What Is Considered Scripture?

[MeDotOrg]

Brigham Young said: “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve”

This has been interpreted to mean Brigham Young’s sermons should be considered as scripture under two conditions:

1. That he had the chance to correct a sermon.

2. That he identified the sermon as scripture.

For me this raises several questions:

Is there a list of sermons that he corrected?

Of the sermons he corrected, is there any list as to the ones he identified as scripture?

What is the proper weight or relevance to be given to sermons that are not identified as scripture?

What is the proper weight and relevance to give other sermons in the Journal of Discourses?

I apologize if this question has been answered before.

[David T]

Scripture is distinct from canon which is distinct from doctrine which is distinct fromTruth.

"Scripture" literally means "a writing", or "something written". It's generally used to mean the written expression of spiritual or revealed enlightenment.

Canon is a "measuring stick", or is a Standard Work of scripture recognized and accepted authoritative , binding, and generally trustworthy by a community of faith.

Doctrine is the "teaching" of the community, based on authoritative interpretation of the Canon.

All are attempts to express one's understanding of revealed Truth.

I like to say, "We believe scripture to be the word of God, insofar as it is translated correctly", leaving individual volumes or documents out of the equation. Even if the original speaker/writer was presenting in his own native language, all scripture is a 'translation' or making sense of a deposit of divine insight. that insight isn't always 'translated correctly' in the mind of the recipient and recorder.

I find many sermons and messages that contain doctrinal and historical principles that I believe to be very incorrect to be scriptural, or even scripture. That doesn't mean that they are canonized, current doctrine, or in their entirety express nothing but Truth.

Also, there are at times writings I would consider to be scriptural that are not canonized or doctrinal which I find to be filled with Truth.

There's a lot of what I believe to be doctrinal error in the Journal of Discourses that is not in line with Truth (I could say that about some aspects of modern General Conference talks!). However, there are many thoughts expressed which were part of the evolutionary development of what has since become current Doctrine. I find them useful historical and contextual artifacts, and many of them were authoritative and 'doctrine' in their own day. But today, they are historical artifacts.

They are not, however, "canon", or current expressions of authoritative "doctrine".

Frankly, I believe D&C 91 should be applied to all didactic writings:

1Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning [scriptural writings] There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

2There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.

4Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;

5And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;

6And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited.

Edited July 27, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Jeff K.]

Scripture is distinct from canon which is distinct from doctrine which is distinct fromTruth.

"Scripture" literally means "a writing", or "something written". It's generally used to mean the written expression of spiritual or revealed enlightenment.

Canon is a "measuring stick", or is a Standard Work of scripture recognized and accepted authoritative , binding, and generally trustworthy by a community of faith.

Doctrine is the "teaching" of the community, based on authoritative interpretation of the Canon.

All are attempts to express one's understanding of revealed Truth.

I like to say, "We believe scripture to be the word of God, insofar as it is translated correctly", leaving individual volumes or documents out of the equation. Even if the original speaker/writer was presenting in his own native language, all scripture is a 'translation' or making sense of a deposit of divine insight. that insight isn't always 'translated correctly' in the mind of the recipient and recorder.

I find many sermons and messages that contain doctrinal and historical principles that I believe to be very incorrect to be scriptural, or even scripture. That doesn't mean that they are canonized, current doctrine, or in their entirety express nothing but Truth.

Also, there are at times writings I would consider to be scriptural that are not canonized or doctrinal which I find to be filled with Truth.

There's a lot of what I believe to be doctrinal error in the Journal of Discourses that is not in line with Truth (I could say that about some aspects of modern General Conference talks!). However, there are many thoughts expressed which were part of the evolutionary development of what has since become current Doctrine. I find them useful historical and contextual artifacts, and many of them were authoritative and 'doctrine' in their own day. But today, they are historical artifacts.

They are not, however, "canon", or current expressions of authoritative "doctrine".

Frankly, I believe D&C 91 should be applied to all didactic writings:

1Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning [scriptural writings] There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

2There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.

4Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;

5And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;

6And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited.

I agree.

Lesellers, don't say "who with"

Edited July 27, 2011 by Jeff K.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

I agree with your agreement.

[zerinus]

Brigham Young said: “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve”

This has been interpreted to mean Brigham Young’s sermons should be considered as scripture under two conditions:

1. That he had the chance to correct a sermon.

2. That he identified the sermon as scripture.

For me this raises several questions:

Is there a list of sermons that he corrected?

Of the sermons he corrected, is there any list as to the ones he identified as scripture?

What is the proper weight or relevance to be given to sermons that are not identified as scripture?

What is the proper weight and relevance to give other sermons in the Journal of Discourses?

I apologize if this question has been answered before.

There are two kinds of scripture: canonized scripture and non-canonized scripture. Canonized scripture is what is declared by the Church to be such, by an official act of canonization. Currently the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearly of Great Price constitute the canonized scriptures of the Church. Non-canonized scripture occurs when an ordained and appointed minister of God teaches, preaches, or speaks when "moved upon by the Holy Ghost:"

D&C 68

:

4 And whatsoever they shall speak

when moved upon by the Holy Ghost

shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

The question is, How do we know when someone is "moved upon by the Holy Ghost?" The answer is, We can know only if we are "moved upon by the Holy Ghost:"

D&C 50

:

17 Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

18 And if it be by some other way it is not of God.

19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

20 If it be some other way it is not of God.

21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?

22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.

With regard to your specific question concerning Brigham Young's sermons, there is a better solution. Strive to obtain that Spirit yourself, and then you will be able to know at any time if what anybody teaches is scripture, or conforms to the will of God, or not.

[LeSellers]

Currently the Bible, ... and Pearly of Great Price constitute the canonized scriptures of the Church.

And, don't forget, we brush our pearlies every night.

Lehi

[inquiringmind]

Even if the original speaker/writer was presenting in his own native language, all scripture is a 'translation' or making sense of a deposit of divine insight. that insight isn't always 'translated correctly' in the mind of the recipient and recorder.

If an angel told the three witnessses that the BOM was translated correctly, wouldn't that mean that every word is true (i.e that it's inerrant, or at least doctrinally inerreant)?

[BCSpace]

Is there a list of sermons that he corrected? Of the sermons he corrected, is there any list as to the ones he identified as scripture?

Not to my knowledge.

What is the proper weight or relevance to be given to sermons that are not identified as scripture?

If they are published by the Church, they are official doctrine. The JoD was not published by the Church, but parts of it are in various manuals etc. Those Church published parts are doctrine in that case.

What is the proper weight and relevance to give other sermons in the Journal of Discourses?

Most of the stuff is pretty good and communicates doctrine but the only way to be sure something in the JoD is doctrine is to see it published elsewhere by the Church.

[David T]

If an angel told the three witnessses that the BOM was translated correctly, wouldn't that mean that every word is true (i.e that it's inerrant, or at least doctrinally inerreant)?

An accurate translation doesn't mean the source text was infallible, or that it a word-for-word formal equivalence format, either. It means that the intended message was sufficiently conveyed.

[inquiringmind]

An accurate translation doesn't mean the source text was infallible, or that it a word-for-word formal equivalence format, either. It means that the intended message was sufficiently conveyed.

Thank you.

But what does "sufficiently conveyed" mean (in your opinion)?

[Ahab]

Scripture is what holy men write when moved upon by the Holy Spirit.

That's how the Paul defined it when writing to Timothy, and that definition is still true.

Now all you need to know is how to tell who are holy men and when they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit to write.

I do that the easy way... by asking God to tell me while listening to his answer.

[David T]

Thank you.

But what does "sufficiently conveyed" mean (in your opinion)?

The core message got across that God wanted to get across in a way intended for that people at that time.

Edited July 27, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Ahab]

Thank you.

But what does "sufficiently conveyed" mean (in your opinion)?

Enough to get the idea across when understood with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You can always ask God to give you his guidance to help you understand something, you know, so if you're ever not quite sure that you correcdtly understand what one of his messengers meant, then all you have to do is ask him for help with faith that he will help you.

The messages of his messengers mainly serve to get the ball rolling in your thinking processes and then from there you can get more help from God if you want it.

[David T]

Enough to get the idea across when understood with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You can always ask God to give you his guidance to help you understand something, you know, so if you're ever not quite sure that you correcdtly understand what one of his messengers meant, then all you have to do is ask him for help with faith that he will help you.

The messages of his messengers mainly serve to get the ball rolling in your thinking processes and then from there you can get more help from God if you want it.

Bingo. Scriptures are, for all intents and purposes, orienting landmarks. The Standard Works are filled with those which have been agreed to be the most consistently reliable.

[LeSellers]

But what does "sufficiently conveyed" mean (in your opinion)?

In the case of the Book of Mormon, it means, does the translation/transmitted text tell people that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the Redeemer and Savior of the world? If it does that, then it is adequate.

I believe it does—I believe it is.

Lehi

[inquiringmind]

In the case of the Book of Mormon, it means, does the translation/transmitted text tell people that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the Redeemer and Savior of the world? If it does that, then it is adequate.

I believe it does—I believe it is.

Lehi

And everything else is unimportant?

[David T]

And everything else is unimportant?

I believe it does significantly more than that, and in fact sets some very important compass points and landmarks for orientation down that will be the cornerstone of the Restoration movement.

[LeSellers]

And everything else is unimportant?

We were discussing what it means to be "sufficiently conveyed". That is the purpose of the Book of Mormon (see the Title Page).

It does not mean that everything else is unimportant, quite the contrary. But if the text accomplishes the goal of the Author, then that alone is sufficient.

We could discuss the significance of four (or more) set of Gaddianton Robbers/Secret Combinations, and the warning their accounts give us today. We could discuss doctrine (infant baptism, sacramental covenants, etc.), but those ar not the centrla issue, they are, however, still important.

Lehi

[Kenngo1969]

Jeff K.:

I agree with your agreement.

I agree with Nackhadlow, but I don't agree with thesometimesaint's agreement with Jeff K's agreement with Nackhadlow ... (Just to make things interesting on a slow Wednesday afternoon ... )

[Kiviuq]

The lazy part of me wishes that the prophet would make a list of everything he considers scripture based on being moved upon by the Holy Ghost as confirmation that the speaker/writer was moved upon by the Holy Ghost. But it seems it doesn’t work that way. Without an authoritative pronouncement from the top we are left with the possibility of individuals either being “moved” or “not moved upon” and were right back where we started.

[Ahab]

The lazy part of me wishes that the prophet would make a list of everything he considers scripture based on being moved upon by the Holy Ghost as confirmation that the speaker/writer was moved upon by the Holy Ghost. But it seems it doesn’t work that way. Without an authoritative pronouncement from the top we are left with the possibility of individuals either being “moved” or “not moved upon” and were right back where we started.

The goal is to become experts, ourselves, in communicating with God. If you had to rely on someone else to tell you when something is scripture, or who is a prophet of God, you'd be one step lower than God really wants you to be.

He's trying to prepare you for exaltation in the celestial order of heaven, not something less than that in some lower order of heaven.

[inquiringmind]

We were discussing what it means to be "sufficiently conveyed". That is the purpose of the Book of Mormon (see the Title Page).

It does not mean that everything else is unimportant, quite the contrary. But if the text accomplishes the goal of the Author, then that alone is sufficient.

We could discuss the significance of four (or more) set of Gaddianton Robbers/Secret Combinations, and the warning their accounts give us today. We could discuss doctrine (infant baptism, sacramental covenants, etc.), but those are not the centrlal issue, they are, however, still important.

Lehi

But does the angelic declaration that the plates were translated correctly mean that the truth of all these other things (or at least the doctrinal stuff) was perfectly conveyed by the King James language Joseph used?

For example (on another thread) Walker W wrote

The Greek monogenes really means "unique" or "one-of-a-kind." The same term is used in regards to Isaac in Heb. 11:17, who was not an only child. LXX Gen. 22:16 refers to Isaac as Abraham's "beloved son." This was probably what the NT authors were drawing on when they called Jesus God's "beloved son." There are covenant implications here.

I find explanations such as "only begotten in the flesh" to be confusing. I think they miss the point as well.

.

As I recall, several others agreed with him, but the BOM calls Christ the "only begotten" as often the New Testament does.

(Maybe more often.)

If it was "translated correctly" does that mean that those who say that "unique" or "one-of-a-kind" is a better translation are wrong?

Edited July 27, 2011 by inquiringmind

[LeSellers]

But does the angelic declaration that the plates were translated correctly mean that the truth of all these other things (or at least the doctrinal stuff) was perfectly conveyed by the King James language Joseph used?

Not necessarily. It means, as this topic is centered on, that the text was adequate or sufficient.

If it was "translated correctly" does that mean that those who say that "unique" or "one-of-a-kind" is a better translation are wrong?

I don't know if this leads to that conclusion, but they are wrong nonetheless. Monogenes means, literally, "one/unique generated".

Lehi

[inquiringmind]

Not necessarily. It means, as this topic is centered on, that the text was adequate or sufficient.

I don't know if this leads to that conclusion, but they are wrong nonetheless. Monogenes means, literally, "one/unique generated".

Lehi

Thank you Lehi.

[MeDotOrg]

Thank you one and all for your thoughtful and considered comments.