I Wish The Canon Would Expand Just A Teeny Bit

[thesometimesaint]

Oh, Interesting. I would have never thought of that. I can't think of very many instances off the cuff, but I think that there are other revelations that don't have much underpinning and yet they went straight in. D&C 76 comes to mind.

I guess you are thinking that revelation must add to knowledge in much smaller increments. Though this does not seem like a huge leap.

I think there was already Biblical underpinnings for D&C 76. Though JS did expand upon them.

Line upon line.

Edited March 22, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Freedom]

Ironically, canon is not a scriptural concept. Nowhere in the bible did God instruct his prophets to create canon. The bible was compiled and make official scripture during the apostasy. I suspect that the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants were made canon out of a standing tradition of canon. I doubt any of the writings of the New Testament were intended to be scripture. Canon is in direct opposition to the concept of continuing revelation and learning line upon line.

[CASteinman]

I think there was already Biblical underpinnings for D&C 76. Though JS did expand upon them.

Line upon line.

Well there is also Biblical underpinning for a mother in heaven. Your objection is a bit weak.

[thesometimesaint]

Well there is also Biblical underpinning for a mother in heaven. Your objection is a bit weak.

I'd like to see those.

[CASteinman]

I'd like to see those.

The first one that comes to mind is Genesis 1:27.

[thesometimesaint]

The first one that comes to mind is Genesis 1:27.

Fair assumption but still an LDS assumption. That verse says that God created male and female. Not that God has a wife.

[CASteinman]

Fair assumption but still an LDS assumption. That verse says that God created male and female. Not that God has a wife.

Yeah.. but that's about as strong as anything else that would underpin D&C 76. And its OK if it is an LDS based interpretation. After all, this is LDS Scripture and an LDS Audience.

It says that God(s) made man (him) male and female in the image of God(s).

This is a very strange and weak objection.. that new revelation shouldn't really be all that new and must be previously well attested to and supported.

Edited March 22, 2013 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

I would be surprised if the PoF were canonized in the near future, or why that joint statement should be canonized in preference to say any the works mentioned in Elder McConkie's talk http://emp.byui.edu/...-SealedBook.pdf that in his judgment should be classed as scripture--Wentworth letter, lectures on faith, doctrinal expositions on the Father and the Son and on the origin of humankind.

Interesting list. I did not know it existed -- so thanks! It really is interesting to me. I don't agree with the Wentworth letter at all. In fact, I don't really like the Articles of Faith!

I would also note that I see nothing in the PoF that directly (as distinct from by reasonable inference) even mentions same sex marriage or same sex civil unions or what rights should be extended to same sex individuals or couples.

Yes, they are entirely excluded from it. Apparently not considered relevant to the subject and the presumption throughout the document is that men and women marry each other and have children.

Edited March 22, 2013 by CASteinman

[David T]

I'd add a few of JS's personal First Vision accounts to the POGP, especially the 1832 version - my personal favorite, and the one I get the most out of. And perhaps also his revelation to the Relief Society to the D&C. (all of which have recently been made very public and available by the Church for perusal and study, with the JSPP. Deseret Book even published a heavily-promoted book with a version of JS's teachings from the RS minutes, and essays pondering its meaning).

Edited March 22, 2013 by David T

[Damien the Leper]

I'd add a few of JS's personal First Vision accounts to the POGP, especially the 1832 version - my personal favorite, and the one I get the most out of. And perhaps also his revelation to the Relief Society to the D&C.

I'm with you...great choices, David.

[thesometimesaint]

Yeah.. but that's about as strong as anything else that would underpin D&C 76. And its OK if it is an LDS based interpretation. After all, this is LDS Scripture and an LDS Audience.

It says that God(s) made man (him) male and female in the image of God(s).

This is a very strange and weak objection.. that new revelation shouldn't really be all that new and must be previously well attested to and supported.

I can see the Biblical logic behind D&C 76. After all JS was reading the Bible when he wrote it.

I believe that we have a Mother-in-Heaven, and can understand LDS assumptions on her. It's just my personal opinion that I would like to see more support for her from our doctrine, and not leave her to assumptions.

Genesis 1:27 says: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them". There is no God(s) in that verse. That is an LDS assumption. I'm fine with our assumption, especially combined with other Genesis verses.

I'm fine with new revelation. I like ham and cheese sandwiches, and most shellfish. But if we're going to add Gods I think we should proceed carefully and establish a firm foundation before we construct the building on top of it.

[Ahab]

None of them are canon now.

The canon or "standard" works are meant to be used as a standard to test whether or not other teachings are true, in the same sense that a foot or meter is a standard for measuring distance. We don't need all truth to be in the canon or standard works, and what we have is plenty to show that those other teachings you referred to are true.l

I would like PoF and KFD to be in there because of attacks on the Family. I think these support the family a lot.

Other scriptures not in the canon support family, too. I suppose another page or 2 in the canon wouldn't hurt except that it may lead some people to think something needs to be in the canon to be scripture.

Plus, I think KFD helps people to get out of some ruts. The only problem? Its unfinished doctrine. It has some holes.

If they put it in there as it is, and I wouldn't mind if they did, would you still believe some of those teachings are not true?

[CASteinman]

I'm fine with new revelation. I like ham and cheese sandwiches, and most shellfish. But if we're going to add Gods I think we should proceed carefully and establish a firm foundation before we construct the building on top of it.

That's not even new. And it is already official doctrine even if it is not canonized.

[CASteinman]

Other scriptures not in the canon support family, too. I suppose another page or 2 in the canon wouldn't hurt except that it may lead some people to think something needs to be in the canon to be scripture.

While I think I understand and agree with the gist of what you are saying, I believe that things are scripture when they have been canonized and are not scripture prior to that time. It is, in essence what the term 'canonical' means.

If they put it in there as it is, and I wouldn't mind if they did, would you still believe some of those teachings are not true?

I think I don't understand your question. I believe it is true. Why would that change if they made it scripture?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I vote:

1. King Follett Discourse

2. Sermon in the Grove

3. All the First Vision accounts

4. All the Books of Enoch

5. All the Apocrypha

6. A bunch of fun stuff like the Wisdom of Ben Sira, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospels of Thomas and Phillip, various pieces from Nag Hammadi, etc.

[Ahab]

While I think I understand and agree with the gist of what you are saying, I believe that things are scripture when they have been canonized and are not scripture prior to that time. It is, in essence what the term 'canonical' means.

No scripture is what holy men write when moved upon by the Holy Ghost. That's the literal definition, in reference to the "script" part, but I would contend it's scripture even when it's written only in our own minds, through the power of the Holy Ghost, even if it hasn't been written down on paper or metal plates. The term "canon" simply refers to it being a "standard" for measurement.

I think I don't understand your question. I believe it is true. Why would that change if they made it scripture?

I thought you were thinking something would have more credibility if it were in the standard works. To me it's just as true now as it would be if they included with the standard works, with no need to revise any of it. More explanations could help, though, which is generally the purpose of all scripture.

[Ahab]

I vote:

1. King Follett Discourse

2. Sermon in the Grove

3. All the First Vision accounts

4. All the Books of Enoch

5. All the Apocrypha

6. A bunch of fun stuff like the Wisdom of Ben Sira, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospels of Thomas and Phillip, various pieces from Nag Hammadi, etc.

How about a "daily scripture" pop up feature, and a pop quiz with questions that change daily?

It would require going to an electronic version instead of just being on paper, though, but hey, that is possible now.

[CASteinman]

No scripture is what holy men write when moved upon by the Holy Ghost. That's the literal definition,

I guess if I think about it a bit, you are right.

I thought you were thinking something would have more credibility if it were in the standard works. To me it's just as true now as it would be if they included with the standard works, with no need to revise any of it. More explanations could help, though, which is generally the purpose of all scripture.

I think it would have more credibility -- with some people.

I also would like to have a well researched and corrected version with footnotes really handy!

[rongo]

lectures on faith,

LoF was canonical until 1920, when it was removed (for good reason). I think it's highly improbable that a removed item would be reinstated later. Especially when it teaches something contradictory with D&C 130:22-23 . . .

I would also note that I see nothing in the PoF that directly (as distinct from by reasonable inference) even mentions same sex marriage or same sex civil unions or what rights should be extended to same sex individuals or couples.

????

"We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

Jeremy Orbe-Smith wrote:

4. All the Books of Enoch

5. All the Apocrypha

6. A bunch of fun stuff like the Wisdom of Ben Sira, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospels of Thomas and Phillip, various pieces from Nag Hammadi, etc.

Not necessary.

D&C 91: "Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha --- There are many things contained therein that are true . . . There are many things contained therein that are not true . . . And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom; And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.

Edited March 22, 2013 by rongo

[rockpond]

????

"We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

As is frequently pointed out by opponents of gay marriage, there aren't any procreative powers within a same gender couple. Technically speaking.

[Duncan]

As mind blowing is canonized scripture is what we need more of (and maybe this is just me speaking personally) in our lives is the influence and guidance of the Holy Ghost in and through and independant of scripture and so that revelation to us individually becomes scripture as per Doctrine and Covenants 68:1-4

[rongo]

As is frequently pointed out by opponents of gay marriage, there aren't any procreative powers within a same gender couple. Technically speaking.

Smiley noted, but "sacred powers of procreation" doesn't just refer to ability to conceive and reproduce. As you know, the PoF wasn't cleverly worded so as to craftily support homosexuality and same-sex marriage ---- just the opposite, in spades. Church leaders have consistently used phrasing about "procreative powers" in broad terms to refer to all sexual activity outside of legitimate marriage (e.g., "To Young Men Only," "Why Sexual Purity," "A Letter to a Friend," etc.).

I think that people who seek to claim that the PoF doesn't directly condemn same-sex sexuality and marriage lose credibility among thinking people. In fact, I've often thought that if same-sex marriage were to be recognized nationally through federal law, the phrasing in the PoF could easily and seamlessly replace the definition for the law of chastity in the temple (and you know that there are people who would attempt to tell their priesthood leaders, with a straight face, "But we are legally and lawfully married, so we're keeping the law of chastity").

[omni]

Yes. If only we had a recording. It's hard enough to make sermons cannon as it is, let alone when we only have what the scribes could catch. But it is extremely dense in its doctrine. I wish we spent time studying it more in church instead of 1 Nephi 3:7 again and again.

Why would we need a recording when we have a living prophet? If it was such significant doctrine, why doesn't the lord just reveal it through his living prophet so there's no more guessing what exactly he meant?

[rockpond]

Smiley noted, but "sacred powers of procreation" doesn't just refer to ability to conceive and reproduce. As you know, the PoF wasn't cleverly worded so as to craftily support homosexuality and same-sex marriage ---- just the opposite, in spades. Church leaders have consistently used phrasing about "procreative powers" in broad terms to refer to all sexual activity outside of legitimate marriage (e.g., "To Young Men Only," "Why Sexual Purity," "A Letter to a Friend," etc.).

I think that people who seek to claim that the PoF doesn't directly condemn same-sex sexuality and marriage lose credibility among thinking people. In fact, I've often thought that if same-sex marriage were to be recognized nationally through federal law, the phrasing in the PoF could easily and seamlessly replace the definition for the law of chastity in the temple (and you know that there are people who would attempt to tell their priesthood leaders, with a straight face, "But we are legally and lawfully married, so we're keeping the law of chastity").

Yep, that's why there was the smiley. I agree that the PotF was worded to specifically exclude SSM; especially given its timing -- being issued right before the SSM battle in Hawaii.

[Yep]

Of course, I am not in charge of such things, but there are some works or documents that I wish were added to our canon. Three things that I wish were brought into the Scriptures:

1. Proclamation on the Family

2. The Living Christ

3. The King Follet Discourse (as perfected as possible).

I agree with PoF and the Living Christ being added. I would rather see the PoF as a new section, not as a declaration. I feel that the PoF fits into typical scripture, the declarations were different, they were declarations to the world as to practice.

The Living Christ I see more as a preface like the testimonies of the witnesses. I would like to see an official statement defining and clarifying the KFD, in a section format would be my preference on this, but maybe the revelations were not recorded well enough and further revelation has not come with regards to this.

More Church history could be added as scripture. The Bible and BoM are simply Church history including the notable religiously related events. The events in the early Church, the exodus to Utah, the conflict with Johnston's army, the interaction of the Saints with the US in regard to polygamy as well as the surrounding religious moves by the leadership are a religious events worth keeping in our current scripture. I think an honest and self-deprecating account of Mountain Meadows, including an upfront record of the errors made and the overall experience, could be severely useful to remind us of our imperfect state and that even our leaders can make errors. I would like to see a divinely inspired/guided account of our history canonized, the same as the Israelite history and the Nephite/Lamanite history, so that it can be studied more thoroughly.

But then, I believe that God reveals when to add to the public scripture that we have, and I am waiting for him to give us more. Maybe we are being tested to see if we can hold to what we have, who knows how long it will be before more is given. We have so much knowledge when compared to the people of the past, and I think we often hold to it less strongly that they did. Perhaps if we dedicate ourselves more completely to the Gospel we will receive more. How much of our lives are really dedicated to the establishment of Zion? How much of our day do we only passively pursue the life we should be while performing our work duties, our interactions? I am speaking broadly here when I say "we" and "our", the whole membership of the Church is the "we" that I am referring. I think we, as a whole, can do much better than we are, and if we are doing well can help our brethren and sisters to do better.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Yep