I Wish The Canon Would Expand Just A Teeny Bit

[CASteinman]

Joseph Smith was the last to have the kahoonas to claim what he said was scripture.

That is not really true.

[CASteinman]

I am fine with the first two, but as long as there is any question in a sermon that Joseph never listed as prophecy or put into print in D&C...not a good idea.

I think that there are already a few things of that nature in the D&C.

[CASteinman]

Not in favor. The KFD is not the pure doctrine dictated by the Holy Ghost, but Joseph Smith's gloss on what God had revealed to him.

This is speculation on your part.

[CASteinman]

I would favor the proclamation in favor of a collaborative economy before the P on F

We already have the Lord's economic law.

I would support the King Follett Sermon except we do not have an accurate transcript

That has not stopped us before.

[CASteinman]

Let's Add The Strang scriptures and the book of Jaranek as well

You are advocating apostasy.

[CASteinman]

I tend to dislike revelation by committee, as a result the P on F tends to sound like Papal Bull to me.

And yet Joseph Smith sometimes used that method.

[CASteinman]

CASteinman, thanks for quoting the language from the Proclamation.

Taken as a whole, it positively excludes homosexual relations as valid in a family context

My point is that a future First Presidency could say that, even though people by implication read the Proclamation as disfavoring long term committed LGBT relationship, the wording you quote quite literally does not (except by implication, which I grant) mention them.

They are disfavored. It is not a man and a woman having children and it is sexual relations outside of marriage -- and that means marriage as recognized by the Lord and His Church.

As others point out, the "powers of procreation" are not those exercised in a homosexual relationship

This is silly. This is a euphemism for sexual relations. It is is the "powers" of procreation (sexual relations) not "procreation". Your interpretation would say that sexual relations outside of marriage by a heterosexual couple that could not lead to pregnancy will one day be OK -- or even that they are OK now.

Which is nonsense. The Church has not announced some equivocation on this point. Your imagination notwithstanding.

In fact, in other cases in the Restored Gospel, the law of chastity is defined in terms of whether "sexual relations" are appropiate.

Exactly so. Do you really imagine that the standards changed merely because you wish the words meant something else?

My point is that there is some wiggle room in the Proclamation so that if God wanted to change things,

So then you should -- if you really believe this -- be all for the PoF being Canonized. Because other scriptures have condemned it.

Of course, at least since the middle of the Twentieth Century the Church has strongly condemned homosexual behavior (the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price do not mention it. Joseph Smith never addressed it; I don't even know if Brigham Young said anything about it.)

It was previously considered a shameful act and generally criminal behavior. It did not need to be discussed because there was no big push in the world to make it an honorable activity. You don't really see them talking about torture, mutilation, vampirism, or other things that are really remote and not generally accepted behaviors.

Thus, if God revealed to a future FP and 12 that our understanding of the law of chastity should be modified to permit long-term committed monogamous relationships by people of the same sex, there is nothing in the Restoration scriptures that would need to be modified.

Sure there would be. The whole understanding of the purpose of life would have to be changed to exclude Family -- A Husband and a Wife and Children -- as important here and critical in the Eternities.

[Stone holm]

Taken as a whole, it positively excludes homosexual relations as valid in a family context

They are disfavored. It is not a man and a woman having children and it is sexual relations outside of marriage -- and that means marriage as recognized by the Lord and His Church.

This is silly. This is a euphemism for sexual relations. It is is the "powers" of procreation (sexual relations) not "procreation". Your interpretation would say that sexual relations outside of marriage by a heterosexual couple that could not lead to pregnancy will one day be OK -- or even that they are OK now.

Which is nonsense. The Church has not announced some equivocation on this point. Your imagination notwithstanding.

Exactly so. Do you really imagine that the standards changed merely because you wish the words meant something else?

So then you should -- if you really believe this -- be all for the PoF being Canonized. Because other scriptures have condemned it.

It was previously considered a shameful act and generally criminal behavior. It did not need to be discussed because there was no big push in the world to make it an honorable activity. You don't really see them talking about torture, mutilation, vampirism, or other things that are really remote and not generally accepted behaviors.

Sure there would be. The whole understanding of the purpose of life would have to be changed to exclude Family -- A Husband and a Wife and Children -- as important here and critical in the Eternities.

I agree, I see no future for SSM in the church, it clearly goes against the whole structure of our doctrine of exaltation and of how the post mortal cosmos works. It may well be accommodated by other Christian sects and is in fact being so accommodated , but for us in the eternal sense it will always be problematical.

[CASteinman]

I agree, I see no future for SSM in the church, it clearly goes against the whole structure of our doctrine of exaltation and of how the post mortal cosmos works. It may well be accommodated by other Christian sects and is in fact being so accommodated , but for us in the eternal sense it will always be problematical.

I tried to envision something -- the Church in the Year 3000.

(I think if Christ has not come by then and replaced the Church -- then something is wrong with my whole system of understanding of things -- but lets ignore that for now).

Would the Church in the year 3000 have men marrying men in the Temple to live as two Husbands?

I don't think so. I think if that should happen the Church would collapse and die. This has nothing specific to do with it being the True Church -- but rather the need for any religious body to have standards. Otherwise they lose purpose and focus. As we see happening among the Anglicans.

[mathonihah]

This is speculation on your part.

I wouldn't say so. It is something that is evident from the reading of the text to me. It is not composed in the language of scripture that makes it suitable for canonisation in the D&C.

[bcuzbcuz]

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'm curious. Exactly what is it about the Proclamation on the Family that makes it sound like revelation to you? What does it contain that wasn't already revealed? Was the proclamation a result of someone in the GA's who asked a specific question of the Lord that needed clarification?

Not to seem flippant but the references to the duties of women seem scant and not clearly defined. In fact, they are so general in statement as to be indifferent to the specific needs and goals that good women could define. Women who end up single after divorce, through no fault of their own or being abandoned by their husbands, seem to be ignored.

[CASteinman]

I wouldn't say so. It is something that is evident from the reading of the text to me. It is not composed in the language of scripture that makes it suitable for canonisation in the D&C.

Seriously? The language? That has not stopped us from canonizing other similar things, why do you make a special exceptin for this?

[mathonihah]

Seriously? The language?

Kind of, or the way it is expressed, including what may be missing from it.

That has not stopped us from canonizing other similar things, why do you make a special exceptin for this?

I would say those are exceptions rather than the rule, and the nature of the doctrine or subject matter is different. It also raises two important theological questions that need to be clarified: the eternal nature of the Deity, as taught in other scriptures; and the question of the infinite regression of the Gods, which to us at least appears to be a logical impossibility (which I personally believe to be a false doctrine, although taught by Brigham Young).

Note that the Lectures on Faith were removed from the D&C precisely for the reasons expressed above (although that was not the official explanation given, and I have no doubts in my own mind that they do indeed teach correct doctrine).

Edited March 25, 2013 by mathonihah

[Stone holm]

Seriously? The language? That has not stopped us from canonizing other similar things, why do you make a special exceptin for this?

I tend to agree with mathonihah on this. It reads more like a committee report than the Lord speaking directly to the Prophet. But maybe that is because we have become a culture of businessmen, I don't know.

[mathonihah]

I tend to agree with mathonihah on this. It reads more like a committee report than the Lord speaking directly to the Prophet. But maybe that is because we have become a culture of businessmen, I don't know.

The KFD reads like anything but a “committee report”.

[CASteinman]

I'm curious. Exactly what is it about the Proclamation on the Family that makes it sound like revelation to you? What does it contain that wasn't already revealed?

I never thought about that. I do not exactly know that it does or does not sound like revelation. What is the special sound of revelation?

Was the proclamation a result of someone in the GA's who asked a specific question of the Lord that needed clarification?

I don't know. Maybe.

Not to seem flippant but the references to the duties of women seem scant and not clearly defined.

What, they should be book length like an IRS tax code? Or is it that you don't think the word "nurture" is broad enough?

In fact, they are so general in statement as to be indifferent to the specific needs and goals that good women could define. Women who end up single after divorce, through no fault of their own or being abandoned by their husbands, seem to be ignored.

Its not a proclamation on the needs of women. It talks about their duties.. not their needs.

[CASteinman]

Kind of, or the way it is expressed, including what may be missing from it.

Wow that is so weird. What about its expression excludes it as potential canonized scripture?

Has every revelation always had the full and complete truth and all answers in it leaving nothing for us to work out?

[Tacenda]

I'm curious. Exactly what is it about the Proclamation on the Family that makes it sound like revelation to you? What does it contain that wasn't already revealed? Was the proclamation a result of someone in the GA's who asked a specific question of the Lord that needed clarification?

Not to seem flippant but the references to the duties of women seem scant and not clearly defined. In fact, they are so general in statement as to be indifferent to the specific needs and goals that good women could define. Women who end up single after divorce, through no fault of their own or being abandoned by their husbands, seem to be ignored.

I'll bet if they were put in it would be just like the 13 Articles of Faith. Maybe that's how CA means. Edited March 25, 2013 by Tacenda

[CASteinman]

I would say those are exceptions rather than the rule, and the nature of the doctrine or subject matter is different.

Explain the rule that this is an exception to and then, in the case of those exceptions that have already been made, why this one does not also fit into the reasonable category of "exception" to that rule. I would like, in advance, to quote: "whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same".

[CASteinman]

the question of the infinite regression of the Gods, which to us at least appears to be a logical impossibility (which I personally believe to be a false doctrine, although taught by Brigham Young).

Ahhh.. so there we have it. You think it is false doctrine.

I wish you had just said that right up front. It would have been a lot easier than running to all sorts of excuses that also apply to other scriptures.

[CASteinman]

Note that the Lectures on Faith were removed from the D&C precisely for the reasons expressed above (although that was not the official explanation given, and I have no doubts in my own mind that they do indeed teach correct doctrine).

How can they be removed for exactly the same reasons when you immediately say that the reasons are different?

I personally think the Lectures on Faith teach false -- or rather limited doctrine in that the information in them is superseded by better information. But I do not think that is why they were removed. I believe that they were removed because they had never been presented to the Church for inclusion in the Scriptures. That was, in fact, the statement at the time that they were removed -- along with the notion that they were really more like Sunday School Lessons.

I see no reason to doubt this explanation given that the original D&C was divided into two parts -- with the "Lectures" as a human sort of instruction in one part and the "Commandments and Covenants" in another part as binding agreements and commandments between God and The Church.

[CASteinman]

I tend to agree with mathonihah on this. It reads more like a committee report than the Lord speaking directly to the Prophet. But maybe that is because we have become a culture of businessmen, I don't know.

How does Section 134 work for you then? Or 135?

[CASteinman]

I'll bet if they were put in it would be just like the 13 Articles of Faith. Maybe that's how CA means.

With regard to PoF or the Testimony of Christ.. yes ..like that and like D&C 134.

With regard to King Follet Discourse -- Just like Sections 121,122, 123, 127, 128.

[mathonihah]

Wow that is so weird. What about its expression excludes it as potential canonized scripture?

In your OP you stated, “3. The King Follet Discourse (as perfected as possible).” What kind of “perfection” were you talking about, and in what sense is it “imperfect”? I agree that it is imperfect, except that I believe the best way to perfect it is by a new revelation from the Lord.

Has every revelation always had the full and complete truth and all answers in it leaving nothing for us to work out?

Well, in one case at least (Lectures on Faith), it was deemed important enough to justify removing the scripture from the standard works. What is the point of adding scripture to the canon, which afterwards you may have to remove for avoidable reasons?

Edited March 25, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

Explain the rule that this is an exception to and then, in the case of those exceptions that have already been made, why this one does not also fit into the reasonable category of "exception" to that rule. I would like, in advance, to quote: "whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same".

See my previous post.