Is Our View Of "scripture" Wrong?

[JLHPROF]

All these evangelical threads have got me thinking and I have expressed this viewpoint in other threads but I'd like some feedback.

Forgetting for a moment the "translated correctly" clause we like to lean on, the scriptures - all of them (Bible, BoM, D&C, PoGP) contain two things:

 

1. The actual word of God

2. The teachings and records of his prophets.

 

I am willing to accept that when God speaks in scripture (as accurately as we have it recorded) that it is infallible if it is his word.

 

Why do we accept #2 so completely?

Why do the evangelicals assume that everything Paul wrote down is 100% correct?  Why do we assume that every revelation in the D&C is 100% correct?  Why do we assume that Mormon can't make a doctrinal mistake?

 

If we proceed on the assumption that the prophets in scripture were recording their teachings and we have recorded teachings from current prophets WHY do we rate one as infallible and the other as prone to opinions, errors etc?

 

Ideally there should never be a conflict in teaching, but IF there is, why do the prophets in scripture get more acceptance than the non-scriptural ones?  Why does Paul outrank Brigham?  Why should the teachings of Peter be more acceptable than the teachings of James?  Why should the teachings of David O. McKay be more acceptable than the teachings of John Taylor?

 

Why do we insist on creating an artificial hierarchy for accuracy in the recorded teachings of the prophets?  The scriptures ARE true but Paul had opinions, Peter had opinions, Mormon had opinions, Joseph Smith had opinions.  Wilford Woodruff had opinions..  Why rank?

[Freedom]

Every time the word of God is referred to in the bible, it is always spoken. It is never written. We have to, therefore, consider the semantics of the expression 'word of god'. 

 

We do refer to the scriptures as 'the word of God', but in a literal sense, it is not so. The Gospels do contain quotes from the Savior, so in a sense, the Gospels contain some of the words of God, but the I would venture to say that less than 10% of the New Testament are Gods actual words. Perhaps even less than 1%. 

 

consider the following references:

 

1 Samuel 9:27 And as they were going down to the end of the city, Samuel said to Saul, Bid the servant pass on before us, (and he passed on,) but stand thou still a while, that I may shew thee the word of God.

1 Kings 12:22 But the word of God came unto Shemaiah the man of God, saying,

1 Chronicles 16:3 ¶ And it came to pass the same night, that the word of God came to Nathan, saying,

 

In LDS teachings, we understand that the iron Rod is the Word of God, and we go on to equate this to the scriptures, but it is wrong, in my view, to view these two as synonymous. Certainly the Scriptures contains the word of God, but not all of the words of God are recorded in the scriptures. They are simply one source. The vision of the tree of life is likely a temple vision, so the iron rod in the vision is more likely the word of God that is obtained at the temple veil, as the person entering the holy of holy's holds onto a rod, or passes by a post (not unlike modern temples). 

 

Consequently, when we read that Gods word will not pass away, this does not mean that the scriptures will pass away. In the same sense, of the President of Spain states that he will in crease interest rates, this declaration is not nullified if the newspaper reporting on his announcement goes bankrupt or fails to property report on what the President actually said. The bible to the word of God, is the news paper to the President. 

 

The meaning of 'scripture' is also hard to nail down. Our standard works are referred to as scripture, but we also consider any form of revelation to be scripture. General Conference, patriarchal blessings, even Preach my Gospel. Scripture is a word like any other and its definition depends on the context. 

[JLHPROF]

 

 

It's not often you and I agree on doctrine my fellow Canuck, but I liked this post.

 

It doesn't fully address my question though - why do we give more weight to prophetic teachings in scripture than to prophetic teachings today.  Yes, they should always agree.

 

But when someone says "Joseph's teachings in the King Follett aren't scriptural" or "Brigham's teachings on Adam aren't scriptural" what I actually hear is "we rate Moses' teachings higher than Brigham's" or "we rate Paul's teachings higher than Joseph's".

 

Why?

[Freedom]

In my view, it is because the scriptures have been canonized and are officially vetted as doctrine. King Follett is not. God has, for some reason, determined that all the doctrine that matters at this point is relieved in the scriptures. Bringham Young said a lot of thinks and just because he said it does not mean any of it is remotely true. Joseph Fielding Smith also said a lot of things that I disagree with. My Bishop says a lot of things that are wrong, but there are times when he is speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost and it is scripture for me. 

 

We put too much stock in what is written. These records are for our profit and learning. We try to hard to find doctrines such as are we born as spirits or was Adam really the first man. These are not doctrines, these are academic exercises that miss the mark. They are intentionally vague, I suspect, to keep us from dwelling on them. Here are the doctrines we need to know and understand:

 

1) The Godhead

2) The Plan of Salvation

3) The Atonement of Jesus Christ

4) Dispensation, Apostasy and Restoration

5) Prophets and Revelation

6) Priesthood and Priesthood Keys

7) Ordinances and Covenants

8 Marriage and Family

9) Commandments

 

Concerning Brigham Young, most of his teachings are found in the Journal of Discourses and this is simply not an accurate or reliable source. Many of the passages were written by a third person as they listened to BY speak without a script. When ever the brethren confirm doctrine, it is always through the scriptures. I cannot think of a single example where doctrine is established through a quote from JD or KF. 

 

Should all those books in the bible be scripture? Probably not. I suspect they are there because it is what the world considers scripture. Fortunately, any errors in those records are corrected or clarified through our more modern texts. I cannot find any evidence, for example, that Kings is scripture. We don't even know who wrote it. 

Edited January 24, 2015 by Freedom

[JLHPROF]

In my view, it is because the scriptures have been canonized and are officially vetted as doctrine. King Follett is not. God has, for some reason, determined that all the doctrine that matters at this point is relieved in the scriptures. Bringham Young said a lot of thinks and just because he said it does not mean any of it is remotely true. Joseph Fielding Smith also said a lot of things that I disagree with.

 

Ok, I have to put a mild CFR on this.  We aren't Nicene Christians.  When and where were our current scriptures vetted and declared canon.  I do recall the D&C being put to a common consent vote but other than that...

 

 

Concerning Brigham Young, most of his teachings are found in the Journal of Discourses and this is simply not an accurate or reliable source. Many of the passages were written by a third person as they listened to BY speak without a script. When ever the brethren confirm doctrine, it is always through the scriptures. I cannot think of a single example where doctrine is established through a quote from JD or KF.

 

Oh come on.  If that's the reason for excluding the JoD as doctrinal the Bible has been through far more hands and changes than the Journals.  Most of it was passed down by word of mouth until someone recorded it or by barely literate monks copying words they couldn't actually read.  I find this a very poor excuse for excluding the Journals doctrinally.  They are primarily conference addresses, just like the ones we read in the Ensign today using the best recording technology (stenography, shorthand etc) that was available to them.

[thesometimesaint]

They were canonized with the formation of the Church.

[Freedom]

Your comments begs the question, why else do we have the official scriptures if they are not official? Why would the church go through all this effort to publish the bible, book of Mormon, doctrine and Covenants, and pearl of Great price if it is not canon? 

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/scriptures?lang=eng#

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

http://www.mormonnewsroom.ca/article/standard-works

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

You may not be happy about the fact that the old testament is canon and JD is not, but take that up with God. I didn't make up the rules. 

[Avatar4321]

Brigham young said the bible contains the word of God, the word of the devil, the word of good men and bad men, and the word of an *** rebuking a prophet. (paraphrasing)

[JLHPROF]

Brigham young said the bible contains the word of God, the word of the devil, the word of good men and bad men, and the word of an *** rebuking a prophet. (paraphrasing)

:clapping: :rofl:

[Freedom]

Brigham young said the bible contains the word of God, the word of the devil, the word of good men and bad men, and the word of an *** rebuking a prophet. (paraphrasing)

And yet, despite his opinions, God still had it be part of our official canon. 

[mfbukowski]

All these evangelical threads have got me thinking and I have expressed this viewpoint in other threads but I'd like some feedback.

Forgetting for a moment the "translated correctly" clause we like to lean on, the scriptures - all of them (Bible, BoM, D&C, PoGP) contain two things:

 

1. The actual word of God

2. The teachings and records of his prophets.

 

I am willing to accept that when God speaks in scripture (as accurately as we have it recorded) that it is infallible if it is his word.

 

Why do we accept #2 so completely?

Why do the evangelicals assume that everything Paul wrote down is 100% correct?  Why do we assume that every revelation in the D&C is 100% correct?  Why do we assume that Mormon can't make a doctrinal mistake?

 

If we proceed on the assumption that the prophets in scripture were recording their teachings and we have recorded teachings from current prophets WHY do we rate one as infallible and the other as prone to opinions, errors etc?

 

Ideally there should never be a conflict in teaching, but IF there is, why do the prophets in scripture get more acceptance than the non-scriptural ones?  Why does Paul outrank Brigham?  Why should the teachings of Peter be more acceptable than the teachings of James?  Why should the teachings of David O. McKay be more acceptable than the teachings of John Taylor?

 

Why do we insist on creating an artificial hierarchy for accuracy in the recorded teachings of the prophets?  The scriptures ARE true but Paul had opinions, Peter had opinions, Mormon had opinions, Joseph Smith had opinions.  Wilford Woodruff had opinions..  Why rank?

An excellent question.  We are taught to receive our own testimonies of everything, to pray about everything, and to receive personal revelation, to seek the spirit and live by it.

 

We are taught that prophets are human beings- we can go up and shake their hand.  We are taught that God is "no respecter of persons"

 

We believe that sometimes prophets can be wrong.  We have no idea who wrote large sections of the "Bible" which was clearly written by human beings, Paul himself complaining about his personal vices.  We don't know who Isaiah was and who actually wrote most of the book of Isaiah, what scribes "corrected" it, how many countless redactors re-did it as they felt they should etc.

 

Joseph himself added sections to the Bible as "translations" when clearly they were revelations.

 

We have nobody's word for anything that what any individual wrote preceding the words "Thus Saith The Lord" was in fact from the Lord- those are just words, PRESUMABLY believed by the individual who wrote them.

 

I'll use the scriptures for the wonderful wisdom they contain and will continue to consider them "inspired".

 

But more importantly, I want my own inspiration about what is right and wrong, and for me, I will follow the spirit as He directs me.

[mfbukowski]

And yet, despite his opinions, God still had it be part of our official canon. 

IF you want to believe that.  And how do you know that?  By your own testimony, in other words by your own revelation that it is so.

 

So what is more important- the Bible or other scriptures claiming to be God's word- with no evidence- or the word of the spirit in your heart?

 

I will take the latter every time.  For all I know the bible COULD have been written by charlatans looking for fame and power, and books included or discarded for political purposes.

 

NOTE:  I believe the bible is the inspired word of God- but that is only knowable within your heart as confirmed by the spirit.

 

If you don't think things like this through for yourself, you are just accepting what others tell you.  God gave us minds for a reason.

[mfbukowski]

 

We do refer to the scriptures as 'the word of God', but in a literal sense, it is not so. The Gospels do contain quotes from the Savior, so in a sense, the Gospels contain some of the words of God, but the I would venture to say that less than 10% of the New Testament are Gods actual words. Perhaps even less than 1%. 

Do you have a certified voice recording of Jesus pronouncing these words?

 

How do you know that someone did not make them up or forget what he actually said?

 

Look, I accept the same scriptures you do, but I have no illusions.  As someone once said, "I was never disillusioned because I never had any illusions".

 

No illusions, no faith crises possible.

[JLHPROF]

Do you have a certified voice recording of Jesus pronouncing these words?

 

How do you know that someone did not make them up or forget what he actually said?

 

Look, I accept the same scriptures you do, but I have no illusions.  As someone once said, "I was never disillusioned because I never had any illusions".

 

No illusions, no faith crises possible.

 

Based on these facts the Journal of Discourses probably represent a more accurate record of Brigham's teachings than the New Testament does of Christ's.

[mfbukowski]

Your comments begs the question, why else do we have the official scriptures if they are not official? Why would the church go through all this effort to publish the bible, book of Mormon, doctrine and Covenants, and pearl of Great price if it is not canon? 

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/scriptures?lang=eng#

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

http://www.mormonnewsroom.ca/article/standard-works

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

You may not be happy about the fact that the old testament is canon and JD is not, but take that up with God. I didn't make up the rules. 

Why should you accept anything "the church" tells you is "canon"??

 

If I personally don't know it in my heart and accept it there, it doesn't count as "canon" for me.

 

How do you know that the Zoroastrian Avesta is NOT "canon" when Zoroastrians accept is as "canon"??

 

Because you are not Zoroastrian and do not have a testimony of it.  You have chosen (presumably) a different path after looking at all other religions.

 

Right? 

 

After the destruction by Alexander, the holy texts were scattered or forgotten. During the Parthian era, (150 BC-250 AD) a Parthian king, Vologeses, sponsored an attempt to re-construct the Avesta from the scattered manuscripts and from texts gathered from Greeks. In the Sassanian era (250-650 AD) the high priests of the state religion re-gathered the surviving texts of the Avesta into a collection of 21 nasks or "volumes". The number 21 comes from the number of words in the yatha ahu prayer - an easy number for Zoroastrians to remember. This canon was formulated, interestingly, at about the same time as the fathers of the Christian Church finalized the canon of the Bible.

 

http://www.pyracantha.com/Z/avesta.html

[mfbukowski]

Based on these facts the Journal of Discourses probably represent a more accurate record of Brigham's teachings than the New Testament does of Christ's.

Absolutely.  He had scribes following him around recording his every word, and we still have their notes corroborating- or not- each other

 

Of course one still has to determine if BY was a prophet to be followed- and that can be done only as you are personally directed by God to decide.

 

That's all anybody can do.  That's all there is.

Edited January 24, 2015 by mfbukowski

[ERayR]

An excellent question.  We are taught to receive our own testimonies of everything, to pray about everything, and to receive personal revelation, to seek the spirit and live by it.

 

We are taught that prophets are human beings- we can go up and shake their hand.  We are taught that God is "no respecter of persons"

 

We believe that sometimes prophets can be wrong.  We have no idea who wrote large sections of the "Bible" which was clearly written by human beings, Paul himself complaining about his personal vices.  We don't know who Isaiah was and who actually wrote most of the book of Isaiah, what scribes "corrected" it, how many countless redactors re-did it as they felt they should etc.

 

Joseph himself added sections to the Bible as "translations" when clearly they were revelations.

 

We have nobody's word for anything that what any individual wrote preceding the words "Thus Saith The Lord" was in fact from the Lord- those are just words, PRESUMABLY believed by the individual who wrote them.

 

I'll use the scriptures for the wonderful wisdom they contain and will continue to consider them "inspired".

 

But more importantly, I want my own inspiration about what is right and wrong, and for me, I will follow the spirit as He directs me.

 

My scripture includes what is canonized and what I am inspired to accept.   For the latter I often receive refinements.. I don't preach it to others as they probably wouldn't understand anyway.

[Freedom]

IF you want to believe that.  And how do you know that?  By your own testimony, in other words by your own revelation that it is so.

 

So what is more important- the Bible or other scriptures claiming to be God's word- with no evidence- or the word of the spirit in your heart?

 

I will take the latter every time.  For all I know the bible COULD have been written by charlatans looking for fame and power, and books included or discarded for political purposes.

 

NOTE:  I believe the bible is the inspired word of God- but that is only knowable within your heart as confirmed by the spirit.

 

If you don't think things like this through for yourself, you are just accepting what others tell you.  God gave us minds for a reason.

I believe the church to be true and I believe that it is led by a prophet ordained of God. therefore I accept that the books of scriptures that the prophet presents as official canon is approve by God. I am unclear why you take issue with that. 

[mfbukowski]

I believe the church to be true and I believe that it is led by a prophet ordained of God. therefore I accept that the books of scriptures that the prophet presents as official canon is approve by God. I am unclear why you take issue with that.

I do not take issue with you Brother Freedom, and indeed I agree with you. It was a silly point not worth arguing about.

[Freedom]

I do not take issue with you Brother Freedom, and indeed I agree with you. It was a silly point not worth arguing about.

sorry, I misunderstood. 

[Zakuska]

Do you have a certified voice recording of Jesus pronouncing these words?

 

How do you know that someone did not make them up or forget what he actually said?

 

Look, I accept the same scriptures you do, but I have no illusions.  As someone once said, "I was never disillusioned because I never had any illusions".

 

No illusions, no faith crises possible.

this is a fun exercise... take the 4 gospels as an example. How many angels were at the tomb? One says 1 the others 2 to many. Who were first to the tomb? One says Peter the other 2 say mary. iirc. They dont even agree completely on certian stories christ was said to have given. One tells the story this way, but another tells the story another and it contradicts the first in its details. Aparrently, they had just as much trouble taking meeting notes in Christs time as we do now.

[ERayR]

this is a fun exercise... take the 4 gospels as an example. How many angels were at the tomb? One says 1 the others 2 to many. Who were first to the tomb? One says Peter the other 2 say mary. iirc. They dont even agree completely on certian stories christ was said to have given. One tells the story this way, but another tells the story another and it contradicts the first in its details. Aparrently, they had just as much trouble taking meeting notes in Christs time as we do now.

 

Sounds like recording problems to me.  Where is a good digital recording device when you need it?

[mfbukowski]

this is a fun exercise... take the 4 gospels as an example. How many angels were at the tomb? One says 1 the others 2 to many. Who were first to the tomb? One says Peter the other 2 say mary. iirc. They dont even agree completely on certian stories christ was said to have given. One tells the story this way, but another tells the story another and it contradicts the first in its details. Aparrently, they had just as much trouble taking meeting notes in Christs time as we do now.

I notice that our usual EV's have nothing to say on this thread, not surprisingly.

There is no "reason" to accept anything scriptural as "true" in the sense of "it actually happened that way" except by faith and testimony. On the other hand faith and testimony are perfectly "reasonable" reasons for living according to scriptural wisdom.

[Mars]

sorry, I misunderstood.

He's a philosophy major. It's his fault, not yours.

Now how's about we head down to Tim Horton's and eat a bear claw?

[rameumptom]

We need to remember that the Bible was written by people that were not so interested in factual history, but a history of their relationship with God and how to understand each event that occurred. Oral stories contained key stories, but they were often developed over time, influenced by politics and the size of the fish that got away.

 

Scripture was believed to be fluid anciently, and the interpretation was very fluid, as well. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, we find the Commentary on Habakkuk, which quotes the prophet (who lived in the times of Babylon) and adapted it to Roman times. So, the "Kittim" of Babylon, became the great armies of Rome.  We see this same event occur in how Matthew interprets ancient scripture to show Jesus' birth and life fulfilled scripture. We also see this same thing occurring in Nephi's interpretation of Isaiah.  Such commentaries are called "midrash" or "pesher".

 

Today's LDS scriptures were put to the saints to sustain as scripture in 1981, when the new set of scriptures were put together. That is as close as we'll get to "canon."  That said, with new revelation coming in, such scripture can always change.  The JoD isnot scripture, but are teachings of prophets, which we should consider prayerfully, based on more recent teachings and guidance by living prophets.