The Standard Works - Our Measuring Rod?

[pogi]

As a church, we uphold the standard works as the "standard of judgment and the measuring rod against which all doctrines and views are weighed...The scriptures always take precedence".  We accept the Bible as the word of God "as far as it is translated correctly".  The standard works are binding upon us and we have covenanted to obey them. 

Here are some supporting quotes:

Quote

Harold B. Lee:

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion.  The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church.  And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard  Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth. (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, Reports and Discourses, p.69)

Harold B. Lee:

It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they [speak] and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea." And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works (I think that is why we call them "standard"—it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it. ("Place of the Living Prophet, Seer and Revelator," Stand in Holy Places, (1974), p.162-163; originally delivered on 8 July 1964)

Joseph Fielding Smith:

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine.

The standard works are scripture. They are binding upon us. They are the mind and will and voice of the Lord. He never has, he does not now, and he never will reveal anything which is contrary to what is in them. No person, speaking by the spirit of inspiration, will ever teach doctrine that is out of harmony with the truths God has already revealed....

Bruce R. McConkie:

Men who wear the prophetic mantle are still men; they have their own views; and their understanding of gospel truths is dependent upon the study and inspiration that is theirs. Some prophets—I say it respectfully—know more and have greater inspiration than others. Thus, if Brigham Young, who was one of the greatest of the prophets, said something about Adam which is out of harmony with what is in the Book of Moses and in section 78, it is the scripture that prevails. This is one of the reasons we call our scriptures The Standard Works. They are the standard of judgment and the measuring rod against which all doctrines and views are weighed, and it does not make one particle of difference whose views are involved. The scriptures always take precedence. ("Finding Answers to Gospel Questions," Letter dated 1 July 1980. Published in Teaching Seminary Preservice Readings, Religion 370, 471, and 475 (2004))

President Gordon B. Hinckley:

“‘The Standard Works’ … are the reservoir of our doctrine from which flows the waters of gospel light. They provide the standard by which all gospel doctrine is measured. All other [materials] should spring from the word of the Lord as set forth in these volumes” (“Cornerstones of Responsibility” [regional representatives’ seminar, 5 Apr. 1991], 2).

Question 1) Do we really accept everything in the Bible as the word of God, and the standard by which all practices and doctrines should be measured, so far as it is translated correctly?

In another thread, we have been discussing the roles of women as outlined in scripture.  Here are some passages being discussed:

Quote

1 Timothy 2:11-15
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.  Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Titus 2:4-5 
And so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be... submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

1 Corinthians 11:3-10 
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. ...

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

1 Peter 3:1-7
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;  While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.  Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel...For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:  Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.  Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel...

Should we assume that all of these passages are mistranslated, or is the church failing to use the standard works as the standard for all teachings, doctrines, and practices...  Do you see the possible conundrum here?  If these passages are not mistranslated, are we bound to accept them and uphold them as the mind and will of God as stated in the articles of faith?

I am sure that others could come up with several other Biblical passages that don't square with current church teachings or practices, so I wonder if we really, truly treat the standard works as the definitive standard, or if we are using them as a good reference only.  How does one reconcile our practices (which may be contrary to Bible teachings) with our claim to use the scriptures as our measuring rod?

I don't want this to turn into a discussion about the role of women (save that for Papa's thread), but more a discussion about the role of the standard works.

Finally, shouldn't the highest standard be the Holy Spirit?  Referring to the scriptures as "the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine", sounds too sola scriptura to me.  What think ye?

Edited April 10, 2018 by pogi

[strappinglad]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Harold B. Lee:

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion.  The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church.  And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard  Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth. (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, Reports and Discourses, p.69)

This quote gives the caveat that is most appropriate. As you quoted the scriptures at the beginning, the modern Church would have a hard time concurring with these, let alone all the ones in the OT about punishments and slaves etc. Sometimes getting all of the 12 on board is the biggest blockage. Sometimes it is getting the general membership to move.

[JLHPROF]

Tricky balancing act.

Brigham Young stated that the living oracles were more important than the standard works, and Joseph Smith stated that revelation is often suited to the situation the saints find themselves in.  Both allow that there will be new patterns established not identical to those in scriptures.

But at the same time Joseph Smith stated that revelations cannot contradict prior revelations and be true, and that we never ask God for a revelation on a subject where he has already given his answer.  So if a truth is established clearly in the scriptures we need not look elsewhere for new revelation nor accept any that contradict correctly translated scripture.

Balancing the two is a very personal thing to do in my opinion.

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

Question 1) Do we really accept everything in the Bible as the word of God, and the standard by which all practices and doctrines should be measured, so far as it is translated correctly?

This requires some critical evaluation of terms, what does it mean to believe the Bible is the word of God, knowing that all the books in the bible do not harmonize, are written by different authors with different view points writing to various different audiences for different reasons using different genres of writing to try and accomplish their purposes.  It seems the recent trend in fundamentalist interpretations of scripture is an approach that tries to ignore the complexities of scripture and attempts to align people into a specific dogma about how to interpret scripture and call other perspectives heretical.  This trend is not supported by the rich history of the tradition and is an alarming one.  

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

Should we assume that all of these passages are mistranslated, or is the church failing to use the standard works as the standard for all teachings, doctrines, and practices...  Do you see the possible conundrum here?  If these passages are not mistranslated, are we bound to accept them and uphold them as the mind and will of God as stated in the articles of faith?

I am sure that others could come up with several other Biblical passages that don't square with current church teachings or practices, so I wonder if we really, truly treat the standard works as the definitive standard, or if we are using them as a good reference only.  How does one reconcile our practices (which may be contrary to Bible teachings) with our claim to use the scriptures as our measuring rod?

I don't want this to turn into a discussion about the role of women (save that for Papa's thread), but more a discussion about the role of the standard works.

An important question would be how do we account for the cultural biases of the people that wrote these scriptures.  What is environmental bias and what represents more inspired principles.  With respect to women, we have much more light and understanding today about the value of women, shouldn't we use that light and understanding and accept that many people 2000+ years earlier had a less enlightened understanding.  

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

Finally, shouldn't the highest standard be the Holy Spirit?  Referring to the scriptures as "the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine", sounds too sola scriptura to me.  What think ye?

The problem with just saying, the Holy Spirit is the yardstick, is that there is no consensus about what the spirit is saying.  What makes more sense to me is a rigorous evaluation and continued discussion about what our core values are, what is fair, what is pragmatic, what is enlightened based on our best understanding.  This evaluation and prioritization is what I think the purpose of continuing revelation is all about.  It requires a shifting of our positions based on the best information we have available to us.  It requires a childlike humility to reconsider our earlier positions, and it requires a commitment to truth and goodness in spite of our personal biases.  

 

[Duncan]

This is  a question i've wondered about for years now, do we reject anything and everything that contradicts what the scriptures say? if not then what are we to make of these statements?

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Tricky balancing act.

Brigham Young stated that the living oracles were more important than the standard works, and Joseph Smith stated that revelation is often suited to the situation the saints find themselves in.  Both allow that there will be new patterns established not identical to those in scriptures.

But at the same time Joseph Smith stated that revelations cannot contradict prior revelations and be true, and that we never ask God for a revelation on a subject where he has already given his answer.  So if a truth is established clearly in the scriptures we need not look elsewhere for new revelation nor accept any that contradict correctly translated scripture.

Balancing the two is a very personal thing to do in my opinion.

Thanks for your thoughts.  I don't really see these comments by Pres Young or Smith as contradicting what has been said in the quotes I posted above.  Brigham Young did say that the living oracles are "more important", but I don't think that he meant that they can/will rightly contradict them - simply that they give more relevant (which is not to say contradictory) revelation/teachings for our time.  As Joseph Smith himself stated, new revelations cannot contradict old ones.  It has been consistently and regularly taught in the church that the President will not contradict scripture.  We have, by common consent, upheld them as our standard.  My question is, what does that mean for us?  Have we covenanted to obey everything in them so far as they are translated correctly?  From our standard works:

Quote

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...

Do we really believe this?  See Bible passages from the OP.  Are all passages in the standard works given by revelation, or is there cultural elements/teachings found in the scriptures too?

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This requires some critical evaluation of terms, what does it mean to believe the Bible is the word of God, knowing that all the books in the bible do not harmonize, are written by different authors with different view points writing to various different audiences for different reasons using different genres of writing to try and accomplish their purposes.  It seems the recent trend in fundamentalist interpretations of scripture is an approach that tries to ignore the complexities of scripture and attempts to align people into a specific dogma about how to interpret scripture and call other perspectives heretical.  This trend is not supported by the rich history of the tradition and is an alarming one.  

I agree.  So what are some alternative critical evaluations/interpretations of AoF 8?

Edited April 10, 2018 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are all passages in the standard works given by revelation, or is there cultural elements/teachings found in the scriptures too?

Some of each I suspect.  There are even passages that are not inspired that have made their way in, only to be later removed.
Song of Solomon?  The old D&C 107 on marriage pre-D&C 132?  Lectures on Faith (maybe inspired, maybe not, maybe both)?  

The same would apply to the NT.  As would Joseph's statement that revelation is sometimes specific only to a situation (ie cultural elements).
And of course Brigham -

•  I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the *** when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are; but aside from that I believe the doctrines concerning salvation contained in that book are true, and that their observance will elevate any people, nation or family that dwells on the face of the earth.

[clarkgoble]

Just because something is in the scriptures doesn't mean it's doctrine.

Quote

I have heard ministers of the Gospel declare that they believed every word in the Bible was the word of God. I have said to them, "You believe more than I do." I believe the words of God are there; I believe the words of the Devil are there; I believe that the words of men and the words of angels are there; and that is not all, -- I believe that the words of a dumb brute are there. I recollect one of the prophets riding, and prophesying against Israel, and the animal he rode rebuked his madness. Brigham Young JD 14:280.

We can't neglect the scriptures but to read them requires reading them in the spirit.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Are all passages in the standard works given by revelation, or is there cultural elements/teachings found in the scriptures too?

The church teaches that the bible is fallible so that would seem to mean that not all passages are given by revelation.

Edited April 10, 2018 by bluebell

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Some of each I suspect.  There are even passages that are not inspired that have made their way in, only to be later removed.
Song of Solomon?  The old D&C 107 on marriage pre-D&C 132?  Lectures on Faith (maybe inspired, maybe not, maybe both)?  

The same would apply to the NT.  As would Joseph's statement that revelation is sometimes specific only to a situation (ie cultural elements).
And of course Brigham -

•  I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the *** when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are; but aside from that I believe the doctrines concerning salvation contained in that book are true, and that their observance will elevate any people, nation or family that dwells on the face of the earth.

 

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Just because something is in the scriptures doesn't mean it's doctrine.

We can't neglect the scriptures but to read them requires reading them in the spirit.

 I tend to agree with you guys and the Brigham Young quote.  But this raises questions.  Should I accept this non canonical quote by Brigham as more binding then the standard works?

Have the standard works not been unanimously accepted by the first presidency and apostles, and subsequently accepted by common consent of the church as binding doctrine upon us?  Can there be anything more doctrinal then the standard works?  

We didn’t pick and choose some passages and not others to accept as binding, we accepted ALL of the standard works - every passage.  

Did we bind ourselves into a pickle?

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church teaches that the bible is infallible so that would seem to mean that not all passages are given by revelation.

You mean they teach it is not infallible, right?

Can you give me some context?  I understand that to mean that it has not always been translated correctly, but that insofar as it is translated correctly, it is the word of God (infallible).

Regardless of what the church teaches, are we not bound to the standard works above the teachings of any man/organization by the law of common consent? 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

As a church, we uphold the standard works as the "standard of judgment and the measuring rod against which all doctrines and views are weighed...The scriptures always take precedence".  We accept the Bible as the word of God "as far as it is translated correctly".  The standard works are binding upon us and we have covenanted to obey them. 

Here are some supporting quotes:

Question 1) Do we really accept everything in the Bible as the word of God, and the standard by which all practices and doctrines should be measured, so far as it is translated correctly?

In another thread, we have been discussing the roles of women as outlined in scripture.  Here are some passages being discussed:

Should we assume that all of these passages are mistranslated, or is the church failing to use the standard works as the standard for all teachings, doctrines, and practices...  Do you see the possible conundrum here?  If these passages are not mistranslated, are we bound to accept them and uphold them as the mind and will of God as stated in the articles of faith?

I am sure that others could come up with several other Biblical passages that don't square with current church teachings or practices, so I wonder if we really, truly treat the standard works as the definitive standard, or if we are using them as a good reference only.  How does one reconcile our practices (which may be contrary to Bible teachings) with our claim to use the scriptures as our measuring rod?

I don't want this to turn into a discussion about the role of women (save that for Papa's thread), but more a discussion about the role of the standard works.

Finally, shouldn't the highest standard be the Holy Spirit?  Referring to the scriptures as "the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine", sounds too sola scriptura to me.  What think ye?

The quote in your OP comes from Bruce R. McConkie, who wrote a long article to “Honest Truth Seekers” about “Finding Answers to Gospel Questions”: https://www.lds.org/manual/teaching-seminary-preservice-readings-religion-370-471-and-475/finding-answers-to-gospel-questions?lang=eng 

“[The Standard Works] are the standard of judgment and the measuring rod against which all doctrines and views are weighed, and it does not make one particle of difference whose views are involved. The scriptures always take precedence.”

He quotes President Joseph Fielding Smith: “We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine."

He also says, “Each person stands alone where gospel scholarship is concerned; each has access to the same scriptures and is entitled to the guidance of the same Holy Spirit; each must pay the price set by a Divine Providence if he is to gain the pearl of great price.”

I see using the Standard Works as a standard tool for weighing and measuring (studying it out in our mind; D&C 9:8); using the guidance of the Holy Spirit as the overarching pattern; and gaining the pearl of great price as confirmation we have obtained the highest outcome of study and prayer (“the only perfect and absolute way to gain a sure knowledge of any truth in any field is to receive personal revelation from the Holy Spirit of God.”).

So yes, I believe we can rightly use the Bible as part of the overall standard (we need to triangulate the Standard Works; rather, quadrangulate) by which all practices and doctrines should be measured.

I think any Biblical passage needs to be taken in context of the entire standard (the Standard Works) to measure the rightness of a doctrine or practice, whether it is mistranslated or not. The Bible says X in some places and Y in others, the prophet says X or Y or Z; what do the rest or the whole of the Standard Works say? We draw a conclusion based on our comparison of the Standard Works with the Prophet and then pray about it.

In the context of study (i.e. finding answers to Gospel questions, which means we haven’t obtained  the Gospel answers which are the ultimate standards), which is where these quotes came out of, I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a fact-finder but a truth-revealer. The Standard Works are the physical means by which we compare facts (correct or not) and draw conclusions, and the Holy Spirit is the spiritual means by which we confirm correct conclusions and establish correct facts and standards forming the basis for further exploration. We find spiritual answers from Bible text when quickened by the Holy Ghost.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

You mean they teach it is not infallible, right?

Can you give me some context?  I understand that to mean that it has not always been translated correctly, but that insofar as it is translated correctly, it is the word of God (infallible).

Regardless of what the church teaches, are we not bound to the standard works above the teachings of any man/organization by the law of common consent? 

Yes, not infallible. Oops!  When something is fallible it means that it's capable of being erroneous.  As far as the bible goes, I've never equated fallibility with being translated correctly so from my perspective, it's still possible to be translated correctly but in error.  I don't believe that humans can produce anything without error.  

And, I'm not sure why we would be bound by the imperfect words of ancient prophets more than we are bound by the imperfect words of past and current prophets.  They're all prophets, why would we assume that the ancient ones are more important than latter-day ones?

 

[CV75]

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

I tend to agree with you guys and the Brigham Young quote.  But this raises questions.  Should I accept this non canonical quote by Brigham as more binding then the standard works?

Have the standard works not been unanimously accepted by the first presidency and apostles, and subsequently accepted by common consent of the church as binding doctrine upon us?  Can there be anything more doctrinal then the standard works?  

We didn’t pick and choose some passages and not others to accept as binding, we accepted ALL of the standard works - every passage.  

Did we bind ourselves into a pickle?

The Standard Works, as binding doctrine, teach us how to use them and discover more doctrine in conjunction with other fountains of truth, and I think that is generally covered in my post above. I think, for example, the gist of what Brigham Young said is supported by scripture. There is more doctrine than the standard works, and more sources of doctrine than the standard works, but that doesn’t make the teachings or their sources more or less doctrinally binding. I believe we don’t necessarily accept every passage, but the whole of what all the passages point to; this resoles issues where some passages point in different directions.

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, not infallible. Oops!  When something is fallible it means that it's capable of being erroneous.  As far as the bible goes, I've never equated fallibility with being translated correctly so from my perspective, it's still possible to be translated correctly but in error.  I don't believe that humans can produce anything without error.  

And, I'm not sure why we would be bound by the imperfect words of ancient prophets more than we are bound by the imperfect words of past and current prophets.  They're all prophets, why would we assume that the ancient ones are more important than latter-day ones?

We are bound by the revelations of the modern prophets too as they are canonized.  That is how I understand the law of common consent anyway.  Otherwise the practice is kind of meaningless if it doesn’t make one teaching more authoritative and binding then any other.  

Edited April 11, 2018 by pogi

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

We are bound by the revelations of the modern prophets too as they are canonized.  That is how I understand the law of common consent anyway.  Otherwise the practice is kind of meaningless if it doesn’t make one teaching more authoritative and binding then any other.  

I get what you are saying, but i disagree.  I believe that we are bound by the words of the prophets (when they are speaking as a prophet) even when those words have not been canonized.  I think that Christ will hold each of us accountable to how well we 'followed the prophets' that led us.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

As a church, we uphold the standard works as the "standard of judgment and the measuring rod against which all doctrines and views are weighed...The scriptures always take precedence".  We accept the Bible as the word of God "as far as it is translated correctly".  The standard works are binding upon us and we have covenanted to obey them. 

Here are some supporting quotes:

Question 1) Do we really accept everything in the Bible as the word of God, and the standard by which all practices and doctrines should be measured, so far as it is translated correctly?

In another thread, we have been discussing the roles of women as outlined in scripture.  Here are some passages being discussed:

Should we assume that all of these passages are mistranslated, or is the church failing to use the standard works as the standard for all teachings, doctrines, and practices...  Do you see the possible conundrum here?  If these passages are not mistranslated, are we bound to accept them and uphold them as the mind and will of God as stated in the articles of faith?

I am sure that others could come up with several other Biblical passages that don't square with current church teachings or practices, so I wonder if we really, truly treat the standard works as the definitive standard, or if we are using them as a good reference only.  How does one reconcile our practices (which may be contrary to Bible teachings) with our claim to use the scriptures as our measuring rod?

I don't want this to turn into a discussion about the role of women (save that for Papa's thread), but more a discussion about the role of the standard works.

Finally, shouldn't the highest standard be the Holy Spirit?  Referring to the scriptures as "the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine", sounds too sola scriptura to me.  What think ye?

And so why should we take these quotes as  "gospel" then? 

Testimony is always the bottom line.

[Jeanne]

As ward members now, do you use or quote the Pearl of Great Price very much?   I have wondered why it was not studied in classes...even Seminary

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

As ward members now, do you use or quote the Pearl of Great Price very much?   I have wondered why it was not studied in classes...even Seminary

I do personally, regardless of ward usage.  I am particularly fond of the Book of Abraham.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

As ward members now, do you use or quote the Pearl of Great Price very much?   I have wondered why it was not studied in classes...even Seminary

It is studied in Sunday school and seminary. It’s studied when the OT is studied because both books deal with the creation and fall.

[Storm Rider]

I believe that the Standard Works are what is best to judge all things. However, the Prophet and the Apostles interpret those scriptures for the saints when there is a conflict. It is not incumbent upon the saints to think that they are the best qualified to determine what everything means. I also don't think that as soon as we find something challenging or difficult that we immediately assume - "Oh, those silly ancient prophets and apostles were off their rocker again; so I ignore these few verses."  If we are challenged by verses then it is time for study, contemplation, and reviewing the words of all the prophets and pleading with God to guide us.  None of us is the perfect interpreter of the Spirit.  I suspect that even our most senior members on this Board still ask to recognize the Lord's guidance in all that we do, hear, and say.  

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The problem with just saying, the Holy Spirit is the yardstick, is that there is no consensus about what the spirit is saying.  What makes more sense to me is a rigorous evaluation and continued discussion about what our core values are, what is fair, what is pragmatic, what is enlightened based on our best understanding.  This evaluation and prioritization is what I think the purpose of continuing revelation is all about.  It requires a shifting of our positions based on the best information we have available to us.  It requires a childlike humility to reconsider our earlier positions, and it requires a commitment to truth and goodness in spite of our personal biases.  

Since your process does not require God at all why would anyone presume to call it revelation in the first place. We have plenty of other serviceable words to use for what you describe.

[Garden Girl]

5 hours ago, Jeanne said:

As ward members now, do you use or quote the Pearl of Great Price very much?   I have wondered why it was not studied in classes...even Seminary

But the PofGP is and has been studied, Jeanne,  as part of the rotating 4-year scripture study... for years...  I, too, like JLHPROF above (assuming he was serious), really like the Book of Abraham... I read Chap 4 in my own way as speaking of a form of evolution, i.e., Ch 4:18 (and other verses)..."And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed."   My thought is, how long did it take, and in what way did it take for these things to "obey?"  

GG

[Marginal Gains]

19 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

But the PofGP is and has been studied, Jeanne,  as part of the rotating 4-year scripture study... for years...  I, too, like JLHPROF above (assuming he was serious), really like the Book of Abraham... I read Chap 4 in my own way as speaking of a form of evolution, i.e., Ch 4:18 (and other verses)..."And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed."   My thought is, how long did it take, and in what way did it take for these things to "obey?"  

GG

It reinforces the view that Mormonism places obedience as a pinnacle attribute. Which kind of conflicts with the idea that we are here to learn and grow. According to the scripture you quote we are simply here to learn to obey.