Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Standard Works - Our Measuring Rod?


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

It reinforces the view that Mormonism places obedience as a pinnacle attribute. Which kind of conflicts with the idea that we are here to learn and grow. According to the scripture you quote we are simply here to learn to obey.

I don't read it that way at all... and certainly not when reading the entire chapter context...   

GG

Link to comment
8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Since your process does not require God at all why would anyone presume to call it revelation in the first place. We have plenty of other serviceable words to use for what you describe.

I'm fine with updating our language to reflect a more modern understanding of how things work.  

Link to comment
16 hours ago, pogi said:

Should we assume that all of these passages are mistranslated, or is the church failing to use the standard works as the standard for all teachings, doctrines, and practices...  Do you see the possible conundrum here?  If these passages are not mistranslated, are we bound to accept them and uphold them as the mind and will of God as stated in the articles of faith?

I am sure that others could come up with several other Biblical passages that don't square with current church teachings or practices, so I wonder if we really, truly treat the standard works as the definitive standard, or if we are using them as a good reference only.  How does one reconcile our practices (which may be contrary to Bible teachings) with our claim to use the scriptures as our measuring rod?

I don't want this to turn into a discussion about the role of women (save that for Papa's thread), but more a discussion about the role of the standard works.

Finally, shouldn't the highest standard be the Holy Spirit?  Referring to the scriptures as "the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine", sounds too sola scriptura to me.  What think ye?

Pogi, I'd say you're seeing the tip of the conundrum iceberg.  If you keep picking at this scab and you could end up in a more formal discussion with church council.  

But I encourage you to continue seeking, ask questions and try to look objectively at what you've been taught.  Why are there so many things that just don't quite add up with LDS theology?  I remember wondering why the prophet never finished the translation of the Bible (JST).  I mean, if we have a living prophet, and Heavenly Father clearly wanted us to have this, why hasn't this been finished?   Why does the BoM (most correct of any book) have verbatim passages from the KJV, yet the JST corrected those "mistranslated" KJV passages?  How embarrassing!

Truth - if it really is truth - will always withstand questions,  but error can never be questioned (for good reason)...  

Link to comment
17 hours ago, pogi said:

As a church, we uphold the standard works as the "standard of judgment and the measuring rod against which all doctrines and views are weighed...The scriptures always take precedence"...  The standard works are binding upon us and we have covenanted to obey them. 

The best example of this being incorrect is D&C 89.  It specifically says it's not a commandment but now church policy has it as a commandment.  There has been no canonical update like OD1 did with D&C 132.  This is a mandatory requirement of every worthy Latter-Day Saint and something that affects the everyday life of  every Mormon yet the policy is a direct contradiction of scripture. 

Phaedrus 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, bluebell said:

I get what you are saying, but i disagree.  I believe that we are bound by the words of the prophets (when they are speaking as a prophet) even when those words have not been canonized.  I think that Christ will hold each of us accountable to how well we 'followed the prophets' that led us.

Agreed.  The point I am trying to make though is that the canonized word is more authoritative as official doctrine in the church, as they have been accepted and approved unanimously by the first presidency, quorum of the 12, and by common consent of the general membership.  It is the standard by which we are counseled to measure all words of the prophets against, and is binding upon us:

Quote

President Hugh B. Brown taught that we are required only to “defend those doctrines of the Church contained in the four standard works. . . . Anything beyond that by anyone is his or her own opinion and not scripture. . . . The only way I know of by which the teachings of any person or group may become binding upon the church is if the teachings have been reviewed by all the brethren, submitted to the highest councils of the church, and then approved by the whole body of the church.

The word "canon" itself means this:

Quote

A word of Greek origin, originally meaning ‘a rod for testing straightness...(Bible Dictionary, “canon,” 630–31).

The standard works are more authoritative than any isolated statement from a prophet because of the process it has been subjected to.  This has been so consistently taught in the church that it would be near impossible to argue that this is not the official position of the church.  

Quote

Elder Bruce R. McConkie, who was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, taught: “From the days of the first dispensation it has been the practice of the Lord’s people to make selections from the scriptural utterances of those who are appointed to lead the Church and to publish these selections as formal and official scripture. All should be accepted and believed by all who call themselves Saints. But the revelations, visions, prophecies, and narrations selected and published for official use are thereby made binding upon the people in a particular and special sense. They become part of the standard works of the Church. They become the standards, the measuring rods, by which doctrine and procedure are determined” (“A New Commandment: Save Thyself and Thy Kindred,” Ensign, Aug. 1976, 7).

There are hundreds of these quotes from official sources consistently taught in the church.  

That means that passages I posted in the OP are more authoritative than any non-canonical teachings or practice...that is the conundrum that I am finding difficult to reconcile.  

We are not bound to follow ALL of the prophets words, but only when he is speaking as a prophet.  However, we are taught that when a book/revelation has gone through the process of being accepted by common consent, it absolutely becomes binding upon us.  That is why the modern version of the word of wisdom is binding upon us (even though it is not found in the scriptures) - it was accepted by common consent of the church, thus becoming a covenant commandment that we are bound to follow.  By the same law, we are bound to all passages of scripture that have been accepted by the same process.  

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, pogi said:

We are not bound to follow ALL of the prophets words, but only when he is speaking as a prophet.  However, we are taught that when a book/revelation has gone through the process of being accepted by common consent, it absolutely becomes binding upon us.  That is why the modern version of the word of wisdom is binding upon us (even though it is not found in the scriptures) - it was accepted by common consent of the church, thus becoming a covenant commandment that we are bound to follow.  

When was the modern version of the Word of Wisdom accepted by common consent of the Church? 

Link to comment

This claim of the BoM being the " most correct book "  raises several questions . 1. Does that mean it is the most correct that will ever be written ? 3. Does it mean it is the most correct up to the time it was printed? 3. Does it mean that it cannot be revised/improved ? 4. Does it mean that it is the most correct in all aspects ie. historical, scientific, spiritual , etc, or perhaps just the most correct in its presentation of the gospel?

  If there is no room for nuance in the statement , that makes it very easy to set up as a strawman. There is the scripture that " God is a spirit ". Hence game, set , match. Any other scriptures that present anything in contradiction are obviously mistranslated or worse, false.

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

The best example of this being incorrect is D&C 89.  It specifically says it's not a commandment but now church policy has it as a commandment.  There has been no canonical update like OD1 did with D&C 132.  This is a mandatory requirement of every worthy Latter-Day Saint and something that affects the everyday life of  every Mormon yet the policy is a direct contradiction of scripture. 

Phaedrus 

This is a good point, and a point of contention that a lot of people have with the current version of the word of wisdom. 

However, even though it is not found in the standard works, the church did covenant to abstain from alcohol etc. via the law of common consent, and thus it has become binding upon us.

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, rongo said:

When was the modern version of the Word of Wisdom accepted by common consent of the Church? 

At a general conference of the church held on September 9, 1851.  Granted, it may not be identical to the current version, but that is when strict prohibition of certain items was accepted by common consent of the church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Wisdom

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, FormerLDS said:

Pogi, I'd say you're seeing the tip of the conundrum iceberg.  If you keep picking at this scab and you could end up in a more formal discussion with church council.  

But I encourage you to continue seeking, ask questions and try to look objectively at what you've been taught.  Why are there so many things that just don't quite add up with LDS theology?  I remember wondering why the prophet never finished the translation of the Bible (JST).  I mean, if we have a living prophet, and Heavenly Father clearly wanted us to have this, why hasn't this been finished?   Why does the BoM (most correct of any book) have verbatim passages from the KJV, yet the JST corrected those "mistranslated" KJV passages?  How embarrassing!

Truth - if it really is truth - will always withstand questions,  but error can never be questioned (for good reason)...  

Former LDS, what do you believe about those passages I posted in the OP?  Do you accept them as God's word and will for women?  Do you accept every word written in the Bible as fundamental doctrine and truth?  If so, perhaps you have your own scabs to pick at...

I am personally comfortable with inconsistency from the brethren and the scriptures.  I expect it.  I am just playing devils advocate (which ironically seems to be the position of the church), to see how others deal with these seeming inconsistencies. 

What do other people use as their standard?  Why? How do they reconcile these things in their minds?  I am just curious to see the thought process of other members regarding the scriptures in light of the church's teachings. 

Link to comment
19 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The problem with just saying, the Holy Spirit is the yardstick, is that there is no consensus about what the spirit is saying.  What makes more sense to me is a rigorous evaluation and continued discussion about what our core values are, what is fair, what is pragmatic, what is enlightened based on our best understanding.  This evaluation and prioritization is what I think the purpose of continuing revelation is all about.  It requires a shifting of our positions based on the best information we have available to us.  It requires a childlike humility to reconsider our earlier positions, and it requires a commitment to truth and goodness in spite of our personal biases.  

So you are suggesting that man's understanding is more reliable then the Holy Spirit as a measuring rod?

On one hand you are saying we shouldn't use the Holy Spirit as the yard stick, but on the other hand you are saying that we should be committed to our best understanding of truth via continuing revelation...  How does revelation come if not through the Holy Spirit?

It is true that there might not be consensus about what the spirit might be saying, but this doesn't make the Holy Spirit any less reliable.  It says more about man and his inconsistencies then it says about the Holy Spirit.  God has given us a perfect tool, because we sometimes misuse it, or misunderstand it, doesn't justify ditching it.  Without it, we are hopelessly doomed, as there could be no reliable standard.     

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

This is a good point, and a point of contention that a lot of people have with the current version of the word of wisdom. 

However, even though it is not found in the standard works, the church did covenant to abstain from alcohol etc. via the law of common consent, and thus it has become binding upon us.

Therefore by order of priority policies accepted by common consent are above the scriptures. 

Link to comment
18 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This requires some critical evaluation of terms, what does it mean to believe the Bible is the word of God, knowing that all the books in the bible do not harmonize, are written by different authors with different view points writing to various different audiences for different reasons using different genres of writing to try and accomplish their purposes.  It seems the recent trend in fundamentalist interpretations of scripture is an approach that tries to ignore the complexities of scripture and attempts to align people into a specific dogma about how to interpret scripture and call other perspectives heretical.  This trend is not supported by the rich history of the tradition and is an alarming one.  

An important question would be how do we account for the cultural biases of the people that wrote these scriptures.  What is environmental bias and what represents more inspired principles.  With respect to women, we have much more light and understanding today about the value of women, shouldn't we use that light and understanding and accept that many people 2000+ years earlier had a less enlightened understanding.  

The problem with just saying, the Holy Spirit is the yardstick, is that there is no consensus about what the spirit is saying.  What makes more sense to me is a rigorous evaluation and continued discussion about what our core values are, what is fair, what is pragmatic, what is enlightened based on our best understanding.  This evaluation and prioritization is what I think the purpose of continuing revelation is all about.  It requires a shifting of our positions based on the best information we have available to us.  It requires a childlike humility to reconsider our earlier positions, and it requires a commitment to truth and goodness in spite of our personal biases.  

 

Elder J. Reuben Clark Jr. stated:

Quote

. . .  [E]ven the President of the Church, himself, may not always be ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ when he addresses the people. This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the peoples themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not “moved upon by the Holy Ghost.”  How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest. (As quoted in footnote 6, The Doctrine of Christ, Elder D. Todd Christofferson, http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng)

This is true most observably in recent cases such as Brigham Young’s Adam-God doctrine (denounced by Spencer W. Kimball)(http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1976/10/our-own-liahona?lang=eng&query=adam+god+theory), the Church’s recent denunciation of President Young’s doctrine on Blood Atonement (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700041267/Mormon-church-statement-on-blood-atonement.html), and the Church’s recent denunciation of the previous doctrines on Blacks and the Priesthood originating with Brigham Young, which were inherited from the environment of the time (http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood).

The real answer is, the GENERAL case is that the scriptures are the measuring stick.  And what it is really saying is that only TIME is the true arbiter, about how the Holy Ghost works on the members themselves over time, and whether a teaching is rejected or accepted many years or even a century after the fact.  Since things are given little by little, it stands to reason that only that trickle of revelation over time can really tell us.

This is not about how the Church is to be run though, because doctrine as it ought to be preached at a certain point in time ought to be about what is accepted by correlation.  So even if someone is speaking truth, that person can be disciplined if that truth is not doctrinal at the time, meaning that the Church may not catch up for many years until after the time.  It doesn't mean that just because a person is speaking truth, that that truth is doctrinal at the time.  Doctrine has to do with that which is accepted at the time.  It doesn't necessarily mean that what is accepted will turn out to be ultimately true in the ultimate sense.  Therefore, people that have truth revealed to them independently before the time that the Church does as an institution ought to keep silent and keep it personal, because such things could still be considered non-authoritative and non-doctrinal, and ought not to be preached until the right time.

To further complicate things, Elder John A. Widtsoe testified of the importance of the record of the rocks and of the discoveries in science, and referred to the facts of nature as a form of divine revelation:

Quote

God speaks in various ways to men. The stars, the clouds, the mountains, the grass and the soil, are all, to him who reads aright, forms of divine revelation. Many of the noblest attributes of God may be learned by a study of the laws according to which Omnipotent Will directs the universe.  Nowhere is this principle more beautifully illustrated and confirmed than in the rocks that constitute the crust of the earth. On them is written in simple plainness the history of the earth almost from that beginning, when the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Yet, for centuries, men saw the rocks, their forms and their adaptations to each other, without understanding the message written in them. Only, as the wonderful nineteenth century approached, did the vision open, and the interpretation of the story of the rocks become apparent. (John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Smith as Scientist, http://cumorah.com/index.php?target=etext_lib&stage2=310)

Therefore, people need to be careful to not dismiss science, just because LDS tradition may go contrary to what has been revealed in certain areas of science.  It may be that in time to come, official LDS positions may get closer to the positions of current science than some scriptural literalist fundamentalist thinkers may be comfortable with.  Therefore, scripture interpretations are key, because if science turns out to ultimately be right about such things as evolution, then the interpretations of scripture that were very literalist in times past will be abandoned in favor of increasingly non-literal interpretations that harmonize more with science.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, pogi said:

As a church, we uphold the standard works as the "standard of judgment and the measuring rod against which all doctrines and views are weighed...The scriptures always take precedence".  We accept the Bible as the word of God "as far as it is translated correctly".  The standard works are binding upon us and we have covenanted to obey them. 

Here are some supporting quotes:

Question 1) Do we really accept everything in the Bible as the word of God, and the standard by which all practices and doctrines should be measured, so far as it is translated correctly?

In another thread, we have been discussing the roles of women as outlined in scripture.  Here are some passages being discussed:

Should we assume that all of these passages are mistranslated, or is the church failing to use the standard works as the standard for all teachings, doctrines, and practices...  Do you see the possible conundrum here?  If these passages are not mistranslated, are we bound to accept them and uphold them as the mind and will of God as stated in the articles of faith?

I am sure that others could come up with several other Biblical passages that don't square with current church teachings or practices, so I wonder if we really, truly treat the standard works as the definitive standard, or if we are using them as a good reference only.  How does one reconcile our practices (which may be contrary to Bible teachings) with our claim to use the scriptures as our measuring rod?

I don't want this to turn into a discussion about the role of women (save that for Papa's thread), but more a discussion about the role of the standard works.

Finally, shouldn't the highest standard be the Holy Spirit?  Referring to the scriptures as "the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine", sounds too sola scriptura to me.  What think ye?

It's true that the standard works were once considered to be the measuring rod by which everything was judged. That doesn't seem to be the case any longer. Now whatever senior church leadership agree on is the rule.

Regarding Q1, it would be impossible to accept everything in the Bible as the word of God. The Bible is an anthology, not a book. There are many different viewpoints in it.

Edited by Gray
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, pogi said:

So you are suggesting that man's understanding is more reliable then the Holy Spirit as a measuring rod?

On one hand you are saying we shouldn't use the Holy Spirit as the yard stick, but on the other hand you are saying that we should be committed to our best understanding of truth via continuing revelation...  How does revelation come if not through the Holy Spirit?

It is true that there might not be consensus about what the spirit might be saying, but this doesn't make the Holy Spirit any less reliable.  It says more about man and his inconsistencies then it says about the Holy Spirit.  God has given us a perfect tool, because we sometimes misuse it, or misunderstand it, doesn't justify ditching it.  Without it, we are hopelessly doomed, as there could be no reliable standard.     

A literal/physical measuring rod is an objective tool that can be used in very practical ways and that can be agreed upon in a group setting.  I don't see how the Holy Spirit could be used in the same way.  Its subjective and personal.  

I'm suggesting a by common consent evaluation process that can include individual insights(spiritual insights) that are then shared in a group setting and prioritized and evaluated alongside all the other ideas to come up with a collective direction. 

Link to comment

 

Quote

Finally, shouldn't the highest standard be the Holy Spirit?  Referring to the scriptures as "the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine", sounds too sola scriptura to me.  What think ye?

The short answer to your question is that there is nothing in the scriptures that the Church (at the direction of the Prophet) can't change or contradict.

Certainly, there are things that it won't change or contradict because it doesn't need to.   But as you've already figured out, there is tons of stuff in the Standard Works that we don't believe in, teach or adhere to.

 

But President Benson ably summarized the practical view when he taught this:

Quote

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.

President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

“I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living prophets and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’

“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham I want you to go to the podium and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’” (Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19.)

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

I suspect if you research different off-shoot movements from the Church Joseph Smith started, you'll find that many of them base their entity on a more strict reading of the scriptures than the LDS Church follows. 

Ultimately, LDS have been comfortable treating the scriptures more like the Pirate Code.  It's "guidelines."

Edited by cinepro
Link to comment
57 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

Therefore by order of priority policies accepted by common consent are above the scriptures. 

That seems to be the case.  Since the scriptures were received by common consent, a policy/teaching cannot officially supersede it without common consent. 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, pogi said:

As a church, we uphold the standard works as the "standard of judgment and the measuring rod against which all doctrines and views are weighed...The scriptures always take precedence"

How does this statement (especially the bold portion) hold up to what we were told in the 14 Fundamentals in Following the Prophet By President Benson?

#2 The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.
#3 The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

Does the word "vital" refer only to policies or to doctrine as well?

Link to comment
19 hours ago, pogi said:

I tend to agree with you guys and the Brigham Young quote.  But this raises questions.  Should I accept this non canonical quote by Brigham as more binding then the standard works?

Have the standard works not been unanimously accepted by the first presidency and apostles, and subsequently accepted by common consent of the church as binding doctrine upon us?  Can there be anything more doctrinal then the standard works?  

We didn’t pick and choose some passages and not others to accept as binding, we accepted ALL of the standard works - every passage.  

Did we bind ourselves into a pickle?

It seems to me you're setting up a false dichotomy by ignoring hermeneutics and exegesis. Put an other way, you're making an assumption about what it means to accept the scriptures as binding. You're treating that as if the scriptures are akin to the law books the state and federal government makes. I think that an incorrect treatment. Understandable as conservative Christians who accept sola scripture and inerrancy make such a move. But I think it an incorrect one.

The second problem you're making is assuming that because scripture is the measure that means nothing else matters. However any carpenter who relies only on measurements will quickly find their wood project doesn't fit together. Yes measure twice, cut once. But you also have to adjust by how things show they fit together.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
16 hours ago, bluebell said:

It is studied in Sunday school and seminary. It’s studied when the OT is studied because both books deal with the creation and fall.

Thanks to all of you.  Perhaps I just missed this or misunderstood when studying for classes..but thanks.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...