How Would You Revise The Canon?

[Coreyb]

Since this board is usually full of threads disputing about the scriptures I have a fun thread to get it all out in the open. So...

What texts if any that are currently contained in the standard works would you drop if it were up to you? (For example D&C 132, Song of Solomon, Book of Abraham, those early personal D&C sections that are essentially all the same etc.)

What texts would you add? (The Family: a proclamation to the world, The Lectures on Faith, anything by C. S. Lewis )

I will start by dropping the Book of Dueteronomy

Edit: this is intended for those who are believers in mormonism at least in some sense. Please don't come here and say " Drop everything but the Bible!"

Edited April 20, 2015 by Coreyb

[Magyar]

I would drop the references to the unpardonable sin, since the vast majority of us won't be guilty of it, and it no doubt has brought anguish to some who think they might have committed it; also the NT reference to no marriage in heaven; and the scripture about God being spirit. They all have good explanations as far as accommodating LDS theology -- but we wouldn't need the explanations without the problematic verses in the first place.

[JLHPROF]

Remove - Song of Solomon, JS History OD1, OD2 - none are scripture.  JS HIstory, OD1 & OD2 reference revelations but are not inspired writings.

 

Add - all the actual revelations to John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff (not to mention Joseph and Brigham) that never even got the decency of being put to a canonization vote.

ETA - King Follett Discourse (thanks Rodheadlee!)

Edited April 20, 2015 by JLHPROF

[The Nehor]

If given that power I would ask how and if God wanted it altered. I have scripture I have found less valuable and extracanonical works I have found to be of great value but that does not give me any knowledge of how they would influence others.

[carbon dioxide]

I would like all reference to my favorite sins to be removed so I can go about doing them without guilt.

[Coreyb]

If given that power I would ask how and if God wanted it altered. I have scripture I have found less valuable and extracanonical works I have found to be of great value but that does not give me any knowledge of how they would influence others.

A perfect answer, but for the sake of fun discussion, what might those books be? Would you add the revelation of God telling to revise/not revise the canon?

[Sleeper Cell]

Since this board is usually full of threads disputing about the scriptures I have a fun thread to get it all out in the open. So...

What texts if any that are currently contained in the standard works would you drop if it were up to you? 

The phrase: "it came to pass." 

 

IIRC, some years ago, plans were announced for a "Reader's Digest condensed version" ot the Bible.  Don't know if they ever followed through, but reportedly someone proposed the following promotional blurb:

 

"In the begining was the word. And the word was too long." 

[rodheadlee]

God willing I would add the King Follett Discourse.

[mnn727]

D&C 89 I would add one verse  "While drunkenness is never permitted, nevertheless a glass of wine with a meal is good for the heart and blood. 

[JLHPROF]

God willing I would add the King Follett Discourse.

 

 

Absolutely.  Can't believe I forgot that from my add list.  One of the greatest "revelations" ever given to man.  Only the Sermon on the Mount ranks higher on my list of greatest discourses.  King Benjamin's speech might come next.

Edited April 20, 2015 by JLHPROF

[BCSpace]

I would especially keep D&C 132 and the BoA.  The Song of Solomon should be kept for it's healthy view of sexuality.  In a nutshell, I'd drop nothing and add most everything being proposed to be added except C.S. Lewis.  I would love to add C.S. Lewis, but it's obviously not scripture.

[Sevenbak]

I don't think it's warranted, but for the sake of the discussion perhaps return the Lectures on Faith, and lose Song of Solomon.   And maybe selected First Presidency statements from over the years as additional Official Declarations, such as The Proclamation on the Family.

[Sevenbak]

The Song of Solomon should be kept for it's healthy view of sexuality. 

 

 

I think Jacob said something about Solomon's 700 concubines that didn't exactly fall under the definition of healthy.  ;-)

[Traela]

Wilford Woodruff's "Wagon Box Prophecy" would make a nice companion piece to OD1.

[JLHPROF]

I think Jacob said something about Solomon's 700 concubines that didn't exactly fall under the definition of healthy.  ;-)

 

Yeah, they had bad religions.  Nothing to do with the number.

[Coreyb]

Remove - Song of Solomon, JS History OD1, OD2 - none are scripture.  JS HIstory, OD1 & OD2 reference revelations but are not inspired writings.

 

Add - all the actual revelations to John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff (not to mention Joseph and Brigham) that never even got the decency of being put to a canonization vote.

ETA - King Follett Discourse (thanks Rodheadlee!)

That is an interesting choice to drop Joseph Smiths history. Perhaps it's not technically a "revelation" in a very strict sense, but most of the texts in the canon are not either. I find it very important as it is a narrative concerning the calling of an important prophet. We already have several narratives of such calls. Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Lehi etc.

[Sevenbak]

That is an interesting choice to drop Joseph Smiths history. Perhaps it's not technically a "revelation" in a very strict sense, but most of the texts in the canon are not either. I find it very important as it is a narrative concerning the calling of an important prophet. We already have several narratives of such calls. Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Lehi etc.

And for that matter, if the criteria is "revelation" and nothing else, you might as well throw out about half of the BoM, that is all history and war and warnings.   Alma would not be happy!

[Coreyb]

I would especially keep D&C 132 and the BoA.  The Song of Solomon should be kept for it's healthy view of sexuality.  In a nutshell, I'd drop nothing and add most everything being proposed to be added except C.S. Lewis.  I would love to add C.S. Lewis, but it's obviously not scripture.

Finally another Mormon who appreciates the Song of Solomon

[Coreyb]

And for that matter, if the criteria is "revelation" and nothing else, you might as well throw out about half of the BoM, that is all history and war and warnings.   Alma would not be happy!

Not to mention the Bible!

[JLHPROF]

Finally another Mormon who appreciates the Song of Solomon

 

It's not an issue of appreciation.  It's that Joseph said it wasn't inspired.  Not inspired so not scripture.  Not scripture, why have it in canon?  Might as well be a Harlequin romance.

[JLHPROF]

That is an interesting choice to drop Joseph Smiths history. Perhaps it's not technically a "revelation" in a very strict sense, but most of the texts in the canon are not either. I find it very important as it is a narrative concerning the calling of an important prophet. We already have several narratives of such calls. Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Lehi etc.

 

And for that matter, if the criteria is "revelation" and nothing else, you might as well throw out about half of the BoM, that is all history and war and warnings.   Alma would not be happy!

 

The criteria isn't "revelation", it's "inspired".

But I have nothing against the JSH.  As a topic it is something every member should be familiar with.  Keeping it in canon is good for that I suppose.

 

For me it's the things we should add that matter more.

[Damien the Leper]

I would drop Jude, the Johannine letters, 2 Peter and Revelation. I would imclude The Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter and Gospels of Judas, Mary Magdalene and Thomas. I would also include the Sophia of Jesus Christ and The First Thought in Three Forms.

I would drop 2 Nephi and Alma.

I would drop Section. 132 and include Sections 161-164.

[Calm]

The Song of Solomon should be kept for it's healthy view of sexuality. 

Would you include the gang rape by the watchmen as part of that healthy view of sexuality?

[BCSpace]

I think Jacob said something about Solomon's 700 concubines that didn't exactly fall under the definition of healthy.  ;-)

 

He said nothing of the kind when the whole context of scripture is realized from 2:30 and D&C 132. In addition, iirc, the SS says nothing about plural marriage either so it should hardly be offensive on that front; assuming one is offended by God authorized plural marriage.

[Sevenbak]

He said nothing of the kind when the whole context of scripture is realized from 2:30 and D&C 132. In addition, iirc, the SS says nothing about plural marriage either so it should hardly be offensive on that front; assuming one is offended by God authorized plural marriage.

He most certainly did.    The issue isn't raising up seed or being commanded by the Lord.  D&C 132 clarifies it somewhat, but there's no denying what he was doing was not healthy.

 

 

 

 

"24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."