Why not more LDS scriptures?
Matthew W. I. Dunn
reality of the LDS
religion:
When I look at scriptures.lds.org, I see what are
commonly called the
four "standard works": The Book of Mormon,
Doctrine and Covenants, the
Pearl of Great Price, and the Bible.
What puzzles me is this:
My understanding was that the LDS church teaches
an open canon of
scripture due to ongoing revelation. But, why do
the Mormon
scriptures end? Why aren't additions continually
being made? It
seems like the "Mormon canon," if you will, all
but ended within the
first 15 years of the church's existence. When
the Prophet or some
other authority in the LDS church speaks, it
seems always to be
commenting on some part of the Standard
Works--but, almost never
adding scriptures to them.
Could someone, please, enlighten me on this
theological issue?
DISCLAIMER: No, this is not a set-up to start
bashing Latter-day
Saints. My views on Mormonism and debates with
others are already
documented. (Just do a Google search.) But, I do
find Mormon theology
to be a fascinating subject . . . and, this
question truly stumps me.
I would like a Mormon view.
C J Campbell
Covenants. I think one reason that scriptures are not frequently added is
that it is very costly -- all the bound editions have to be revised and the
new scripture has to be translated into all the languages used in the
current scriptures. It is not like we publish an easily revised loose-leaf
edition of the scriptures. Still, there are occasional additions. The First
Presidency's Declaration on the Home and Family will probably be included in
some future edition of the scriptures, for example.
Consider, too, the nature of the Doctrine and Covenants: mission calls,
calls to various church leaders, administrative correspondence, various
blessings, etc. Obviously, the Church still produces a lot of this stuff.
Including it all in the Doctrine and Covenants would require each member to
maintain a huge document storage vault. Hauling our scriptures to Sunday
School would require a freight train. It would also be mind-numbingly
repetitive. "For today's lesson, please open your D&C to section 1,309,256,
verse 2. 'The field is white and ready to harvest.' Who can tell me where
else this is found in the scriptures?"
Consider the other material that we have as well: the Ensign and other
Church publications, various pamphlets such as "For the Strength of Youth"
and Church handbooks. Although there is nothing in the published scriptures
warning against the use of illegal drugs, it is still Church doctrine that
we should not use illegal drugs and their use can result in the denial of a
temple recommend. Church leaders also constantly warn people to dress
modestly, not attend violent or pornographic movies, take care of their
homes and families, keep a store of food and other necessities, vote against
proposals that would legalize gambling or homosexual marriages, be active in
the community, do our home teaching and visiting teaching, and many other
things not specifically found in the published scriptures.
Kathryn Simpson
> being made?
The vast majority of what is spoken in conference or talks by
General Authorities already comes from the Scriptures. Why
recannonize what already is cannonized in the scriptures?
What has been cannonized since the first 15 years of the Church
have been matters of serious clarification or change in policy.
We do believe that we will yet receive more "scripture" as we
learn to live to the teachings we already have.
--
Regards of the NW,
Kathy
"The liberty we cherish is not America's gift to the world. It
is God's gift to humanity."
(Pres. George Bush, March 26, 2003)
"Matthew W. I. Dunn" <mwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vhqhrin...@news.supernews.com...
Jeff Shirton
news:vhr34og...@news.supernews.com...
> The vast majority of what is spoken in conference or talks by
> General Authorities already comes from the Scriptures. Why
> recannonize what already is cannonized in the scriptures?
But the same can be said of the Pauline epistles, and the
majority of the gospels. Why does the LDS church canonize
them?
> Kathy
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot
ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"[T]he gospel is not that man can become God,
but that God became a man." -- James White
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!
David / Amicus
Mormonism!!!
A couple of LDS answers would be "Well we have the conference talks
every six months" and "Why should we have more scripture; we haven't
learned to use and follow all that we already have?". IMO --> COP
OUT!!!!
Even if the current church president and contemporary leaders did not
want to canonize their own talks and writings as scripture there are
alot more of JS's "Thus saith the Lord"s that could be canonized! I
think the "King Follett Discourse" would be ideal to begin with!
BTW it's been years since I've studied the RLDS. But their president /
prophet every two years at their biennial conference used to present a
new revelation for canonization and addidtion to their version of the
D&C. With all the changes that group has gone through especially with no
longer having a Smith at the head is that still occuring?
Jeff Shirton
news:vhr33ot...@news.supernews.com...
> From time to time various scriptures have been added to the
> Doctrine and Covenants. I think one reason that scriptures
> are not frequently added is that it is very costly --
With all due respect, when you compare God's revealed word
to "cost effectiveness", I really don't think that's a good reason.
But then again, that's just me.
> all the bound editions have to be revised and the new scripture
> has to be translated into all the languages used in the current
> scriptures. It is not like we publish an easily revised loose-leaf
> edition of the scriptures.
Perhaps "loose-leaf" is the way to go for an open canon.
But then again, as our society continues to go electronic,
such would seem to kill two proverbial birds with the same stone.
Software is much less costly to publish (when you are only
adding text), and distribution would seem much easier as well.
As it comes more cost-effective, perhaps LDS should consider
handing out palm pilots with the Scriptures on them, rather
than hardcopy Scriptures.
> Including it all in the Doctrine and Covenants would require
> each member to maintain a huge document storage vault.
> Hauling our scriptures to Sunday School would require a freight train.
Again, electronic storage would seem to elimate this problem.
Already I've heard LDS say how much more convenient it is
to tote a palm pilot to church rather than carrying the "quad".
> It would also be mind-numbingly repetitive.
I would think it would have the *opposite* effect.
Far from being "repetitive", more Scripture should theoretically
mean less time in each Scripture. And since LDS have always
told me the idea is "ongoing revelation", with different
instructions for these "latter days", why would you think it
would be "same old, same old"? Does or does not God have
"new revelation" for us, according to the LDS position?
> "For today's lesson, please open your D&C to section
> 1,309,256, verse 2. 'The field is white and ready to harvest.'
> Who can tell me where else this is found in the scriptures?"
Is that the kind of lesson that's representative of LDS studies?
"Where else do we find it?" Is that what you do today,
"Please locate all the places God tells us to look after the
widows and fatherless"? It seems to me that the *meaning*
of the verse would be a little more important than the physical
location in the text, wouldn't you agree?
> temple recommend. Church leaders also constantly warn people to dress
> modestly, not attend violent or pornographic movies, take care of their
> homes and families, keep a store of food and other necessities, vote
against
> proposals that would legalize gambling or homosexual marriages, be active
in
> the community, do our home teaching and visiting teaching, and many other
> things not specifically found in the published scriptures.
I'm not exactly sure of your point here.
Hal Lillywhite
...
> What puzzles me is this:
> My understanding was that the LDS church teaches
> an open canon of scripture due to ongoing revelation.
True
>But, why do the Mormon scriptures end?
They don't. It is true that most of the modern canon was given within
a period of about 20 years, but not all of it. It seems reasonable to
me that the majority would be given quickly. After all, there was a
lot to be learned in organizing the church. However during my
lifetime two revelations have been added to the Doctrine and Covenants
(sections 137 and 138), as well as one official statement (that all
worthy men can hold the priesthood). I would not be surprised to see
the statement on marriage and the family added eventually.
The Lord will give us more revelation as He deems appropriate.
Kathryn Simpson
"Jeff Shirton" <burli...@ontario.ca> wrote in message
news:vhrg25s...@news.supernews.com...
> But the same can be said of the Pauline epistles, and the
> majority of the gospels. Why does the LDS church canonize
> them?
I think I may be falling into a trap here... but what the heck...
Scripture doesn't have to be cannonized to be true. Neither do
the teachings of the Prophets and Apostles at Conference time
have to be cannonized in order to be pertinent.
Why is some repetition cannonized and other isn't? I don't know.
But I do know that we don't place the same merit to cannonization
that other religions do. After all, the Bible was "cannonized"
by groups that had fallen away from the true teachings of the
Gospel long before "the Gospel" was restored.
Perhaps you are attempting to meet out the merits of "inspired"
versus "cannonized"?
David / Amicus
Doctrine and Covenants (sections 137 and 138),>>
I remember when those two were first "canonized". They were first put
in the PoGP. Little paper inserts were given. Then it was decided to add
them to the D&C.
David / Amicus
Doesn't it have to be canonized first in order for it to be accepted as
scripture?
It's true that "truth" of different sorts can be found outside of
scripture but that doesn't make them scripture.
Jeff Shirton
> > But the same can be said of the Pauline epistles, and the
> > majority of the gospels. Why does the LDS church canonize
> > them?
>
> I think I may be falling into a trap here... but what the heck...
>
> Scripture doesn't have to be cannonized to be true.
No, but it *does* need to be canonized to be recognized
as Scripture. I remember a thread a short while back where
the question was asked, "what is LDS Scripture", and various
LDS ran the gamut with answers ranging from "nothing outside
of the Standard Works" to "everything ever uttered by a prophet",
and every conceivable position inbetween.
Such a phenomenon is confusion, even anarchy.
It certainly isn't unity.
> Neither do the teachings of the Prophets and Apostles
> at Conference time have to be cannonized in order to be pertinent.
Let many LDS admittedly underemphasize, or even ignore,
anything the Prophets and Apostles say at conference
time, specifically *because* "it's not Scripture" (ie. in the canon).
> Kathy
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot
ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Aurelius Augustine was a Calvinist. So was Thomas Aquinas.
All Calvin did was make it popular.
Joel Rees
> Covenants. I think one reason that scriptures are not frequently added is
> that it is very costly -- all the bound editions have to be revised and the
> new scripture has to be translated into all the languages used in the
> current scriptures.
I would tend to think that the real costs to be concerned about would
not be those associated with compiling and printing them.
(With a nod to Jeff, but a note that hardware, OS, and network
technolgy are not yet within even two orders of magnitude of the white
stone, and another note that electronic publishing reveals that the
real costs of publishing are human labor, not materials.)
Joel
Joel Rees
> I think this is a wonderful question! It goes to the heart and soul of
> Mormonism!!!
Yeah! Personal revelation.
The heavens are open. The canon is sufficient for now, because the
heavens are open.
I expect it will be modified significantly when the millenium begins.
But the fundamentals of the gospel will be retained -- faith in Jesus,
repentance, baptism, and the Holy Ghost.
Now, if I were to speculate, I might speculate that there will come a
time when we will have regional appendices to the canon. That would be
a fun speculation.
Joel
> ...
John Lemings
> I think I may be falling into a trap here... but what the heck...
>
> Scripture doesn't have to be cannonized to be true. Neither do
> the teachings of the Prophets and Apostles at Conference time
> have to be cannonized in order to be pertinent.
Then why are works such as the Journals of Discourse, Mormon Doctrine,
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, etc.
constantly rebuffed by LDS members as only being "opinion"?
Hal Lillywhite
> > From time to time various scriptures have been added to the
> > Doctrine and Covenants. I think one reason that scriptures
> > are not frequently added is that it is very costly --
> With all due respect, when you compare God's revealed word
> to "cost effectiveness", I really don't think that's a good reason.
> But then again, that's just me.
Whoa!!! Jeff and I actually agree on something. :-)
In fact it doesn't have to be that expensive. When sections 137 and
138
were added they were first published as a supplement and people could
buy them without having to buy a whole new book. Not quite the loose
leaf Jeff suggests but effective. And at least in the US many members
are keeping their scriptures on a Palm Pilot or similar so that would
be very easy to update as Jeff likewise suggests. The way things are
going it will soon be cheaper to get one than to get a good set of
printed scriptures.
...
> > Including it all in the Doctrine and Covenants would require
> > each member to maintain a huge document storage vault.
> > Hauling our scriptures to Sunday School would require a freight train.
That problem can probably be solved electronically, conference talks
etc. fit easily in a hand-held.
I think what Jeff suggests is the way things are headed naturally.
John Lemings
> However during my
> lifetime two revelations have been added to the Doctrine and Covenants
> (sections 137 and 138)
That would make you 167 years old. D & C 137 was recorded on January
21, 1836. Was it not canonized then? Was it canonized at a later date?
If so, what was the date of canonization?
Kathryn Simpson
> Let many LDS admittedly underemphasize, or even ignore,
> anything the Prophets and Apostles say at conference
> time, specifically *because* "it's not Scripture" (ie. in the
canon).
Then we ignore it to our own peril. I say "we" because I'm as
guilty as the next person of sins of omission.
Do I consider every word that comes from the Prophet's mouth to
be scripture? Of course not. But when he speaks and invokes his
authority, as a prophet of God, I recognize that I will be
blessed if I follow his counsel. This testimony doesn't come from
just reading conference reports. It comes from prayer about
those words, actions regarding those words, and faith in God's
plan.
The scriptures say in John 7:17... "If any man will do his will,
he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I
speak of myself." If you test the prophet's words, you will know
if they are true. How do you "test" the prophet's words? You
obey. If obeying leads to greater testimony, they you have the
reassurance that his words are truly from God.
I've tested this on many occasions. A few times I've even done
it on whims. But each time, as I've strived to do what the
Prophet has asked, I've felt richly blessed in ways I often
didn't expect. I cannot prove emphatically that I've been
blessed because I followed the counsel of the Prophet, but I know
it in my heart. Just as John 7:17 says.
Kathryn Simpson
"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:vhs8e7f...@news.supernews.com...
> Doesn't it have to be canonized first in order for it to be
accepted as
> scripture?
To gain "scripture" label, yes. To be true, no.
> It's true that "truth" of different sorts can be found outside
of
> scripture but that doesn't make them scripture.
My patriarchial blessing is "scripture" to me, but it has never
been canonized (did I get that righ this time, Jeff? <g>).
Kathryn Simpson
"John Lemings" <lmng...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:vhtbbm5...@news.supernews.com...
> Then why are works such as the Journals of Discourse, Mormon
Doctrine,
> Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Doctrines of Salvation,
etc.
> constantly rebuffed by LDS members as only being "opinion"?
Mormon Doctrine, for example, was written by Bruce R. McConkie
(an Apostle). While I highly respect Elder McConkie, he did do
some speculating in areas of mormon doctrine when he wrote the
book. So, while "Mormon Doctrine" is a good resource, it is not
100% accurate doctrinally.
Kathryn Simpson
Actually, you are partially in error because you are basing your
math on when the revelations happened, not when they were
"canonized" or added to the LDS editions of the Scriptures.
Section 138 is the record of a vision of Pres. Joseph F. Smith in
1918. (85 years ago) Section 137 is a record of a vision of
Joseph Smith from 1836. However, these revelations were not
added to the Doctrine and Covenants until 1980 or so, when the
current editions of the scriptures were released.
In the Explanatory introduction to the current version of the
Doctrine and Covenants, you will read...
"In the current edition of the Doctrine and Covenants three
documents have been included for the first time. These are
Sections 137 and 138, setting forth the fundamentals of salvation
for the dead; and Official Declaration 2, announcing that all
worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the
priesthood without regard for race or color."
http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/intro
Hope that helps.
Scott
> as Scripture. I remember a thread a short while back where
> the question was asked, "what is LDS Scripture", and various
> LDS ran the gamut with answers ranging from "nothing outside
> of the Standard Works" to "everything ever uttered by a prophet",
> and every conceivable position inbetween.
>
Here's the answer, taken from a post I've made before.
We sustain and are bound by God's law, we find this law in the
scriptures; The Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, The
Pearl of Great Price. THAT'S IT! EVERYTHING else is not authorotative
or binding upon us in terms of doctrine.
The Journal of Discourses, Mormon Doctrine, Miracle of Forgiveness,
Journals, Quotes from Funerals, etc., none of these things are
scripture. They may be good, they may be instructive and even true,
BUT they do NOT represent official doctrine and we are not bound to
believe anything contained in them.
Even quotes from General Conference aren't cannonized scripture. What
the prophet may be saying can be completely true and revelation, but
unless new doctrine is added to the scriptures (Doctrine and
Covenants) then we are not bound by what they say.
For example, when GBH said in GC (or was a preisthood session?) that
men shouldn't wear earrings and women should only wear on pair, does
that mean it's official church doctrine? NO! Does it become scripture
because he said it? NO! Is it good teaching directed for our times
specifically? YES! Was it a revelation from God? MAYBE! I will not be
denied a temple reccomend because I wear earrings, I will not be told
I can't bless the sacrement because I wear earrings (I'm asked to
remove them when I bless so as to not distract from the ordinance),
there is a profound difference from something being official,
cannonized church doctrine and the teaching of our GA's.
Just because it comes out of a prophets mouth doesn't make it offcial
church doctrine.
Apostle B.H. Roberts; Deseret News 23 July 1921
"The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is
willing to be bound before the world to things that God has revealed,
and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. The
would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and
Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly
accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled,
and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine."
Regards,
Scott
Jeff Shirton
news:vhu90qd...@news.supernews.com...
|> > the question was asked, "what is LDS Scripture", and various
> > LDS ran the gamut with answers ranging from "nothing outside
> > of the Standard Works" to "everything ever uttered by a prophet",
> > and every conceivable position inbetween.
>
> Here's the answer, taken from a post I've made before.
Since there are LDS who disagree with you, it begs the question
of whether you can call this "the" answer. Whether the LDS
who disagree with you will respond to your post, is something
we'll have to see.
> We sustain and are bound by God's law, we find this law
> in the scriptures; The Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine
> and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price. THAT'S IT!
> EVERYTHING else is not authorotative or binding upon
> us in terms of doctrine.
What about the LDS who disagree with you?
Why is their view any less valid than your own?
> I can't bless the sacrement because I wear earrings (I'm asked to
> remove them when I bless so as to not distract from the ordinance),
I believe someone asked you why you think they would
be "distracting". I don't remember seeing an answer.
As for me, when I take the sacrament, I don't take special
notice of the ushers who pass it. My mind (and therefore
my eyes) are more directed at the bread and the cup themselves,
rather than on the ushers.
> Apostle B.H. Roberts; Deseret News 23 July 1921
>
> "The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is
> willing to be bound before the world to things that God has revealed,
> and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. The
> would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and
> Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly
> accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled,
> and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine."
But don't you see the paradox here?
The above quote isn't canonized Scripture, so (by your own
admission) it's not authoritative. <g>
> Scott
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot
ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"[T]he gospel is not that man can become God,
but that God became a man." -- James White
Jeff Shirton
> Actually, you are partially in error because you are basing your
> math on when the revelations happened, not when they were
> "canonized" or added to the LDS editions of the Scriptures.
But the date discrepancy seems to pose a problem.
> Section 138 is the record of a vision of Pres. Joseph F. Smith in
> 1918. (85 years ago) Section 137 is a record of a vision of
> Joseph Smith from 1836. However, these revelations were not
> added to the Doctrine and Covenants until 1980 or so, when the
> current editions of the scriptures were released.
So from God's perspective, were they "Scripture" in 1836/1918,
or were they not "Scripture" until 1980 or so? When God issued
the prophecies, did He mean for them to be Scripture immediately,
or was it God's plan for the LDS church to "sit on them" so to
speak for 70-140 years and only become binding "Scripture"
when they were published in the D&C?
And if there can be a "time delay", then how can anyone say
that "<X> isn't Scripture/binding/inspired/whatever" when for
all they know it could become canonized at any time?
> Kathy
John Taber
Both sections were sustained as canon in April 1976. (The Doctrine
and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price as a whole, were so sustained
in October 1880.) Somewhere in my parents' house are a few copies of
the D&C/PofGP (the red ones) with them as part of the Pearl of Great
Price.
But there will be other things added - and before the Millenium. And
they could be as significant as the Book of Mormon.
David / Amicus
Apostle). While I highly respect Elder McConkie, he did do some
speculating in areas of mormon doctrine when he wrote the book. So,
while "Mormon Doctrine" is a good resource, it is not 100% accurate
doctrinally.>>
If you can't trust an apostle to get it right / straight / accurate then
to whom can you go? Where can one look to find what the definitive and
authoritive teachings of the LDS church are?
Matthew W. I. Dunn
Then, why do you call the Bible, BoM, D&C, and PoGP "the Standard
Works" if the scriptures don't end?
Logically--if the prophet's teaching is revelatory--shouldn't the LDS
canon continue in a way analogous to a law library, continuously
adding current teaching to its collection? (I admit this would be
impracticable for most members. But, for a ward or stake . . . ?)
The D&C contains instructions to specific people (Cowdery, D&C
104:28-9) and to specific places (D&C 52) . . . and, I'm fairly sure
that didn't stop after the church was more fully organized:
So, why were they not added to the scriptures?
Are some revelations still scripture, but not relevant to anyone other
than the person to whom it was given?
Matthew W. I. Dunn
<<snip>>
>
> Why is some repetition cannonized and other isn't? I don't know.
> But I do know that we don't place the same merit to cannonization
> that other religions do. After all, the Bible was "cannonized"
> by groups that had fallen away from the true teachings of the
> Gospel long before "the Gospel" was restored.
>
> Perhaps you are attempting to meet out the merits of "inspired"
> versus "cannonized"?
> --
>
<<snip>>
"Canonized" not "cannonized"
So, why is the Bible part of the Standard Works?
Have its books merely been made part of a canon or are they also inspired?
C J Campbell
worth of conference talks on my iPaq. However, take a look at what really is
in the Doctrine and Covenants. Is it really necessary to add every mission
call, every Church calling down to the ward level, every priesthood calling,
every letter that the brethren send out to the various Church units, etc.,
to the volume of scripture we have now?
Linards Ticmanis
> BTW it's been years since I've studied the RLDS. But their president /
> prophet every two years at their biennial conference used to present a
> new revelation for canonization and addidtion to their version of the
> D&C. With all the changes that group has gone through especially with no
> longer having a Smith at the head is that still occuring?
There were only a couple of revelations added, most dealing with who was
to fill which office in the church. And some (mostly the "baptism of the
dead" ones) were removed. They're up to Section 161 by now, which is
sort of interesting, pretty modern, and a bit odd:
1. Lift up your eyes and fix them on the place beyond the horizon to
which you are sent. Journey in trust, assured that the great and
marvelous work is for this time and for all time.
Claim your unique and sacred place within the circle of those who call
upon the name of Jesus Christ. Be faithful to the spirit of the
Restoration, mindful that it is a spirit of adventure, openness, and
searching. Walk proudly and with a quickened step. Be a joyful people.
Laugh and play and sing, embodying the hope and freedom of the gospel.
2. Become a people of the Temple---those who see violence but proclaim
peace, who feel conflict yet extend the hand of reconciliation, who
encounter broken spirits and find pathways for healing.
Fulfill the purposes of the Temple by making its ministries manifest in
your hearts. It was built from your sacrifices and searching over many
generations. Let it stand as a towering symbol of a people who knew
injustice and strife on the frontier and who now seek the peace of Jesus
Christ throughout the world.
3. Open your hearts and feel the yearnings of your brothers and sisters
who are lonely, despised, fearful, neglected, unloved. Reach out in
understanding, clasp their hands, and invite all to share in the
blessings of community created in the name of the One who suffered on
behalf of all.
Do not be fearful of one another. Respect each life journey, even in its
brokenness and uncertainty, for each person has walked alone at times.
Be ready to listen and slow to criticize, lest judgments be unrighteous
and unredemptive.
Be patient with one another, for creating sacred community is arduous
and even painful. But it is to loving community such as this that each
is called. Be courageous and visionary, believing in the power of just a
few vibrant witnesses to transform the world. Be assured that love will
overcome the voices of fear, division, and deceit.
Understand that the road to transformation travels both inward and
outward. The road to transformation is the path of the disciple.
4. Do not neglect the smallest among you, for even the least of these
are treasures in God's sight. Receive the giftedness and energy of
children and youth, listening to understand their questions and their
wisdom. Respond to their need to be loved and nurtured as they grow.
Be mindful of the changing of life's seasons, of the passage from the
springtime of childhood and youth to the winter years of life. Embrace
the blessing of your many differences. Be tender and caring. Be reminded
once again that the gifts of all are necessary in order that divine
purposes may be accomplished.
5. Be respectful of tradition. Do not fail to listen attentively to the
telling of the sacred story, for the story of scripture and of faith
empowers and illuminates. But neither be captive to time-bound formulas
and procedures. Remember that instruction given in former years is
applicable in principle and must be measured against the needs of a
growing church, in accordance with the prayerful direction of the
spiritual authorities and the consent of the people.
6. Stand firm in the name of the One you proclaim and create diverse
communities of disciples and seekers, rejoicing in the continuing
fulfillment of the call to this people to prophetically witness in the
name of Jesus Christ.
Heed the urgent call to become a global family united in the name of the
Christ, committed in love to one another, seeking the kingdom for which
you yearn and to which you have always been summoned. That kingdom shall
be a peaceable one and it shall be known as Zion.
7. The Spirit of the One you follow is the spirit of love and peace.
That Spirit seeks to abide in the hearts of those who would embrace its
call and live its message. The path will not always be easy, the choices
will not always be clear, but the cause is sure and the Spirit will bear
witness to the truth, and those who live the truth will know the hope
and the joy of discipleship in the community of Christ. Amen.
--
Linards Ticmanis
The Master said, "The business of laying on the colors follows the
preparation of the plain ground."
Kathryn Simpson
"Matthew W. I. Dunn" <mwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vi0117l...@news.supernews.com...
> "Canonized" not "cannonized"
my bad, sorry.
> So, why is the Bible part of the Standard Works?
Because it contains truths pertaining to the Kingdom of God and
is of sufficeint merit to warrant regular study and attention.
> Have its books merely been made part of a canon or are they
also inspired?
Personally, I think that there are parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls
that are equally inspired. The canonization of the Bible was a
political process as much as it was a religious one. If it were
done by the Lord's prophet in the latter-days, I think it would
quite different. However, such was not the case and the Church
has accepted the Bible as part of our Standard Works, in part
because it was in common use by Christians of the day and was
accurate "as far as it is translated correctly".
Kathryn Simpson
<g>
Why did it take nearly 1000 years to canonize the Bible?
How can we even know that what was recorded 2000 years ago is
accurate?
Why should I trust the Constitution? It took several revisions
and a couple of years to get it right.
--
Regards of the NW,
Kathy
"The liberty we cherish is not America's gift to the world. It
is God's gift to humanity."
(Pres. George Bush, March 26, 2003)
"Jeff Shirton" <burli...@ontario.ca> wrote in message
news:vi00n74...@news.supernews.com...
Kathryn Simpson
> If you can't trust an apostle to get it right / straight /
accurate then
> to whom can you go? Where can one look to find what the
definitive and
> authoritive teachings of the LDS church are?
Even apostles don't know all things pertaining to the Kingdom of
God. They speculate too. I don't find any reason for this to
diminish my faith in their leadership pertaining to their
callings.
"Where can one look to find what the definitive...."?
>From the scriptures and by prayer and the inspiration of the Holy
Ghost.
Not Important
You ask Heavenly Father in the name of His Son Jesus Christ and He will
manifest truth to you by the Holy Ghost.
Not Important
I still think it is useful to consider the word "scripture" to mean merely
"writings". Then within that overall class we may have some scripture that
is holy or sacred, some that is profane, some that is a mixture ( I suspect
the Holy Bible is an example, and very likely the Book of Mormon as well).
Then when some "body" accepts some of these scriptures or writings, as a
standard of conduct and practice and belief, etc, they become "Standard
Works" or "Canonical Scriptures".
Joel Rees
> So from God's perspective, were they
A.
> "Scripture" in 1836/1918,
> or were they
B.
> not "Scripture" until 1980 or so?
Or were they
C. All and none of the above?
> When God issued
> the prophecies,
A.
> did He mean for them to be Scripture immediately,
> or
B.
> was it God's plan for the LDS church to "sit on them" so to
> speak for 70-140 years and only become binding "Scripture"
> when they were published in the D&C?
or,
C. All and none of the above?
> And if there can be a "time delay", then how can anyone say
> that
True/False/Does it Matter?
> "<X> isn't Scripture/binding/inspired/whatever" when for
> all they know it could become canonized at any time?
See Matthew I Dunn's last question and consider that it is, or should
be, a rhetorical question.
Joel
Jeff Shirton
> > So, why is the Bible part of the Standard Works?
>
> Because it contains truths pertaining to the Kingdom of God and
> is of sufficeint merit to warrant regular study and attention.
So are you saying that the GC talks and the Ensign articles
are *not* "of sufficient merit to warrant regular study and attention"?
> quite different. However, such was not the case and the Church
> has accepted the Bible as part of our Standard Works, in part
> because it was in common use by Christians of the day and was
> accurate "as far as it is translated correctly".
To me, that sounds like two good reasons *not* to accept
the Bible as part of the Standard Works. "Because everyone
else does" sounds like a worldly and unspiritual reason, even
an arbitrary "non-reason", and the translation issue is another
reason, IMO.
Hal Lillywhite
> Then, why do you call the Bible, BoM, D&C, and PoGP "the Standard
> Works" if the scriptures don't end?
"Stamdard" doesn't necessarily mean immutable. Standards can change
as the situation requires. Ask any physician if the standard practice
today is identical to what it was 20 years ago.
> Logically--if the prophet's teaching is revelatory--shouldn't the LDS
> canon continue in a way analogous to a law library, continuously
> adding current teaching to its collection? (I admit this would be
> impracticable for most members. But, for a ward or stake . . . ?)
That is one reason notes are usually kept on ward and stake decisions.
> The D&C contains instructions to specific people (Cowdery, D&C
> 104:28-9) and to specific places (D&C 52) . . . and, I'm fairly sure
> that didn't stop after the church was more fully organized:
No it didn't stop but I think some of those revelations were canonized
as examples of how it's done. They set a pattern and it's good to
have that pattern documented.
David / Amicus
God.>>
Who does then? The president of the church?
<<"Where can one look to find what the definitive...."?
>From the scriptures and by prayer and the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
>>
I've done that. That's one of the reasons I'm Catholic!
Scott
> Why is their view any less valid than your own?
Sure it's valid, but not supported by church policy.
> But don't you see the paradox here?
>
> The above quote isn't canonized Scripture, so (by your own
> admission) it's not authoritative. <g>
Ha, you got me there :)
I suppose I would say that the statement above is from a church leader
commecnting on church policy, which he has the right and authority to
do so. Church doctrine and church policy and different things, the
authorities could come out say say "from now on all general conference
talks will be added to the scriptures" or something like that. That
would be a change in policy, adding more items to our doctrine. So I
suppose it's a subtle difference.
Regards,
Scott
Wayne Doust
wrote:
>If you can't trust an apostle to get it right / straight / accurate then
>to whom can you go? Where can one look to find what the definitive and
>authoritive teachings of the LDS church are?
This is a good question. I suppose the best answer is that GA's will
not speak anything CONTRARY to Doctrine. Remember that Doctrine is
fairly narrow by definition. So when a GA says he doesn't think that
drinking Coke is a good thing to do, that doesn't make it Doctrine.
Remember what JS response when asked what he would teach his people.
He replied "We teach them correct principles and let them govern
themselves".
The scriptures teach Gospel Principles.
The church implements Doctrine based upon those principles.
Individuals and families decide upon specific rules for themselves
prayerfully.
-----
This is a test of the emergency signature system.
If this were a real test, you would be reading an amusing anecdote,
personal philosophy, or corporate disclaimer. This is just a test.
Matthew W. I. Dunn
> "Matthew W. I. Dunn" <mwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:vi0117l...@news.supernews.com...
> > "Canonized" not "cannonized"
>
> my bad, sorry.
>
I hope you didn't mind. I wasn't trying to be pretentious.
> > So, why is the Bible part of the Standard Works?
>
> Because it contains truths pertaining to the Kingdom of God and
> is of sufficeint merit to warrant regular study and attention.
>
> > Have its books merely been made part of a canon or are they
> also inspired?
>
> Personally, I think that there are parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls
> that are equally inspired. The canonization of the Bible was a
> political process as much as it was a religious one. If it were
> done by the Lord's prophet in the latter-days, I think it would
> quite different. However, such was not the case and the Church
> has accepted the Bible as part of our Standard Works, in part
> because it was in common use by Christians of the day and was
> accurate "as far as it is translated correctly".
This is somewhat off the topic that I proposed.
But, I ask it, anyways.
The canon of the NT was decided upon around the 5th century. By that
time, the church had been well on its way to apostasy. Indeed, the
keys were long gone.
Could you, then, rely on the decisions of apostate "Christians" for
which books were the Word of God and which were not?
Does the fact that the LDS church accepted the New Testament canon "as
is" mean that (at least, on that issue) those apostates got it right?
Since the LDS church accepted the shorter version of the Old
Testament, does that mean the 2nd century rabbis at Jamnia got it
right?
Not Important
> <<Even apostles don't know all things pertaining to the Kingdom of
> God.>>
>
> Who does then? The president of the church?
No. When Jesus Christ was in mortality, even He did not know all things
pertaining to the Kingdom of God. For example, He did not know the time of
His return.
Snip
Kathryn Simpson
> <<Even apostles don't know all things pertaining to the Kingdom
of
> God.>>
>
> Who does then? The president of the church?
God.
Wayne Doust
<burli...@ontario.ca> wrote:
>To me, that sounds like two good reasons *not* to accept
>the Bible as part of the Standard Works. "Because everyone
>else does" sounds like a worldly and unspiritual reason, even
>an arbitrary "non-reason", and the translation issue is another
>reason, IMO.
IMO, saying the Bible is true as far as it is translated correctly is
not a cop-out. You have to put that statement in the context of a
revealed, restored church led by a prophet inspired of God and in the
context of HOW you study the Gospel.
For the MISSIONARY church. Gosepl study is Apologetic. That is the KJV
is THE word of God with qualification only for modern scholarship.
That is, looking at original translations and newly discovered
manuscripts.
For Exegetic study of the Gospel. We belive that if all the Bibles in
the world be destroyed a thousand years ago and only recently
discovered, the teachings of the church would be found to conform with
Bible teachings.
For Formatic study of the Gospel, most of the Bible may be ignored
except for certain sections of the NT. Primarily, we do things
slightly different nowdays. Sometimes it's good to contrast how we do
things today with how the earlt church did them.
Essentially, if you are not a member of the church, discussing the
Gospel with members of the church, then the qualification does not
apply. To quote the introduction to the Book of Mormon: "The Book of
Mormon is a volume of Holy Scripture comparable to the Bible. ... and
contains, AS DOES THE BIBLE, the fulness of the everlasting Gospel."
[Emphasis Added]
Hence the Bible contains ALL the instruction necessary for salvation
[generic term used]. So, WHY do we have the Book of Mormon? IMO the
reasons are three:
1) To fulfill prophecy [No, I will not elaborate] and to prove that JS
WAS a prophet and did establish the Church of Jesus Christ.
2) To act as the second witness that Jesus is the Christ. One
archaelogical, one miraculous. Esentially, a conversion tool. If you
believe the Bible, you SHOULD have no trouble believing the BoM since
they teach the same things.
3) To prove that that God is the same Yesterday, Today and Forever.
Heck. Just read 2 Nephi 28 through 33.Ten pages tops.
As a missionary I found the BoM the most powerful converting tool
there was. The message was simple. Don't take MY word for it, read it
and pray about it. Simple. [For most anyway. Some day I will post
about my experiences with Daryl the Baptist prophet!]
For MY part, I think there are definitely sections of the OT that
really shouldn't be there. I believe the Bible has thicknesses and
thinnesses (sp) in its spiritual content.
A task I did once as an exercise was to "speed read" the OT. I read
approx 30 pages per day which gave it a blurry outline and enable me
to read it in under a month. Not enough to comprehend the meaning of
many verses of scripture, but it DID give me a spiritual barometer
feeling. Some books were high, some low. The Psalms and Proverbs were
particularly high and when I hit Isaiah, it almost blew me away! Job
felt like I was reading something out of "Especially for Mormon's" and
The Song of Solomon felt like pagan love poetry.
I did this with 3 Nephi once. Read it twice in two days. Scary
experience!
Regards,
Wayne
Jeff Shirton
> Geesh, Jeff, you sure question the small things more than I do.
> <g>
Maybe I don't consider the things I question to be "small things".
<g>
> Why did it take nearly 1000 years to canonize the Bible?
To the best of my knowledge, it didn't.
What gives you that impression?
> How can we even know that what was recorded
> 2000 years ago is accurate?
I have three things that convince me of that:
1) testimony of the Holy Spirit;
2) testimony of the historical Jesus;
3) textual criticism.
> Why should I trust the Constitution?
I don't know... Why should you?
Do you believe the Constitution was developed under
the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as the Bible was?
I don't. (But my opinion doesn't really count, as I'm
not American...<g>)
> It took several revisions and a couple of years to get it right.
I guess that's what happens when man, rather than God,
is in control of things.
Btw, I note that after all is said and done, you still didn't
answer my questions. I hope that was simply an oversight
on your part.
So from God's perspective, were they "Scripture" in 1836/1918,
or were they not "Scripture" until 1980 or so? When God issued
the prophecies, did He mean for them to be Scripture immediately,
or was it God's plan for the LDS church to "sit on them" so to
speak for 70-140 years and only become binding "Scripture"
when they were published in the D&C?
And if there can be a "time delay", then how can anyone say
that "<X> isn't Scripture/binding/inspired/whatever" when for
all they know it could become canonized at any time?
--
Kathryn Simpson
> I hope you didn't mind. I wasn't trying to be pretentious.
You? Pretentious? <g>
Seriously, I'm not beyond being corrected. It really only bothers
me when people try and tell me that I believe something that I
really don't believe or vise versa. For example, people that try
and tell me that because I'm LDS, I don't really believe in
Christ. That bothers me. Only I know what I believe and don't
believe.
Correcting me in doctrine or facts doesn't bother me... too much.
<g>
> The canon of the NT was decided upon around the 5th century.
By that
> time, the church had been well on its way to apostasy. Indeed,
the
> keys were long gone.
And that was my point. The keys to revelation were long gone by
the time the Bible, in its current form, was "canonized".
Whether elements that were not selected for canonization then are
later selected by the Prophet to be canonized, I won't even
speculate.
> Could you, then, rely on the decisions of apostate "Christians"
for
> which books were the Word of God and which were not?
The writers of the books of the Bible were not apostates. The
apostates only compiled them (and did so to suit their own
purposes, btw) into what we call a "canonized" form. They
deleted some books that contain truth and kept some that was
grossly mistranslated in some areas. However, it is a testimony
of Jesus Christ and for the most part, it is worthy of respect
and study.
> Does the fact that the LDS church accepted the New Testament
canon "as
> is" mean that (at least, on that issue) those apostates got it
right?
I think it suffices to remember the Article of Faith that says,
"... we also believe The Bible to be the word of God, as far as
it is translated correctly".
> Since the LDS church accepted the shorter version of the Old
> Testament, does that mean the 2nd century rabbis at Jamnia got
it
> right?
When William Manchester wrote, "The Glory and the Dream", did he
get all of the history of the United States right? Probably
enough for an excellent resource on the history of the United
States, but probably not perfect. That similar (loosly so) as to
how I view scripture. It is an excellent resource, but is not
perfect. By the same token, I don't study the scriptures in
order to look for the imperfections. Quite the contrary, I look
to it to see how I can better perfect my own life and become more
like our Savior.
Ann Porter
>
> "David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:vi45d6...@news.supernews.com...
> > <<Even apostles don't know all things pertaining to the Kingdom
> of
> > God.>>
> >
> > Who does then? The president of the church?
>
> God.
Dunk!
And One!
Best,
Ann
Kathryn Simpson
> >
> > God.
>
> Dunk!
>
> And One!
Wait! You mean it wasn't a three pointer?! <g>
Geesh, those Church refs...
;=)
Someone
> > > > Who does then? The president of the church?
> > >
> > > God.
> >
> > Dunk!
> >
> > And One!
>
> Wait! You mean it wasn't a three pointer?! <g>
>
> Geesh, those Church refs...
>
> ;=)
> --
It was practically a free throw!
Ann Porter
> > > > Who does then? The president of the church?
> > >
> > > God.
> >
> > Dunk!
> >
> > And One!
>
> Wait! You mean it wasn't a three pointer?! <g>
>
> Geesh, those Church refs...
Never met anyone who could dunk from the three point line. I could have
said "Threeeeeeee!!!" I suppose.
ObLDS Do the gyms/cultural halls with full-size courts have three point
lines?
Best,
Ann
TenKMan
"Ann Porter" <porte...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vie5qcc...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > Geesh, those Church refs...
>
> Never met anyone who could dunk from the three point line. I could
have
> said "Threeeeeeee!!!" I suppose.
>
> ObLDS Do the gyms/cultural halls with full-size courts have three
point
> lines?
Yes, but the refs are still bad.
>
> Best,
> Ann
>
>
>
Joel Rees
> news:vidhbr7...@news.supernews.com...
> > > > > Who does then? The president of the church?
> > > >
> > > > God.
> > >
> > > Dunk!
> > >
> > > And One!
> >
> > Wait! You mean it wasn't a three pointer?! <g>
> >
> > Geesh, those Church refs...
>
> Never met anyone who could dunk from the three point line.
And I see in my mind a picture of God leaping backwards from the three
point line and sailing clean in without touching the floor, for a slam
in perfect form. Would He be careful not to break the glass?
Oh, wait, that was Kathryn! <8-0
> I could have
> said "Threeeeeeee!!!" I suppose.
>
> ObLDS Do the gyms/cultural halls with full-size courts have three point
> lines?
Last time I saw one it did, but that was more than ten years ago, I
think.
Joel
Kathryn Simpson
"Someone" <gfull...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vie3qvs...@news.supernews.com...
> It was practically a free throw!
That would explain Ann's "ONE". <g>
Oblig LDS... If you make your free throw shot but the ref
doesn't see it because she is distracted by her 2 year old up on
the stage, does it still count? <yes, this has happened <g>>
Kathryn Simpson
could have
> said "Threeeeeeee!!!" I suppose.
I'll consider your correction to be inspired and take the points
and run. <g>
> ObLDS Do the gyms/cultural halls with full-size courts have
three point
> lines?
Our relatively new Stake Center has a full court, but I've never
noticed three point halos. I'll have to check on Sunday.
Kathryn Simpson
"Joel Rees" <jo...@alpsgiken.gr.jp> wrote in message
news:vieq3ug...@news.supernews.com...
> And I see in my mind a picture of God leaping backwards from
the three
> point line and sailing clean in without touching the floor, for
a slam
> in perfect form. Would He be careful not to break the glass?
>
> Oh, wait, that was Kathryn! <8-0
LOL, that would truly have to be in your dreams. <g>
And besides, I'm more of a volleyball fan. Though the injury to
my arm is going to prevent me from returning to that any time
soon. This week the doc recommended orthroscopic surgery. Am
going to put it off until September though.