Scripture

[Anonymous]

My son and I were talking last night about the different definitions of scripture.

Canonized scripture: Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, PoGP. Mostly agreed upon as the word of God and recognized as truth. I personally think some of it is suspect and some is just the opinions of guys like me. Generally when I speak of scripture I’m referring to the canon.

“Modern” or “living” scripture: Ensign, General Conference, family proclamation, etc. Certainly more suspect in my view and I don’t consider it scripture in the same sense as the canon. I don’t think there’s generally bad stuff or “untrue” (we had a different conversation about what true – as in the church is true – means) stuff in the Ensign or GC, but I do believe it’s mostly opinion of men and women mostly related to or based on the canon. However, I do know people who absolutely see these types of things as equal or almost equal to the canon.

Other truths: things like Uncle Hub’s speech (Second Hand Lions), some stories from Dickens, Obi Wan’s “The truths we cling to….” Probably not normally recognized as scripture, but nonetheless ring true to me (much of the gospel is contained in A Christmas Carol) and in a very broad sense I consider them scripture.

The problem with discussing scripture in the church environment, I think, is that we’re not all necessarily on the same page as to the definition. For instance, I know some who are in may ward who believe in evolution and I know some who definitely do not. I don’t discuss evolution with those who don’t believe in it, while I have had some very stimulating discussion with those who do. There are others who I have no idea where they stand on the issue.

So, is there a good way in the church social and educational environment to portray one’s definition of scripture so we recognize where we each stand and thus can speak in appropriate terms? I don’t generally have a problem with “church speak” and talking to someone else on their level whether I agree or not, but sometimes on this issue I don’t know how to speak.

[Anonymous]

An important distinction of the canon is that it has been accepted as scripture by direct vote of the Church. “Ponderize” was not voted on, and is therefore not part of our canon. Similarly, the “revelation” on the “New Policy” is not part of our canon either, even if we accept it as “the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord”. Ditto for the Proclamation on the Family. The reason that a direct vote is important is that if Bro Schmo wants to to think of “The New Policy” as scripture, that is fine, and I support him in his desire to do so, but it has not been accepted universally by the Church and is not stated that way by the Church and is not printed in our canonized scriptures. So, it isn’t scripture to everyone, in spite of Bro Schmo’s feelings.

In the past we used to use the term “Standard Works” to indicate the canon, and I’ll get to that in a moment. Perhaps that term would be helpful. Some terms that might fit the bill for non-canonical “scripture” would be “Living Scripture”, “Other Scripture”, “Unofficial Scripture”, “Words of the Prophets”, or just what I always call it “General Conference Talks”.

On the term “Standard Works” JFieldingS has this to say:

Quote:

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted. –Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation

JFS wrote this while an Apostle. But I think it is a very important concept that the Church’s doctrine is established only in the scriptures. Why is this so important? Because no matter of doctrine can be added or removed except by making the change in the standard works themselves… canonizing the change… and that must be accepted by vote of the membership. I actually think that is a good thing. But we have to separate out in our minds the difference between personal faith and Church governance. It is very good that the Church is bound to the standard works. It would be very interesting if “The New Policy” were ever brought before the body of the Church for a vote. I think there would be a lot of no-votes. I think Section 132 would be voted down today if brought before the Church for a re-vote.

[Anonymous]

I believe someone in a different thread was looking for that quote recently.

The quote provides some food for thought. For instance, how do new revelations gain enough momentum to break through the barrier that JFieldingS establishes in that quote? In other words a new revelation comes along, D&C 139. It’s new so it doesn’t square 100% with established revelation. At what point do people stop saying “set it aside” and start to entertain the idea of adopting it as revelation? I think for most church members the bar is set at whether it comes from a prophet/apostle, which the quote addresses.

I suppose we stop setting it aside when we hold it up for a vote for common consent. We haven’t done a vote in forever, I’d love to know who or what triggers that process. To be honest common consent doesn’t seem to be necessary anymore, many members are on board with most things without it.

Perhaps a moratorium on canonization is an acknowledgement that there are limits, some things can’t be known. I also imagine it would be hard for something to get passed via common consent in today’s church (but it’s not like that would stop us from going forward :angel: ). Maybe the church will surprise people one day, vote on canonization of the proclamation, try to sneak in a vote unannounced while people aren’t paying attention.

[Anonymous]

Good topic.

I do think there is a clear definition of the canon of the 4 standard works. I find it interesting in the Bible Dictionary about Canon it states:

Quote:

The history of the process by which the books of the Bible were collected and recognized as a sacred authority is almost hidden in obscurity. There are several legends extant and these may have some truth in them but certainly are not complete or totally accurate.

The bible dictionary for scripture states:

Quote:

Latter-day revelation identifies scripture as that which is spoken under the influence of the Holy Ghost (D&C 68:1–4).

It doesn’t get more vague than that! I’m kind of surprised that is clearly stated. But that being the case…I am happy to know we have that flexibility on using the term “scripture”.

I think what is scripture to one person will not always match what others feel is scripture, even if both are faithful and honest believing mormons. I don’t think that was blatantly clear to me, but it makes me think scripture is a very loose term about “holy writings”.

When some people say “General Conference talks are modern scripture”…I cannot argue with them they take it as such. But I do not believe I have to take everything in Conference as such. As far as the Ensign goes…there is lots in there that is magazine type opinions and ideas…clearly not all scripture to me. But perhaps parts of it are.

I think mormons may be more open to the definition of “scripture” than other religions that only take the bible as such and nothing else.

[Author]

Posts