What would you consider to be the most "complete" source in the LDS cannon?

[snowflake]

I have been comparing LDS scriptures with the KJV bible for many years. As many times before, I read recently the claim that the Book of Mormon contained the “fullness of the gospel”.  

I thought how ironic that none of the LDS scriptures would be considered “complete”. Certainly not the Bible, it is incomplete and corrupt….as the LDS have continuously informed everyone on this board many times.  

Joseph’s “inspired version” of the Bible is not complete simply because it was never finished.

And the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price are suspect because the Church has recently admitted this scripture has been totally misrepresented as an Egyptian papyri translation (church essay).

The D&C cannot be considered complete because many important sections from it and its predecessor have been deleted.

And finally the crown jewel of Mormonism, the Book of Mormon, does not contain the signature doctrines like the nature of the Godhead, Mother in Heaven, baptism for the dead or polygamy. The BOM is very vague about priesthood too.

Finally, the teachings of LDS Prophets should not be considered complete because many of their teachings contradict previous LDS Prophets,  and the biblical Prophets too.

So what would you consider to be the most complete source?

Thoughts?

[Maidservant]

What is behind your decision to equate "complete" (or 'everything') with "fullness of the gospel"?  Is that the meaning of the phrase "fullness of the gospel"?  (For me, no, that is not the meaning.)

Edited April 27, 2017 by Maidservant

[Maidservant]

To say 'gospel' is to say 'message'.  What is the fullness of Jesus's message (from his Father to man)?  The fullness of that message is the atonement of Jesus Christ and the impact that has on the past, present, and destiny of mankind.  If applied to a sacred text (book), which one(s) present that fundamental message most plainly, clearly, fully?

[Maidservant]

The LDS canon is not meant to be separate.  They are meant to be "one in the hand".  They are understood together,  and in light of modern revelation by a living prophet, or they are not understandable at all.  It may also be said that the LDS canon includes all truth, wherever it may be found.  There is not a closed canon.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

The LDS canon is not meant to be separate.  They are meant to be "one in the hand".  They are understood together,  and in light of modern revelation by a living prophet, or they are not understandable at all.  It may also be said that the LDS canon includes all truth, wherever it may be found.  There is not a closed canon.

The Bible itself is simply a collection of books written over time by different authors and editors.  There are different versions with different books in them.  The books themselves are of different genres, served different purposes for the authors, were at times written to different audiences.

LDS scripture as a whole is consistent imo with Biblical scripture, there is even the story of lost scripture being found.  As mentioned above, you have the various genre...the history telling, the laying out of the revealed law, prayers and visions.  In essence our Bible just has additional books added to it if one defines the Bible as Christian scripture.  It is just another example of Christians disagreeing what books to include in their canon.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Calm

[Okrahomer]

In addition to what Maidservant and Calm have already said, please note the correct spelling is "fulness"--with a single "l".  The word "fulness" (with a single "l") does not have the same meaning as the word "fullness" (with two.)  Please take a look at this article to gain a better understanding of LDS teaching on this subject.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Okrahomer

[bluebell]

There is no complete source.  We believe that God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God. 

 

[Gray]

55 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I have been comparing LDS scriptures with the KJV bible for many years. As many times before, I read recently the claim that the Book of Mormon contained the “fullness of the gospel”.  

I thought how ironic that none of the LDS scriptures would be considered “complete”. Certainly not the Bible, it is incomplete and corrupt….as the LDS have continuously informed everyone on this board many times.  

Joseph’s “inspired version” of the Bible is not complete simply because it was never finished.

And the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price are suspect because the Church has recently admitted this scripture has been totally misrepresented as an Egyptian papyri translation (church essay).

The D&C cannot be considered complete because many important sections from it and its predecessor have been deleted.

And finally the crown jewel of Mormonism, the Book of Mormon, does not contain the signature doctrines like the nature of the Godhead, Mother in Heaven, baptism for the dead or polygamy. The BOM is very vague about priesthood too.

Finally, the teachings of LDS Prophets should not be considered complete because many of their teachings contradict previous LDS Prophets,  and the biblical Prophets too.

So what would you consider to be the most complete source?

Thoughts?

I don't think what you're looking for exists. Or if it did I guess it would be LDS.org and its collective content? Maybe we should vote on canonization.

[clarkgoble]

48 minutes ago, snowflake said:

So what would you consider to be the most complete source?

Seems to me you're conflating several things. First the gospel or good news is fairly limited to the news of the atonement and that God was born on earth. There are some key things in the Book of Mormon addressing that which are missing from the Bible. While the effect of the good news is to take up the ordinances as a way of receiving grace, technically it's separate.

It's true that sometimes rhetorically we use "gospel" to simply mean "church teachings." That's the sense I think you are using it. But when the Book of Mormon is said to have the fulness of the gospel it clearly doesn't mean it has every church teaching. Although to be fair, some would point to the fact that less than ⅓ of the Book of Mormon is translated. We don't have the large plates of Nephi writings prior to Benjamin. So there's lot of history we're missing. More significantly we don't have the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon which apparently deals with lots of important things. 

Now if we switch from the gospel in the more strict or limited sense to simply sources, the problem becomes that any true prophecy is scripture. So that's continually getting bigger. If I pray about what to do about some problem, that's scripture to me. So the very notion is incoherent that there would be an end. 

For the D&C comment, I don't think the "doctrine" part which is still available as Lectures on Faith was ever intended to be treated as revelation. It was more akin to a catechism such as you find in Catholic schools. In some of the lectures there are things we'd see as incomplete or wrong. But then to be fair there are parts of the current D&C like that as well. I've mentioned problems of how D&C 130 represents the notes of the sermon Joseph gave for instance. The section on marriage wasn't given by revelation. I don't see that as a problem because the nature of scripture is complex. Clearly not everything in it is revelation even though it's inspired and valuable. The people compiling/writing/editing such texts have an fallible influence as well. And many parts of history or quasi-history with all the limits of perspective and bias associated with that.

[Calm]

Rare occasion I am going to disagree with you, Okra.  According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it is a variant spelling meaning the same thing...

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fulness&allowed_in_frame=0

Edited April 27, 2017 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

Complete is a meaningless term.  The Bible is not a book, it's a collection of many books from many authors over the course of centuries and scripture will continue to be added as it always has been.  We could put the Book of Mormon and the D&C etc into the Bible and it would still be the Bible - a collection of books.
Most of scripture is a record of God's dealings with man.  Unless God has stopped dealing with man, there will be more records.

And the Book of Mormon containing the "fullness of the gospel" doesn't mean it has every teaching, doctrine or law or ordinance in it.
After all, what is the actual gospel?  Because that is in there, even if every appendage didn't make that particular record.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

I have been comparing LDS scriptures with the KJV bible for many years. As many times before, I read recently the claim that the Book of Mormon contained the “fullness of the gospel”.  

I thought how ironic that none of the LDS scriptures would be considered “complete”. Certainly not the Bible, it is incomplete and corrupt….as the LDS have continuously informed everyone on this board many times.  

Joseph’s “inspired version” of the Bible is not complete simply because it was never finished.

And the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price are suspect because the Church has recently admitted this scripture has been totally misrepresented as an Egyptian papyri translation (church essay).

The D&C cannot be considered complete because many important sections from it and its predecessor have been deleted.

And finally the crown jewel of Mormonism, the Book of Mormon, does not contain the signature doctrines like the nature of the Godhead, Mother in Heaven, baptism for the dead or polygamy. The BOM is very vague about priesthood too.

Finally, the teachings of LDS Prophets should not be considered complete because many of their teachings contradict previous LDS Prophets,  and the biblical Prophets too.

So what would you consider to be the most complete source?

Thoughts?

You're basically speaking a foreign language to LDS.  We simply don't view scripture and gospel that way.  

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You're basically speaking a foreign language to LDS.  We simply don't view scripture and gospel that way.  

I agree. snowflake didn't even specify what he meant by complete.

None of those books contain all of my wife's recipes she has written explaining how to make most of her meals, or the ones she hasn't written yet that she just wings when she makes them. And none of them contain every name of every plant or animal there is on this planet, or some other planet that us "out there".

Sheesh. What the heck is snowflake talking about??? 

[Okrahomer]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

Rare occasion I am going to disagree with you, Okra.  According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it is a variant spelling meaning the same thing...

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fulness&allowed_in_frame=0

Oops!  Good to know! 🤓

[SmileyMcGee]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think by complete, Snowflake may be referring to a source that fully communicates all that is relevant for one to obtain eternal life. If you define a "source" as a single published works or collection of published works then I believe snowflake is correct that no "source" is "complete." Your question however, snowflake, assumes a definition of source that doesn't compute in the LDS framework. The "source" to the LDS would be God, who communicates through multiple channels (scripture, prophets, personal revelation, etc.). I'm not saying this to be rude, but asking Mormons for a published work or works that serves as a complete source is kind of a useless question. 

Edited April 27, 2017 by SmileyMcGee

[JLHPROF]

Well, there is one source that is complete, but it isn't a written one.

• Now, I ask all who hear me, why the learned men who are preaching salvation, say that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing? The reason is, that they are unlearned in the things of God, and have not the gift of the Holy Ghost; they account it blasphemy in any one to contradict their idea. If you tell them that God made the world out of something, they will call you a fool. But I am learned, and know more than all the world put together. The Holy Ghost does, anyhow, and he is within me, and comprehends more than all the world; and I will associate myself with him. - Joseph Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

I have been comparing LDS scriptures with the KJV bible for many years. As many times before, I read recently the claim that the Book of Mormon contained the “fullness of the gospel”.  

I thought how ironic that none of the LDS scriptures would be considered “complete”. Certainly not the Bible, it is incomplete and corrupt….as the LDS have continuously informed everyone on this board many times.  

Which members of this board have declared that the Bible is "corrupt"?  I know of none, and certainly that has not been claimed "continuosly."  Indeed, the official position of the LDS Church has always been "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." (LDS Article of Faith 8 )  LDS members regularly read and preach the Bible, and are even more knowledgeable about it than Protestant and Catholic christians.

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

....................................................

And the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price are suspect because the Church has recently admitted this scripture has been totally misrepresented as an Egyptian papyri translation (church essay).

Another false statement.  Why?  Do you hold Mormons in such contempt that only misrepresenting them will slake your anger?

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

.....................................................................  

And finally the crown jewel of Mormonism, the Book of Mormon, does not contain the signature doctrines like the nature of the Godhead, Mother in Heaven, baptism for the dead or polygamy. The BOM is very vague about priesthood too.

The Book of Mormon makes strong statements about priesthood, polygyny, and the Gottheit.   Nether the Bible nor Book of Mormon deal with the question of Mother in Heaven, even though it is a major Roman Catholic doctrine.  I dealt with some such theological questions in my Sept 2012 address during the SMPT annual meeting at the Utah State Univ in Logan, “Book of Mormon Theologies: A Thumbnail Sketch,” online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/251781864/BOOK-OF-MORMON-THEOLOGIES-A-THUMBNAIL-SKETCH .

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Finally, the teachings of LDS Prophets should not be considered complete because many of their teachings contradict previous LDS Prophets,  and the biblical Prophets too.

.........................................

The teachings of LDS prophets are no more diverse among themselves than are biblical prophets among themselves.  Indeed, one thing is clear:  LDS and biblical prophets carry the same basic message.

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." (LDS Article of Faith 8 )

Many people reading this statement interpret/ translate it to mean that we think the text in the Bible is corrupt, but that isn't what we mean when we say that.  

It isn't the text in the Bible that is corrupt, it is how some people interpret/ translate the text.

It doesn't say what some people say it says.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Ahab

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Many people reading this statement interpret/ translate it to mean that we think the text in the Bible is corrupt, but that isn't what we mean when we say that.  

It isn't the text in the Bible that is corrupt, it is how some people interpret/ translate the text.

It doesn't say what some people say it says.

Yes, and "translate" also means "transmit," which broadens things a bit.  What is most important is that Mormons regard the Bible with great reverence, and study it intensively.

[Tsuzuki]

Informed personal gnosis is the most complete source of LDS canon. Mormons call this the "gift of the Holy Ghost", but this approach is not unique to Mormonism.

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Many people reading this statement interpret/ translate it to mean that we think the text in the Bible is corrupt, but that isn't what we mean when we say that.  

It isn't the text in the Bible that is corrupt, it is how some people interpret/ translate the text.

It doesn't say what some people say it says.

I take that statement in the Articles of Faith to mean parts of the Bible are corrupt. As Robert pointed out translate, especially as Joseph used it, means transmit. But we know of missing texts of the Bible and the history is overwhelming that much of it was compiled out of disparate sources in the post-exilic period by uninspired scribes. Nephi more or less says it was true when spoken by the mouths of the prophets but sees the problems arising soon after. The standard non-Mormon scholarly view was that there were competing political and theological interests that drove what was removed from the Bible, what was changed, and what was added. Which sounds like corruption to my ears.

That's not to say it all is corrupt. Nor is it do deny the many divine truths therein.  But I think we have to be on guard, especially with regards to the Old Testament.

That said I also fully agree that a big problem is how people read the Bible we do have as well. So I frequently quote N. T. Wright who to my ears has a very Mormon-like interpretation of Paul against the more Luther inspired views of justification, faith and so forth.

 

Edited April 27, 2017 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

I have been comparing LDS scriptures with the KJV bible for many years. As many times before, I read recently the claim that the Book of Mormon contained the “fullness of the gospel”.   I thought how ironic that none of the LDS scriptures would be considered “complete”.... And finally the crown jewel of Mormonism, the Book of Mormon, does not contain the signature doctrines like the nature of the Godhead, Mother in Heaven, baptism for the dead or polygamy. The BOM is very vague about priesthood too.

Well, I think several posters have said as much, but you are slightly confounding terms here. I consider the Bible to be the most "complete" version of the scriptures. It can stand alone. It contains the fulness of the gospel, but imho estimation has been partially misinterpreted - including by the Church. The Book of Mormon does contain the fulness of the gospel, but really cannot stand alone. It does not really address what sin is too much. It is a supplementary scripture, which expounds upon biblical prophecies and other scriptural concepts. IMHO it too has been misinterpreted somewhat by the Church. 

Quote

Certainly not the Bible, it is incomplete and corrupt….as the LDS have continuously informed everyone on this board many times.  

Joseph’s “inspired version” of the Bible is not complete simply because it was never finished.

I will echo Robert here. I have never said the Bible is "corrupt" - at least not the KJV. However, I have asserted and continue to assert that the KJV has some scribal errors, omissions, and in some ways is not a great translation of the Hebrew. It does better in the Greek translation department. Do I believe there are corrupt Bibles as the BoM states? Yes. The KJV is one of the better versions, and is not corrupted in its teachings. I imagine the Lord believed the JST was complete enough, as he allowed JS to die. I largely consider it to be inspired interpretation rather than a new version anyway. I believe the Church has taken the right tack in including it for study/explanatory purposes.

Quote

And the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price are suspect because the Church has recently admitted this scripture has been totally misrepresented as an Egyptian papyri translation (church essay).

 

The Book of Abraham is inspired scripture, although we largely do not understand its translation process. One thing is for sure - its translation is not based upon 3rd century BC Egyptian.

Quote

The D&C cannot be considered complete because many important sections from it and its predecessor have been deleted.

If you are speaking of the Book of Commandments - it was superceded by D & C with complete knowledge of JS. If you are referring to the lectures on faith - imho they clearly are not dictation from the Lord like D&C. I don't consider them scripture. 

Quote

Finally, the teachings of LDS Prophets should not be considered complete because many of their teachings contradict previous LDS Prophets,  and the biblical Prophets too.

So what would you consider to be the most complete source?

Thoughts?

The Bible. It has the most contributions by the most prophets, and the most complete set of teachings, and continues to be my favorite scripture source. However, it is not complete. It refers to the BoM. It also says there will be additional prophecy by other witnesses such as the two witnesses of Rev 11. So, I am not quite sure of the purpose of your exercise.

[Jane_Doe]

4 hours ago, snowflake said:

So what would you consider to be the most complete source?

Ummm.... pointing out the obvious here: God's not dead.  Nor is He mute.  He continues to speak, and no words written in the past are complete without that *living voice* which speaks to every disciple today.  God's not dead.

Edited April 28, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[The Nehor]

Definitely the Malleus Maleficarum.

[Darren10]

7 hours ago, snowflake said:

I have been comparing LDS scriptures with the KJV bible for many years. As many times before, I read recently the claim that the Book of Mormon contained the “fullness of the gospel”.  

I thought how ironic that none of the LDS scriptures would be considered “complete”. Certainly not the Bible, it is incomplete and corrupt….as the LDS have continuously informed everyone on this board many times.  

Joseph’s “inspired version” of the Bible is not complete simply because it was never finished.

And the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price are suspect because the Church has recently admitted this scripture has been totally misrepresented as an Egyptian papyri translation (church essay).

The D&C cannot be considered complete because many important sections from it and its predecessor have been deleted.

And finally the crown jewel of Mormonism, the Book of Mormon, does not contain the signature doctrines like the nature of the Godhead, Mother in Heaven, baptism for the dead or polygamy. The BOM is very vague about priesthood too.

Finally, the teachings of LDS Prophets should not be considered complete because many of their teachings contradict previous LDS Prophets,  and the biblical Prophets too.

So what would you consider to be the most complete source?

Thoughts?

"And finally the crown jewel of Mormonism, the Book of Mormon, does not contain the signature doctrines like the nature of the Godhead, Mother in Heaven, baptism for the dead or polygamy. The BOM is very vague about priesthood too."

Quote

The record is now published in many languages as a new and additional witness that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and that all who will come unto Him and obey the laws and ordinances of His gospel may be saved.

Book of Mormon Introduction

That right there is the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.