....

[selek]

I have done just that, but there is nothing distinguishing what is doctrine based on a current or recent revelation and what is stated in a General Conference.

This is a distinction without a difference.

For it to be included on the Church website, it must be in harmony with the teachings and doctrine of the Church.

If it's there, it's authoritative, even if it's not "canon".

My question is if any of the writings of prophets past and present "in this dispensation" will be considered doctrinal and consolidated into one volume or a set of volumes with a similar chapter and verse format as the Bible, BoM, D&C, etc....

As has been explained at length already, those teachings which are authoritative are already recorded and disseminated in official Church publications- incluging the official website.

As to being compiled and formatted in the same format as Scripture, I think it extremely unlikely. There is, as yet, no need- as others have explained above.

Edited June 6, 2013 by selek

[Guest]

As far as what we call Standard Works of Scripture - that's the Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and D&C.

All new revealed doctrine (as opposed to practice) or any important historical event (as when an angel of God appears to his prophets/apostles) are added to the D&C. Anything that Joseph Smith revealed/declared/etc. in his office as a prophet of God are in D&C.

All modern applications of existing doctrine (such as Proclamation to the World or Official Declarations or admonitions, guidance, official Church positions on things such as abortion, gay marriage, and such - all of which are based upon revealed doctrine) are found in lds.org usually in general conference talks that are also published in the Ensign magazine.

When doing references - the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Pearl of Great Price are referenced by author, chapter and verse. The D&C is referenced by section and verse. The general conference talks are referenced by title, author, and date or if it's a major piece, just by its title (such as Proclamation to the World or Official Declaration 2), etc.

When teaching Sunday School or Seminary or Institute, etc., we are not supposed to use any references other than the Standard Works and what is on lds.org (which includes lesson manuals). Not even any published books by prophets (such as Miracle of Forgiveness or the Great Apostasy, etc.) that are not official Church publications.

Edited June 6, 2013 by anatess

[Anddenex]

I have done just that, but there is nothing distinguishing what is doctrine based on a current or recent revelation and what is stated in a General Conference. My question is if any of the writings of prophets past and present "in this dispensation" will be considered doctrinal and consolidated into one volume or a set of volumes with a similar chapter and verse format as the Bible, BoM, D&C, etc....

While on my mission Elder Jeffrey R. Holland made a statement regarding canonized scripture, similar to the volumes shared: Bible, D&C, etc... He mentioned that one day instead of having a quad people will be carrying scriptures in a wheelbarrow; obviously, electronic scriptures weren't of use at this time.

Yes, at some point, more doctrine -- canonized -- will be revealed. When? We don't know.

Elder Holland made mention that it would not be a surprise to him if "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" will become canonized at some point in the future.

I would gather from this conversation, that canonized revelation is discussed by the First Presidency and Quorum, however, they will not move until they know as other prophets when to add the doctrine to canonized scripture.

[Just_A_Guy]

DCE, I think one of the problems we're running into is that not all Mormons are going to use the same definitions here.

What I think Skippy is getting at, is that it's possible to have a scripture that is still not part of the canon. "Canon" means the books that have been universally ratified by vote of the Church as scripture, and which the Church accepts as definitive sources of doctrine and binding over the Church as a whole. That includes the books we generically refer to as "scriptures" but are more properly called (as Anatess notes) the "standard works"--Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.

But in a looser sense, anything that is true and is said under the influence of the Holy Ghost is "scripture". See, e.g., Doctrine and Covenants 68:4.

There are revelations--even revelations of Joseph Smith--that never made it into the canon. For example, both official declarations are not revelations per se--but they are announcements that a revelation has been received (the explanatory material for OD-1 makes this clear; OD 2 itself states it is the result of a revelation).

There is precedent for older revelations eventually being accepted into the canon of scripture. For example, D&C 109 and D&C 137 were both added to the canon many decades after they were originally received and recorded.

I would respectfully diverge a bit from Bytebear's wording. There may not be as intense a need for the canonization of new revelations at present; because the Church's structure and teaching is now more or less in place and the Church membership-at-large knows what it is. But the Church unabashedly claims that it continues to be guided by revelation.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Traveler]

Whom were you referring to with "After the restoration, his work was complete"? God's or JS?

In general we need to come to a better understanding. The LDS view of revelation is somewhat different than the views as I have personally studied in other religions. It is most uncommon in our era to discover "scriptural" changes in religious documentation.

If one studies ancient scriptural texts we will discover that there are no original scripture document - specifically (using the technical term)no autograph or autograms. What we find are edited versions of the texts. In some cases these texts are abridged summaries of unwritten orally preserved stories and events that happened hundreds or thousands of years previously. Seldom were a prophets words recorded for scriptural use in the era in which they were spoken and created. But this in no way diminished the impotence of a prophet's witness to the people that G-d had called them to testify of specifically. In general it is believed that only items specific to succeeding generations were preserved as scripture.

This restored ancient tradition may give one insight into LDS culture of prophets and scripture. Because a purpose of living prophets are to speak to current concerns and to assist in understanding scripture surrounding current needs - the vast majority of revelation is recorded in scripture for future generations. But the official declarations of our prophets made to the saints (LDS) as well as the world are all recorded and preserved. Since these inspired declarations or officially recorded it is possible that at any time, should such need arise, these records could be referenced, either in the original text as was done for our Doctrine and Covenants or in a edited summary as the text that currently comprise the Holy Bible.

The Traveler

Edited June 6, 2013 by Traveler

[bytebear]

I think another concept that LDS have that may be foreign to DCE is the idea that each member is not only capable of, but charged with receiving their own confirmation of truth through personal revelation. As we all know, canonized words are only part of the equation. The other part is proper and correct interpretation. We are not taught just to believe our church leaders, church manuals and supplemental materials which are there to clarify and make us think of the correct truths being conveyed by prophets (both old and new), but we are taught to study the scriptures, pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ for answers, for understanding, for enlightenment. So, although the church has a structure for understanding scriptures and the words of the prophets, we are the ones ultimately responsible for our own personal understanding. It's why we want everyone to read the Book of Mormon and pray about it.

And on various concepts that are not spelled out explicitly, there can be considerable room for interpretation. The church is perfectly happy making the claim they we don't have all the answers, and sometimes they will say "we don't know". But these things are fairly tangential to the gospel and are of the "how many angels can stand on the head of a pin" variety. Other things like priesthood authority and the nature of God and our purpose in life are spelled out specifically.

And although we have some wiggle room in our personal interpretations, when we begin to "preach" things that are contradictory to the church's understanding and attempt to draw people away from the teachings of the church, there may be spiritual ramifications up to and including excommunication. An example for a Catholic convert might be that they feel a personal affinity and spiritual closeness to Mary. That's perfectly acceptable. To preach that all Latter-day Saints must also give special reverence to Mary in worship would be improper.

Edited June 7, 2013 by bytebear

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

I think another concept that LDS have that may be foreign to DCE is the idea that each member is not only capable of, but charged with receiving their own confirmation of truth through personal revelation. As we all know, canonized words are only part of the equation. The other part is proper and correct interpretation. We are not taught just to believe our church leaders, church manuals and supplemental materials which are there to clarify and make us think of the correct truths being conveyed by prophets (both old and new), but we are taught to study the scriptures, pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ for answers, for understanding, for enlightenment. So, although the church has a structure for understanding scriptures and the words of the prophets, we are the ones ultimately responsible for our own personal understanding. It's why we want everyone to read the Book of Mormon and pray about it.

And on various concepts that are not spelled out explicitly, there can be considerable room for interpretation. The church is perfectly happy making the claim they we don't have all the answers, and sometimes they will say "we don't know". But these things are fairly tangential to the gospel and are of the "how many angels can stand on the head of a pin" variety. Other things like priesthood authority and the nature of God and our purpose in life are spelled out specifically.

And although we have some wiggle room in our personal interpretations, when we begin to "preach" things that are contradictory to the church's understanding and attempt to draw people away from the teachings of the church, there may be spiritual ramifications up to and including excommunication. An example for a Catholic convert might be that they feel a personal affinity and spiritual closeness to Mary. That's perfectly acceptable. To preach that all Latter-day Saints must also give special reverence to Mary in worship would be improper.

I don't understand how "personal revelation" falls under the warnings by St. Paul that he must be careful not to judge himself because he cannot know his heart, so he could easily fall into error. And St. Peter's warning that no prophecy of scripture is open to personal interpretation, also what the Ethopian feared by not having someone to guide him.

In other words, how can I know, truly know, that I am being led by the Holy Spirit and not my own misunderstanding, or worse, Satan? I must depend on the Church that has been protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error.

[Anddenex]

In other words, how can I know, truly know, that I am being led by the Holy Spirit and not my own misunderstanding, or worse, Satan? I must depend on the Church that has been protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error.

This is partially correct. What church did Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob and Isaac belong to that they knew they were being protected by the Holy Spirit? None.

We do not place trust in any church, we place trust in God and his Holy Spirit and his ability to guide and direct his servants, the prophets.

[skalenfehl]

To the OP: The Lord has withheld far more "scripture" than He has revealed to us in all the standard works. Why would He give us more if we are still under condemnation?

Like Chemish said in the Book of Omni:

11 And behold, the record of this people is engraven upon plates which is had by the kings, according to the generations; and I know of no revelation save that which has been written, neither prophecy; wherefore, that which is sufficient is written. And I make an end.

What more could our current leaders give us that we already don't have or are willing to obey?

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

We do not place trust in any church, we place trust in God and his Holy Spirit and his ability to guide and direct his servants, the prophets.

I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying... you don't trust the LDS Church for guidance but on the Prophets and you're own interpretations of personal revelations that you feel are from God and the Holy Spirit?

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

This is in reply to both selek and skalenfehl:

As I have been asked to provide objective proof for the existence of documents and events, I would like to ask for the same in return.

Please provide objective proof that the golden or brass plates existed and that Joseph translated them correctly.

I think that is only fair.

[Guest]

This is in reply to both selek and skalenfehl:

As I have been asked to provide objective proof for the existence of documents and events, I would like to ask for the same in return.

Please provide objective proof that the golden or brass plates existed and that Joseph translated them correctly.

I think that is only fair.

It is written in the first pages of the Book of Mormon - the accounts of several witnesses.

Unfortunately, this is the same thing as asking the Catholics objective proof for the existence of documents and events that are in the entirety of the Holy Bible and Sacred Tradition or even in the apostolic authority of the Pope.

What proof do you really have that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? And for that matter, what proof do you have that there is a God?

This is all the same as asking what proof you have that Gravity exists... you can't prove it - you can only deduce its existence by producing a consistent result when you drop a pencil.

[Guest]

I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying... you don't trust the LDS Church for guidance but on the Prophets and you're own interpretations of personal revelations that you feel are from God and the Holy Spirit?

No, you don't take anything anybody says - including the Prophets and the Church as truth unless you have felt the truth of it through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Because, in the end, there is nothing that will prove to anyone of us which is true - Catholics or LDS - except that it be manifested to you by the power of personal revelation.

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

Unfortunately, this is the same thing as asking the Catholics objective proof for the existence of documents and events that are in the entirety of the Holy Bible and Sacred Tradition or even in the apostolic authority of the Pope.

Not if you take an honest look at history, as John Cardinal Newman stated "To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant."

What proof do you really have that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? And for that matter, what proof do you have that there is a God?

This is all the same as asking what proof you have that Gravity exists... you can't prove it - you can only deduce its existence by producing a consistent result when you drop a pencil.

Not sure where you are going with this, are you comparing the invisible evidence of Gravity and God with the BoM? Since both God and Gravity can be known through reason are you saying the existence of brass plates and that they were translated correctly can also be known through reason?

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

No, you don't take anything anybody says - including the Prophets and the Church as truth unless you have felt the truth of it through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Because, in the end, there is nothing that will prove to anyone of us which is true - Catholics or LDS - except that it be manifested to you by the power of personal revelation.

So are you saying that if you have a personal revelation, the truth of it is felt like an emotion. Like feeling happy, sad, angry, excited, etc... you can feel truth the same?

[Guest]

Not if you take an honest look at history, as John Cardinal Newman stated "To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant."

Yep. Except that if you take an honest look at history, one ceases to be Protestant and instead see a great apostasy that required a restoration.

Not sure where you are going with this, are you comparing the invisible evidence of Gravity and God with the BoM? Since both God and Gravity can be known through reason are you saying the existence of brass plates and that they were translated correctly can also be known through reason?

Yes and yes. The existence of the gold and brass plates was seen by the witnesses that wrote their testimonies and published it on the front pages of the book of Mormon. We do not have the plates now. We rely on these people's accounts, and reasoning for the existence of the book itself and the truths held therein by putting them to the test. The existence of the ark of the covenant, the same. That Jesus Christ rose from the dead, the same.

[Guest]

So are you saying that if you have a personal revelation, the truth of it is felt like an emotion. Like feeling happy, sad, angry, excited, etc... you can feel truth the same?

You, having a Catholic conversion experience, should have experienced the Holy Spirit as He spoke to you. Each of us "hears" the Spirit in our own different ways. But, even though it is different for everyone, one thing is certain - being touched by the Spirit is unmistakeable and it is undeniable. It is this unmistakeable and undeniable witness of the Spirit as we seek truth in all things that we constantly strive to achieve. It is the foundation of our conversion.

Edited June 13, 2013 by anatess

[selek]

So are you saying that if you have a personal revelation, the truth of it is felt like an emotion. Like feeling happy, sad, angry, excited, etc... you can feel truth the same?

That is an oversimplification by at least an order of magnitude.

Revelation- and confirmation from the Holy Ghost- is not merely emotional, nor is it strictly intellectual; it is enlightenment, pure and unadultered, on a spiritual level.

Unless you have experienced it, it is almost impossible to describe, let alone to comprehend.

Once you have experienced it, it is equally impossible to deny.

Contrary to what you seem to be implying, Mormonism is a reasoned faith.

We are counseled and guided to use our intellect, our reason, our emotions, and spiritual discernment in a never-ending search for truth.

This is not (despite implications to the contrary) a solitary quest.

We accept the Church's teachings as true- but also strive for personal confirmation from the Spirit of God.

Not to put too fine a point on this, everything you know, you know because someone told you. It was either passed on to you by word of mouth, or written down in a book. You take these words at face value, and believe them because you trust those sources.

You have no independent verification of the truth of what you believe- you simply accept it because it fits your preconceptions.

That's not a condemnation- it's simply the state of existence for most rationale human beings.

For the faithful Latter-day Saint, it is not enough to be told by those in authority.

It is equally important that we know, through the ratification of the Spirit of God.

Edited June 13, 2013 by selek

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

Yep. Except that if you take an honest look at history, one ceases to be Protestant and instead see a great apostasy that required a restoration.

When did this occur? Did someone write anything about the priesthood being removed? How did anyone know the difference? Did anyone plead with God before the priesthood was taken from man? Also, isn't that what the Protestant Reformation was all about? The "restoring" of the Old Church?

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

That is an oversimplification by at least an order of magnitude.

Revelation- and confirmation from the Holy Ghost- is not merely emotional, nor is it strictly intellectual; it is enlightenment, pure and unadultered, on a spiritual level.

Unless you have experienced it, it is almost impossible to describe, let alone to comprehend.

Once you have experienced it, it is equally impossible to deny.

Contrary to what you seem to be implying, Mormonism is a reasoned faith.

We are counseled and guided to use our intellect, our reason, our emotions, and spiritual discernment in a never-ending search for truth.

This is not (despite implications to the contrary) a solitary quest.

We accept the Church's teachings as true- but also strive for personal confirmation from the Spirit of God.

For the faithful Latter-day Saint, it is not enough to be told by those in authority.

It is equally important that we know, through the ratification of the Spirit of God.

Am I oversimplifying? You said it is an experience that you feel emotionally, spiritually and intellectually. And that that feeling is interpreted as confirmation from the Holy Spirit.

All I'm saying is that truth is independent of my feelings.

[selek]

When did this occur? Did someone write anything about the priesthood being removed?

How would we know if they did?

We have only a tiny fraction of the conversations and correspondance that took place in the first few centuries of the Christian Church.

Moreover, all of the surviving extant records were maintained (and copied, altered, and redacted) by an organization whose legitimacy is predicated on retaining that authority.

The Catholic Church's ONLY claim to authority is that the Pope succeeded the Apostles- but we have only their word that this is the case.

The phrase "conflict of interest" doesn't begin to cover the magnitude of the problem.

How did anyone know the difference? Did anyone plead with God before the priesthood was taken from man?

Why would they? How can you miss something you were never given?

I don't believe anyone here has suggested that the original Bishop of Rome acted out of power lust, malice, or political will in usurping control of the other churches, but rather out of necessity when the Apostles failed to name a proper successor.

Also, isn't that what the Protestant Reformation was all about? The "restoring" of the Old Church?

The Protestants almost never describe the schism as a "restoration", but as a "Reformation".

Like the Catholic Church, they fancy themselves as descended from the Apostles, but were forced to "reform" the Church after the creeping corruption of 1500 years of domination by the political structure in Rome (which was usually one-and-the-same with the ecclesiastical structure).

Of course, today even Catholics acknowledge this problem in their demands that Pope Francis reform the Curia.