I Wish The Canon Would Expand Just A Teeny Bit

[CASteinman]

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.

I was referring to a harmonization of the 4 different recordings made of this talk. They do not contradict one another.

[CASteinman]

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?

It was never accepted by the Church as Canonized Revelation. That should be sufficient reason to remove a Sunday School Manual from the Standard Works.

*Edited to be more precise -- changed "Scripture" to "Revelation".

Edited March 25, 2013 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

See my previous post.

I don't get how that answers this question. Please try again. As a reminder here is the issue:

"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"."

You really haven't addressed those matters. If time is pressing and you want to wait until later, I understand that very well.

[mathonihah]

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.

I said the “infinite regression of the Gods” is false doctrine, not that “God was once a man”. Those are two different things. The first is not a prerequisite for the second.

[CASteinman]

I said the “infinite regression of the Gods” is false doctrine, not that “God was once a man”. Those are two different things. The first is not a prerequisite for the second.

Yeah, but its all part of the same thing... and the same doctrinal exposition by the Prophet.

It is, in other words, false doctrine in your mind. Or it contains false doctrine. Either way.

Which is a far more substantial reason for it not to be canonized than any of the other fluff you gave.

Edited March 25, 2013 by CASteinman

[mathonihah]

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.

Suffice it to say that I disagree.

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.

That was the explanation given at the time, but it was not a good explanation; and strictly speaking it wasn't really true.

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.

That is not true. The whole of the D&C is full of doctrine as well as commandments. That distinction is arbitrary and false.

[mathonihah]

I was referring to a harmonization of the 4 different recordings made of this talk. They do not contradict one another.

I think that the KFD needs a lot more “perfecting” than that.

[CASteinman]

Suffice it to say that I disagree.

Well, privately, the prophets of that time said that was a key reason to have it removed.

[CASteinman]

That was the explanation given at the time, but it was not a good explanation; and strictly speaking it wasn't really true.

How is it not a good explanation. How do you prove it wasn't really true?

[CASteinman]

That is not true. The whole of the D&C is full of doctrine as well as commandments. That distinction is arbitrary and false.

Did you ever see the D&C from that time?

The Lectures were clearly separated from the Commandments. The one old copy that I saw, the Table of Contents (a very detailed Table of Contents) did not even list the Lectures -- they just started with the Commandments Section, even though the Lectures were immediately after the Table of Contents.

[mathonihah]

It was never accepted by the Church as Canonized Scripture.

The canonisation process of the two portions of the D&C were no different from each other.

That should be sufficient reason to remove a Sunday School Manual from the Standard Works.

LOL! You can call it a Sunday School manual if you like. It shows how little understanding you have of it. But it is scripture, and was received by revelation. They were included in the D&C by Joseph Smith, who compiled the first D&C; and he did so because he knew they were scripture, and no doubt was commanded by the Lord to do it. Joseph Smith was not the kind person who would add something to the scriptural canon without knowing it is scripture, and obtaining approval from the Lord.

[CASteinman]

I think that the KFD needs a lot more “perfecting” than that.

I don't see why. We have D&C 132 and it is not perfected any better.

We have the Four Gospels and they are wildly out of whack with one another.

These 4 versions are pretty good actually and support one another.

But the bottom line is this: You believe it is or contains false doctrine. All these other problems are more in the realm of gorilla dust. As in: There are good reasons and there are real reasons. The good reasons are technical. The real reasons are emotional.

[mathonihah]

I don't get how that answers this question. Please try again. As a reminder here is the issue:

"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"."

You really haven't addressed those matters. If time is pressing and you want to wait until later, I understand that very well.

See my second previous post!

[CASteinman]

The canonisation process of the two portions of the D&C were no different from each other.

According to my understanding of things they were. The other sections were voted on individually in General Conference. The Lectures on Faith were added without that individual vote but as a compilation.

Not only that but one section was added as Commandments by Revelation, the other as mere Doctrines.

Do you have a reference that says otherwise?

LOL! You can call it a Sunday School manual if you like.

That is what it was. "School" of the Prophets. Sunday School Lessons. Or Priesthood Lessons perhaps. But that's about it.

It shows how little understanding you have of it. But it is scripture, and was received by revelation.

CFR. On the "received by Revelation" part.

They were included in the D&C by Joseph Smith, who compiled the first D&C; and he did so because he knew they were scripture, and no doubt was commanded by the Lord to do it. Joseph Smith was not the kind person who would add something to the scriptural canon without knowing it is scripture, and obtaining approval from the Lord.

CFR.

Edited March 25, 2013 by CASteinman

[mathonihah]

Yeah, but its all part of the same thing... and the same doctrinal exposition by the Prophet.

It is, in other words, false doctrine in your mind. Or it contains false doctrine. Either way.

Which is a far more substantial reason for it not to be canonized than any of the other fluff you gave.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. Joseph Smith does not teach the infinite regression of the Gods in the KFD. He says that God was once a man, and surmises that he must also have had a Father; but he does not teach the infinite regression of the Gods. That is one obvious reason why I believe the language of the KFD is not sufficiently inspired and precise enough for canonisation.

[mathonihah]

Well, privately, the prophets of that time said that was a key reason to have it removed.

That may well be true, in which case I have no hesitation in disagreeing with the prophets of the time!

[mathonihah]

How is it not a good explanation. How do you prove it wasn't really true?

It just isn't. The facts of the case do not necessarily lead to that conclusion.

[mathonihah]

Did you ever see the D&C from that time?

The Lectures were clearly separated from the Commandments. The one old copy that I saw, the Table of Contents (a very detailed Table of Contents) did not even list the Lectures -- they just started with the Commandments Section, even though the Lectures were immediately after the Table of Contents.

However that may have been the case, I stick to what I have said on this subject.

[mathonihah]

I don't see why. We have D&C 132 and it is not perfected any better.

We have the Four Gospels and they are wildly out of whack with one another.

These 4 versions are pretty good actually and support one another.

But the bottom line is this: You believe it is or contains false doctrine. All these other problems are more in the realm of gorilla dust. As in: There are good reasons and there are real reasons. The good reasons are technical. The real reasons are emotional.

Do you mind not putting words in my mouth, and not misrepresenting my statements?

[mathonihah]

According to my understanding of things they were. The other sections were voted on individually in General Conference. The Lectures on Faith were added without that individual vote but as a compilation.

Not only that but one section was added as Commandments by Revelation, the other as mere Doctrines.

Do you have a reference that says otherwise?

That is what it was. "School" of the Prophets. Sunday School Lessons. Or Priesthood Lessons perhaps. But that's about it.

CFR. On the "received by Revelation" part.

CFR.

I am not going to get into a protracted debate with you over any of these things. Suffice it to say that I have the witness of the Spirit that the LoF are scripture and received by revelation, and contain no false or incomplete doctrines.

[CASteinman]

An indication of the difference in the respect that the Lectures on Faith had vs the second section of the Doctrine and Covenants which was called "Covenants and Commandments" is to note how they were described in the Doctrine and Covenants opening pages as follows:

The Lectures on Faith were called "Lectures". The "Covenants and Commandments" were called "Revelations".

This distinction is noted in the announcement given to the Church of its publication:

"The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of lectures as delivered before a theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them in the following work. The second part contains items or principles for the regulation of the Church as taken from the revelations which have been given since its organization, as well as from former ones."

And this distinction was noted upon the words by which the Volume was Presented to High Council at Kirtland and accepted:

"Elder John Smith, taking the lead of the High Council in Kirtland, bore record that the revelations in said book were true, and that the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine. Whereupon, the High Council of Kirtland accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith by a unanimous vote."

This is the basis upon which the Lectures were accepted into the Doctrine and Covenants.

[CASteinman]

No, that is not what I am saying at all. Joseph Smith does not teach the infinite regression of the Gods in the KFD. He says that God was once a man, and surmises that he must also have had a Father; but he does not teach the infinite regression of the Gods. That is one obvious reason why I believe the language of the KFD is not sufficiently inspired and precise enough for canonisation.

So you want it to teach the infinite regression of the Gods and because it does not, it should not be included?

[CASteinman]

I am not going to get into a protracted debate with you over any of these things. Suffice it to say that I have the witness of the Spirit that the LoF are scripture and received by revelation, and contain no false or incomplete doctrines.

So no Reference then. On things not related to revelation per se but upon statements of fact about history.

Edited March 25, 2013 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

However that may have been the case, I stick to what I have said on this subject.

Yes, but sticking to it requires that you ignore the record.

[CASteinman]

Do you mind not putting words in my mouth, and not misrepresenting my statements?

I don't mind. But you did say it contains false doctrine, didn't you?