How Would You Revise The Canon?

[BCSpace]

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

 

I think most people can parse the good and bad in the OT, such as her beating by the watchmen who formerly helped her. But I think one will find it difficult to find a less than obscure interpretation of rape there.

[BCSpace]

 

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."

 

Yeah, I think it would be good to show that clarification because it illustrates my point:

 

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Jacob 2:30

 

David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

D&C 132:38-39

 

The point being that the people in Jacob's time were taking plural wives without God's authorization.

[Sevenbak]

Yeah, I think it would be good to show that clarification because it illustrates my point:

 

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Jacob 2:30

 

David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

D&C 132:38-39

 

The point being that the people in Jacob's time were taking plural wives without God's authorization.

I don't know what your point is exactly.  I stated the exception in my reply.  We're not talking David here, we're talking Solomon, in referencing the thread.  D&C 132 included Solomon as sinning with "those things which they received not of me."  How does that not line up with Jacob 2:24?

[canard78]

I'd use the 1930 version of the D&C that Pres Grant published. It removes all the sections that were no longer relevant (mission calls and, amongst others, section 132). It's called Latter-day Revelation if you want to look it up.

I'd add The God who Weeps by the Givenses. I consider that to be an inspired book.

[BCSpace]

I don't know what your point is exactly.  I stated the exception in my reply.  We're not talking David here, we're talking Solomon, in referencing the thread.  D&C 132 included Solomon as sinning with "those things which they received not of me."  How does that not line up with Jacob 2:24?

 

Referencing the thread, it seems like you are implying a direct teaching of plural marriage to the SS making your complaint about Solomon and reference to Jacob 2:24 a non sequitur. As for lining up with Jacob 2:24, there is no controlling verse, rather a context of them which completely changes the interpretation for one who only reads Jacob 2:24.

[Sevenbak]

Referencing the thread, it seems like you are implying a direct teaching of plural marriage to the SS making your complaint about Solomon and reference to Jacob 2:24 a non sequitur. As for lining up with Jacob 2:24, there is no controlling verse, rather a context of them which completely changes the interpretation for one who only reads Jacob 2:24.

Agreed, but no one is advocating that, but rather Solomon, and thus his 'Song', had an "unhealthy" view of sex.  We sure went in circles on that one.  ;-)

[Antoni]

Ok, my 2 pence worth:

 

I'd add:

-Apocrypha

-Books of Enoch

-Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah

-King Follet discourse

-The Family a Proclamation to the World

-The Living Christ

-The Didache

 

Remove - I'm not so sure about that. I'd not feel right not having ones I've grown accustomed to being in my canon. Even those I struggle with. I like to be challenged and have to wrestle with the scriptures.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Antoni

[Tacenda]

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.

This should give a clue as to if we really believed the KFD, it would be spoken of more often. Begs the question as to it's relevance, or if our leaders believe what JS said or are trying to stay mainstream and keep it hidden. If it's the great secret that was finally let out, it shouldn't have been kept in the shadows, and spoken of in a round about way. Like we're told to try to be like HF, but to a lot of people that doesn't mean be a God. I would think that it's apostasy, if God wanted that information well known.

The leadership & doctrine in the LDS church is wishy washy, imo, and it feels quite like it's on a foundation of sand over the rock (Jesus Christ), which makes for a slippery surface. People have a hard time sustaining their balance when they read into the past, if the past changes from being doctrine to not being doctrine, with a big question mark. I do believe the KFD is spoken of in one place, that would be Nauvoo, Illinois. I attended a reenactment of it, quite an experience!

[Rivers]

I would add:

Joseph Smith's other First Vision accounts

KFD

The Sermon in the grove.

I would take away:

Section 77

The first verse in section 20

[igonzals]

I would go for canonizing BoM Yale version of profesor Skousen. He rocks!

And If I could I would add Deuterocanonical Books

[thesometimesaint]

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!"

 

I'm not in favor of dropping any Scripture. I'd like to add much more. All the books listed in the Bible we currently don't have. The Catholic version of the Bible. The Book of Enoch. The Book of Adam. The sealed portion of the plates for Book of Mormon. The writings of the lost ten tribes. The writings of all people whom have dealt with God. Amongst many more. 

Edited April 20, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Gray]

I don't know that I'd necessarily remove anything. I'd probably add more holy books to the canon from other traditions, though.

[Jeanne]

Love Ye One Another should never be deleted..but emphasized..EVERYONE!  If we fcould do that..it would eliminate so many bad traits of envy, greed and all kinds of prejudices.

[Jeanne]

Oh...also...We believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

[toon]

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. 

 

"And by 'mild drinks,' I mean beer."

[Coreyb]

I don't know that I'd necessarily remove anything. I'd probably add more holy books to the canon from other traditions, though.

I have thought that as well, until I read some other holy books (Qur'an, Bhagavad Gita, Epic of Gilgamesh) and now I am not so sure that would be a good thing. As valuable as they are, I now disagree with the sort of new age notion that all religions and scriptures are teaching the same basic things. There are irreconcilable differences

Edited April 20, 2015 by Coreyb

[Gray]

I have thought that as well, until I read some other holy books (Qur'an, Bhagavad Gita, Epic of Gilgamesh) and now I am not so sure that would be a good thing. As valuable as they are, I now disagree with the sort of new age notion that all religions and scriptures are teaching the same basic things. There are irreconcilable differences

 

On literal level, there are irreconcilable differences intra-canon too. But the letter killeth, and the spirit giveth life.

[Sleeper Cell]

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

How well did that work out for our RLDS/CoC cousins?

[Gray]

How well did that work out for our RLDS/CoC cousins?

 

I don't think their abandoning of polygamy did them any harm. In fact if they hadn't abandoned polygamy they never would have existed in the first place. 

[stemelbow]

Drop everything and start over. It'd be for the best.

[JLHPROF]

Personally I would just like to see the revelations our prophets have received that are historically confirmed being put to a canonization vote.  Like the 1880 revelation to Wilford Woodruff or the 1882 revelation to John Taylor (calling Heber J. Grant to the apostleship).

If they have no historical doubt (like some consider the 1886 revelation to have) then they should be considered for canonization.  Who are we to decide there are words proceeding forth from the mouth of God that we don't have to live by.

[Damien the Leper]

How well did that work out for our RLDS/CoC cousins?

Community of Christ is doing quite well. They are gaining more and more LDS converts via their Seekers groups/congregations. The Seekers congregation on SLC continues to grow. Their Enduring Principles promote the "Christ's Mission; Our Mission" mindset.

[Coreyb]

On literal level, there are irreconcilable differences intra-canon too. But the letter killeth, and the spirit giveth life.

I know Gray I know. Don't worry, I can be just as broad, abstract and deep as the next liberal mormon, but even setting aside "the law" (myths, commandments, exhortations?) and just going with "the spirit" (philosophical underpinnings, ethics?) I defy you to reconcile the messages of the Holy Qur'an with say the messages of the Doctrine and Covenants and get anywhere beyond "God is in charge and we should all be happy and nice", if you can even get that far.

I have come to the soft conclusion that people who preach the dogma that all religion and philosophy are all saying the same thing either don't read the different scriptures or they ignore what the authors are saying and replace it with what they wish they were saying.

This makes me the type of "liberal" who says, "I respect your beliefs and feel that I can learn from them but I ultimately believe mine to be more 'true' than yours and will agree to disagree" as opposed to "I believe that everyone's beliefs are equally 'true', as long as they agree with mine". Perhaps you can persuade me otherwise.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I would revise the order of the NT putting Peter, James, John, and Jude's epistles before Paul's letters, giving them more weight and emphasis, I would also reorder the Gospels to: John, Mark, Luke, and Matthew for similar reasons.

If I was particularly LDS I would seek permission to use the Inspired Version and make that the standard Bible used, instead of the KJV.

I would totally reformat everything making the scriptures closer to the "Study Edition" Bibles put out by Christians, with photos, charts, notes, definitions, quotes, etc. embedded within the text.

Edit: And I would definitely put the Lectures on Faith back into their rightful place at the beginning of the D&C.

Edited April 20, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Gray]

I know Gray I know. Don't worry, I can be just as broad, abstract and deep as the next liberal mormon, but even setting aside "the law" (myths, commandments, exhortations?) and just going with "the spirit" (philosophical underpinnings, ethics?) I defy you to reconcile the messages of the Holy Qur'an with say the messages of the Doctrine and Covenants and get anywhere beyond "God is in charge and we should all be happy and nice", if you can even get that far.

I have come to the soft conclusion that people who preach the dogma that all religion and philosophy are all saying the same thing either don't read the different scriptures or they ignore what the authors are saying and replace it with what they wish they were saying.

This makes me the type of "liberal" who says, "I respect your beliefs and feel that I can learn from them but I ultimately believe mine to be more 'true' than yours and will agree to disagree" as opposed to "I believe that everyone's beliefs are equally 'true', as long as they agree with mine". Perhaps you can persuade me otherwise.

 

Well, I suppose I would start by saying that there are universal and particular passages to be found in any book of scripture. The universal passages seem to point to a universal morality - unconditional love, oneness, forgiveness, humility and so forth. There are also passages that are particular, seeming to either apply to only a particular people or even representing modes of thinking now recognized as harmful or immoral. We can find examples in any book of scripture - people hostile to religious faith tend to quote them all the time. I think we can learn from these particulars in the same way we learn from our own mistakes. 

 

I don't assume that any scripture is a historically-accurate narrative. When I read scripture I'm looking for larger themes and lessons, including lessons that may not have been intended by the authors (which I think is also true of how Christians tend to read the Old Testament).  I think literalism misses the point of scripture. The story often eclipses the deeper meaning that can be taken from the story. Too much focus on the vehicle, not enough on the destinations that are possible. 

 

I don't assume that any scripture represents literal words from Gods, but rather as the human attempt at reaching out toward divinity. True principles are not directly revealed. We awaken to them, we discover them, and sometimes we forget about them. 

 

No one would hold a position if they didn't think it was superior to competing positions. I wouldn't hold my own positions if I didn't think they were a more useful approach than fundamentalism. But at the same time the universal truths that I see in scriptures are present in every other religion. Even if the approach is different than mine, and even if I don't like all of their particulars, all of them still have some of the universals that I value. And who is to say that fundamentalism isn't situationally better than my own perspective. I only know what works for me. 

 

I'll stop there before the term "new age" gets used again.