Our View Of The Scriptures

[JLHPROF]

So our recent discussions in other threads on Paul's teachings, the King Follet Discourse and other topics have got me thinking.

Why do we give the scriptures so much more weight for truth than any other source?  Why do we assume everything in the scriptures is without error if translated correctly.

Let me be clear - I am not questioning the validity of the scriptures, nor am I wanting to open the "symbol vs history" debate again.  I am talking primarily about the teachings of the apostles.

Sometimes the scriptures are the word of God it's true, but sometimes they are also recorded sermons or letters from apostles and prophets.

 

Take for instance, the KFD.  This was taught by the prophet Joseph Smith.  The claim of some is that it isn't provable from scripture.  Doesn't that mean that what we are really saying is the the sermons of the prophet Paul, or the prophet Alma, or the Prophet Moses are more accurate than the sermons of the prophet Joseph?  Is it because they came first?  Does that make the sermons of Brigham Young more accurate than those of Spencer W. Kimball?

 

We read the writings of SO many prophets and apostles in the scriptures and they are mostly consistent.

But the question stands - why do we weight the teachings of the Apostle John over the teachings of the Apostle Pratt?  Both were apostles, both had opinions on doctrine, both were human and prone to mistake.  Why do we accept the teachings of the prophet Joseph as recorded in D&C 130 as 100% truth but not the teachings of the prophet Joseph as recorded in the KFD?

Other than "official church approval" what makes one sermon scripture and another opinion.  What makes one apostle or prophet's recorded sermon scripture and another not?  And why should we weight the scriptural sermons above the other recorded ones?  Was Peter not as prone to error in his doctrinal letters as Heber C. Kimball was?  Why do we assume Apostle Peter's teachings are 100% true but Apostle Kimball's could be full of error or opinion?

 

So we have our living prophets to help with the interpretation.

Not that I agree with most of President Benson's 14 Fundamentals (because I don't), but his second fundamental - The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works (and the anecdote with it) are interesting.

But does that mean the scriptures should be our standard, or that they are just the same level of accuracy as the teachings we receive from today's prophets and apostles.

 

Note - I resisted the urge to start another poll, lest I be accused again of biasing the options.  Let's just discuss instead.  Sorry for the long OP.

[thesometimesaint]

We are not Scripture literalists. So the Church reserves the right to its own interpretation of them.

[CV75]

Why do we give the scriptures so much more weight for truth than any other source?

I would say that whatsoever is spoken or written by the Lord’s servants when moved upon by the Holy Ghost is scripture, and that its canonization would require the Lord to instruct His servants the prophets to make it so.

 

Regardless of the level of accuracy at the end of the relay between God and His servants’ voices or writing, His revealed will, mind, word, and voice sometimes get canonized and sometimes they do not. I think canonization is valued not so much for the accuracy of content, but since the canonization process entails common consent, it establishes common ground for mutual edification (D&C 50:22; 88:122).

 

Depending on the nature of their participation in edifying each other, people will end up putting more weight on what they get at the end of the relay and on what they are able to convey and receive in good faith by the Spirit, than on whatever they have read, whether it is canonized or not. I think their preferences then follow that.

[JLHPROF]

We are not Scripture literalists. So the Church reserves the right to its own interpretation of them.

 

Agreed.  But if we say that I Timothy is a sermon/letter of the Apostle Paul, and the KFD is a sermon of the prophet Joseph, why do we accept one as scripture and 100% true (if translated correctly), and the other as unprovable because another apostle didn't say it too?

[mnn727]

I think that we've picked up the view (from the rest of the Christian world) that just because somethign was written 2000 years ago, its more important than anything said today.

 

Personally, were I putting together 'scripture' for future use, I would greatly abridge the Bible and the BoM (modernizing the language as I did so) and then take the rest (the biggest part) from GC talks.

 

So far God has not requested this of me.

[thesometimesaint]

Agreed.  But if we say that I Timothy is a sermon/letter of the Apostle Paul, and the KFD is a sermon of the prophet Joseph, why do we accept one as scripture and 100% true (if translated correctly), and the other as unprovable because another apostle didn't say it too?

 

We accept on faith that our Scriptures are true. Even the canonization process doesn't preclude God from telling us to change our Scriptures. Though usually it is just through additions and not subtractions. I don't believe the Scriptures are 100% true in every case. As the Book of Mormon states "If there are faults they are the mistakes of men".

[CV75]

Agreed.  But if we say that I Timothy is a sermon/letter of the Apostle Paul, and the KFD is a sermon of the prophet Joseph, why do we accept one as scripture and 100% true (if translated correctly), and the other as unprovable because another apostle didn't say it too?

Truth comes from many sources, but I think, as you pointed out, "official church approval" carries a lot of weight. I think this is mostly because it represents common ground for people, and the resulting canon also serves as a common substrate upon which their common testimonies are formed.

[3DOP]

We are not Scripture literalists. So the Church reserves the right to its own interpretation of them.

 

Hi sst.

 

To contest your affirmation above, I would point out that 6 out of 37 LDS members here say they interpret Scripture literally according to the recent poll by JLHPROF. Unless this is a school of thought which is dogmatically contrary to what is acceptable, it seems difficult to exclude this minority among LDS by affirming that "We are not Scripture literalists." I would venture to guess that if anything Mormons here at Mormon Dialogue are more exposed to modern scholarship than the rank and file in your churches and that the representation of a literalist understanding of Scripture among LDS, is if anything, even higher than the significant 13.95% minority in the poll.

Edited July 11, 2014 by 3DOP

[JLHPROF]

In the end my question really boils down to:

 

As a Mormon who believes in continuing revelation, why should I accept the sermons and teachings of Peter, Paul, John, Alma, Mosiah, Nephi, and Moses as being my doctrinal standard and more dependably true (as long as they are translated correctly)?

and

As a Mormon who believes in continuing revelation, why shouldn't I accept the sermons and teachings of Joseph, Brigham, Heber, Orson, Parley, Elder Holland, Elder Bednar, President Monson and all those in between as being just as valid a doctrinal standard and representative of truth not just their opinions.

 

Maybe the scriptures were just the opinions and interpretations of the prophets and apostles of those days, which makes them no more valid as doctrinal truth than the opinions and interpretations of the prophets and apostles of our dispensation.  If they are all equally seen as prophets and apostles I mean.

[Ahab]

What other people call scripture isn't scripture to me until or unless God himself tells me that he inspired someone to write those words while also telling me what he and that person who wrote those words had in mind and meant by those words.

[thesometimesaint]

Hi sst.

 

To contest your affirmation above, I would point out that 6 out of 37 LDS members here say they interpret Scripture literally according to the recent poll by JLHPROF. Unless this is a school of thought which is dogmatically contrary to what is acceptable, it seems difficult to exclude this minority among LDS by affirming that "We are not Scripture literalists." I would venture to guess that if anything Mormons here at Mormon Dialogue are more exposed to modern scholarship than the rank and file in your churches and that the representation of a literalist understanding of Scripture among LDS, is if anything, even higher than the significant 13.95% minority in the poll.

 

Hi 3DOP:

 

I'm merely relying on what our Scriptures and what our leaders say. IE;

 

1. Articles of Faith # 8 "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...".

 

2. Book of Mormon Title Page. "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ"

 

3. From the LDS Newsroom. There is a broad range of approaches within the vast mosaic of biblical interpretation. For example, biblical inerrancy maintains that the Bible is without error and contradiction; biblical infallibility holds that the Bible is free from errors regarding faith and practice but not necessarily science or history; biblical literalism requires a literal interpretation of events and teachings in the Bible and generally

discounts allegory and metaphor; and the “Bible as literature” educational approach extols the literary qualities of the Bible but disregards its miraculous elements.

 

The Church does not strictly subscribe to any of these interpretive approaches. Rather, in the words of Joseph Smith, it regards the Bible to be the word of God, “as far as it is translated correctly” (8^th Article of Faith). Accordingly, Church members believe that during the centuries-long process in which fallible human beings compiled, translated and transcribed the Bible, various errors entered the text. However, this does not override the overwhelming predominance of truth within the Bible. As Elder Ballard noted, “Without the Bible, we would not know of His Church then, nor would we have the fullness of His gospel now.” Part of that fullness is the Bible’s seminal instruction that God reveals Himself to those who seek Him. The Bible is a living invitation to know personally the sacred revelatory experience that fills its pages.

[CV75]

In the end my question really boils down to:

 

As a Mormon who believes in continuing revelation, why should I accept the sermons and teachings of Peter, Paul, John, Alma, Mosiah, Nephi, and Moses as being my doctrinal standard and more dependably true (as long as they are translated correctly)?

and

As a Mormon who believes in continuing revelation, why shouldn't I accept the sermons and teachings of Joseph, Brigham, Heber, Orson, Parley, Elder Holland, Elder Bednar, President Monson and all those in between as being just as valid a doctrinal standard and representative of truth not just their opinions.

 

Maybe the scriptures were just the opinions and interpretations of the prophets and apostles of those days, which makes them no more valid as doctrinal truth than the opinions and interpretations of the prophets and apostles of our dispensation.  If they are all equally seen as prophets and apostles I mean.

Here’s how I see the prioritization of the writings of prophets, seers, and revelators vis-a-vis our regard or obligation to hold such sermons, writings and teachings up as acceptable, standard, doctrinal, dependable, true, valid and not just personal opinions:

 

Inasmuch as the scriptures serve as a covenant and our canon is scripture, the saints should accept the canon of scripture as a doctrinal standard and as more reliable than those writings that do not have the same status of covenant or canon.

 

As saints, we are under covenant to sustain our living prophets, seers and revelators, so the scripture they come up (that which is spoken or written when moved upon by the Holy Ghost) is also a doctrinal standard and as more reliable than those non-canonical writings of dead prophets, seers and revelators.

 

We have no covenant to sustain the non-canonical writings of dead prophets, seers and revelators even if we believe that they are the product of their having been moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

 

However, in all three cases, we are obligated to seek, discern and learn by the Spirit, and to share accordingly to edify others in a manner that is pleasing to the Lord.

 

I think the validity of our canon is in the fact that they are covenants, and the validity of General Conference talks is in our covenant to receive the Lord's living servants. Everything else is as profitable as Apocrypha, and we have inspired guidance as to how to approach them (D&C 91:5).

[JLHPROF]

Here’s how I see the prioritization of the writings of prophets, seers, and revelators vis-a-vis our regard or obligation to hold such sermons, writings and teachings up as acceptable, standard, doctrinal, dependable, true, valid and not just personal opinions:

 

Inasmuch as the scriptures serve as a covenant and our canon is scripture, the saints should accept the canon of scripture as a doctrinal standard and as more reliable than those writings that do not have the same status of covenant or canon.

 

As saints, we are under covenant to sustain our living prophets, seers and revelators, so the scripture they come up (that which is spoken or written when moved upon by the Holy Ghost) is also a doctrinal standard and as more reliable than those non-canonical writings of dead prophets, seers and revelators.

 

We have no covenant to sustain the non-canonical writings of dead prophets, seers and revelators even if we believe that they are the product of their having been moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

 

However, in all three cases, we are obligated to seek, discern and learn by the Spirit, and to share accordingly to edify others in a manner that is pleasing to the Lord.

 

I think the validity of our canon is in the fact that they are covenants, and the validity of General Conference talks is in our covenant to receive the Lord's living servants. Everything else is as profitable as Apocrypha, and we have inspired guidance as to how to approach them (D&C 91:5).

 

Well, that was an excellent answer.  Just what I was hoping to get from this thread.

I am not sure that I agree with the canon as covenant argument, since the items chosen to be included in canon vs. the items not included are as often the work of men as anything inspired.  But I really like your perspective on some items of scripture being part of the covenant literature and some not.  Some teachings are definitely part of the covenants we've taken upon ourselves.

[CV75]

Well, that was an excellent answer.  Just what I was hoping to get from this thread.

I am not sure that I agree with the canon as covenant argument, since the items chosen to be included in canon vs. the items not included are as often the work of men as anything inspired.  But I really like your perspective on some items of scripture being part of the covenant literature and some not.  Some teachings are definitely part of the covenants we've taken upon ourselves.

Thank you; glad I could contribute.

 

I'll get some scriptures later about "scripture-as-covenant." They are mostly in the Book of Mormon but I think the Bible also alludes to this relationship. The covenants are delineated in the scriptures, but in a particular way the scriptures themselves are also covenants.  I took your "scriptures translated correctly" condition to apply to "scripture-as-covenant translated correctly" since our canon contains some incorrectly translated material.

[JLHPROF]

Thank you; glad I could contribute.

 

I'll get some scriptures later about "scripture-as-covenant." They are mostly in the Book of Mormon but I think the Bible also alludes to this relationship. The covenants are delineated in the scriptures, but in a particular way the scriptures themselves are also covenants.  I took your "scriptures translated correctly" condition to apply to "scripture-as-covenant translated correctly" since our canon contains some incorrectly translated material.

 

I was more thinking about the things we exclude from canon for random reasons that should probably be considered canon or added to canon.

[Tiki]

Because the scriptures testify of each other.

 

Nephi testified of John the Beloved; the record of the Jews; of Joseph Smith; etc.

The Bible of the stick of Joseph, etc.

If you have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, then it goes that the Bible and the revelations received by Joseph Smith (Doctrine and Covenants) are true.

 

Re: the KFD, it's likely it wasn't recorded 100% accurately. But I'm no expert on it.

 

I think I could speculate accurately then when the records of the Lost Tribes are revealed, they will testify of the Bible and Book of Mormon.

2 Nephi 29:13

[CV75]

I was more thinking about the things we exclude from canon for random reasons that should probably be considered canon or added to canon.

https://www.lds.org/manual/scripture-study-the-power-of-the-word-teacher-manual/lesson-1?lang=eng

 

Item #4 explains how our scriptures are canonized, but not in the level of detail that would shed some light upon exactly how they are considered in the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. Likewise in the following reference, although it also contains a lot of very good information that offers some insight into what kinds of writings or what the brethren likely look for when they consider canon:

 

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Scriptures

 

“In principle and in fact, additions, as well as occasional official clarifications and translations, are made to the standard works in the dual process of presentation through living leaders and, in accord with the law of common consent, acceptance by members of the Church. In this way, Latter-day Saints bind themselves by covenant to uphold them as scripture. The addition to the Doctrine and Covenants of both a revelation about the Celestial Kingdom received by Joseph Smith and a vision of the redemption of the dead received by President Joseph F. Smith are modern examples (D&C 137, 138)”

[JLHPROF]

https://www.lds.org/manual/scripture-study-the-power-of-the-word-teacher-manual/lesson-1?lang=eng

 

Item #4 explains how our scriptures are canonized, but not in the level of detail that would shed some light upon exactly how they are considered in the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. Likewise in the following reference, although it also contains a lot of very good information that offers some insight into what kinds of writings or what the brethren likely look for when they consider canon:

 

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Scriptures

 

“In principle and in fact, additions, as well as occasional official clarifications and translations, are made to the standard works in the dual process of presentation through living leaders and, in accord with the law of common consent, acceptance by members of the Church. In this way, Latter-day Saints bind themselves by covenant to uphold them as scripture. The addition to the Doctrine and Covenants of both a revelation about the Celestial Kingdom received by Joseph Smith and a vision of the redemption of the dead received by President Joseph F. Smith are modern examples (D&C 137, 138)”

 

Thanks, but I'd have more faith in canon if we would add something as paradigm altering as the King Follet and remove something like the Song of Solomon which Joseph revealed was not inspired.

In other words, we keep in the stuff in canon that other religions consider scripture even though we don't and choose to downplay the stuff that makes us look different by not really considering adding it.

This is why I'm glad I can choose what I consider canon for me.

[Guest]

We are not Scripture literalists. So the Church reserves the right to its own interpretation of them.

It is sometimes amusing to have those who are not members give their interpretation of our scripture.

[Storm Rider]

IF the KFD was part of the scriptures then you would have an argument.  What you demanding is if a prophet ever speaks, as in all things he ever says, then it is the word of God.  You are putting prophets in untenable positions of perfection.  Most of the time prophets are just men and men are fallible.  As men their opinion can be be good and it can be not so good.

 

Speculation has a place in the spiritual life of individuals because we each have questions and we ponder about them and consider possible answers.  However, those speculations are not added to scripture.  

 

All a prophet to receive revelation without the demand that everything he says is a revelation.

[mfbukowski]

So our recent discussions in other threads on Paul's teachings, the King Follet Discourse and other topics have got me thinking.

Why do we give the scriptures so much more weight for truth than any other source?  Why do we assume everything in the scriptures is without error if translated correctly.

Let me be clear - I am not questioning the validity of the scriptures, nor am I wanting to open the "symbol vs history" debate again.  I am talking primarily about the teachings of the apostles.

Sometimes the scriptures are the word of God it's true, but sometimes they are also recorded sermons or letters from apostles and prophets.

 

Take for instance, the KFD.  This was taught by the prophet Joseph Smith.  The claim of some is that it isn't provable from scripture.  Doesn't that mean that what we are really saying is the the sermons of the prophet Paul, or the prophet Alma, or the Prophet Moses are more accurate than the sermons of the prophet Joseph?  Is it because they came first?  Does that make the sermons of Brigham Young more accurate than those of Spencer W. Kimball?

 

We read the writings of SO many prophets and apostles in the scriptures and they are mostly consistent.

But the question stands - why do we weight the teachings of the Apostle John over the teachings of the Apostle Pratt?  Both were apostles, both had opinions on doctrine, both were human and prone to mistake.  Why do we accept the teachings of the prophet Joseph as recorded in D&C 130 as 100% truth but not the teachings of the prophet Joseph as recorded in the KFD?

Other than "official church approval" what makes one sermon scripture and another opinion.  What makes one apostle or prophet's recorded sermon scripture and another not?  And why should we weight the scriptural sermons above the other recorded ones?  Was Peter not as prone to error in his doctrinal letters as Heber C. Kimball was?  Why do we assume Apostle Peter's teachings are 100% true but Apostle Kimball's could be full of error or opinion?

 

So we have our living prophets to help with the interpretation.

Not that I agree with most of President Benson's 14 Fundamentals (because I don't), but his second fundamental - The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works (and the anecdote with it) are interesting.

But does that mean the scriptures should be our standard, or that they are just the same level of accuracy as the teachings we receive from today's prophets and apostles.

 

Note - I resisted the urge to start another poll, lest I be accused again of biasing the options.  Let's just discuss instead.  Sorry for the long OP.

If we accept the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham and the inspired translation, all of which essentially came directly to the inspired prophet Joseph, and if that has been confirmed by the Holy Spirit in your own heart, that trumps a hundred times the semi-legendary stories of the Bible.

 

Spiritual beliefs including the spiritual "accuracy" of the bible can only be "confirmed" by spiritual evidence. Alleged "history" is irrelevant.

 

And yes people can have different testimonies, because all of us have different paths to finding the truth because God teaches us individually, and we have different needs.  But as long as we are earnestly seeking, we have eternity to follow our individual paths to the truth.

 

How do I know that?  The only possible answer: testimony.

[mfbukowski]

It is sometimes amusing to have those who are not members give their interpretation of our scripture.

It is indeed.  Either you get it or you don't.

[mfbukowski]

Hi sst.

 

To contest your affirmation above, I would point out that 6 out of 37 LDS members here say they interpret Scripture literally according to the recent poll by JLHPROF. Unless this is a school of thought which is dogmatically contrary to what is acceptable, it seems difficult to exclude this minority among LDS by affirming that "We are not Scripture literalists." I would venture to guess that if anything Mormons here at Mormon Dialogue are more exposed to modern scholarship than the rank and file in your churches and that the representation of a literalist understanding of Scripture among LDS, is if anything, even higher than the significant 13.95% minority in the poll.

Just for the record, I disagree.  That rep point was an error.

 

The poll was seriously flawed, and the majority doesn't rule anyway, and is often mistaken in complex matters.

 

Heck people still believe in the correspondence theory.  

 

But you know I love you anyway.

[CV75]

Thanks, but I'd have more faith in canon if we would add something as paradigm altering as the King Follet and remove something like the Song of Solomon which Joseph revealed was not inspired.

In other words, we keep in the stuff in canon that other religions consider scripture even though we don't and choose to downplay the stuff that makes us look different by not really considering adding it.

This is why I'm glad I can choose what I consider canon for me.

I agree completely; I do the same thing. So does Ahab.

 

When you frame a question as “we”, I answer differently than if you framed it as “me” or even “you.”

 

"We" don't have to add something you find paradigm-altering or remove something uninspired in order for "you" to have faith. You can do that on your own (develop faith and choose which .canon to use).

 

"We" keep the canon for those motives that I think are outlined in the articles, but "you" are free to magnify the non-canonical to fulfill your motives, and even create your own private canon. I think that is one key purpose for journals.

 

Personally, I think there is enough overlap between the canon and the KFD (and our interpretation of either) that sufficiently sets us apart from other Christian faiths, but I'm not sure that is the prime motive. The prime motive I think is to invite people to come unto Christ. On the same token, using the KJV Bible with all its uninspired and mistranslated and other problems trains "us" to find and discern the good wherever it is found, and thus helps "us" remain sufficiently accessible to people of all faiths, and willing to access them as well.

Edited July 12, 2014 by CV75

[thesometimesaint]

It is sometimes amusing to have those who are not members give their interpretation of our scripture.

 

Nonmembers do that some times.