What is canonized scripture?

[Fether]

What is canonized scripture?

Is canonized scripture meant to be a tool so we can dispel false doctrine from others (including our latter-day prophets - ie. the scriptures don't teach anything gender so there isn't anything wrong with being transgender)?

Should we be weighing everything The Church says against the canonized scripture?

Are we justified to, or even expected to, go against the bretheren when they say somehting that isn't found in canonized scripture?

Can canon be changed?

According to our faith, are there other soures that have equal or more religious authority than canonized scripture?

Edited July 10, 2022 by Fether

[Stormin' Mormon]

As far as I can tell, the idea that we renew our baptismal covenants by taking the sacrament is not taught in canonized scripture. When I researched the idea some years back, the best I could come up with is that the teaching can be inferred from the fact that the blessings of the two ordinances are so similar.

Thus, I would say that we don't reject teachings that are not found in the canon, but we do reject those that contradict it or are inconsistent with it. For thoae teachings that are neither supported nor denied by the canon, we have personal and prophetic revelation.

Edited July 10, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[JLHPROF]

Canon by definition is anything accepted as authorized and binding by the Church, usually by a common consent vote.

It has zero connection to truthfulness.  It doesn't even need to be divine.  And much clearly from God is never even considered for canon.

Canon can absolutely be changed.  But rarely is.

[Fether]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Canon by definition is anything accepted as authorized and binding by the Church, usually by a common consent vote.

It has zero connection to truthfulness.  It doesn't even need to be divine.  And much clearly from God is never even considered for canon.

Canon can absolutely be changed.  But rarely is.

What, if there is any, in our faith has more authority than canon? And do you have a reference to where it is stated?

[2BizE]

17 minutes ago, Fether said:

What, if there is any, in our faith has more authority than canon? And do you have a reference to where it is stated?

One example of this Fether may be in D&C 89, where the Lord recommends (not by commandment) we drink beer (mild beverage of barley).  This is the only canonized version of the WoW and the only version that appears to be binding on members.

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Fether said:

What, if there is any, in our faith has more authority than canon? And do you have a reference to where it is stated?

Ezra Taft Benson:

Second:The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living oracles and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: “You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.”

When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, “Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.” Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: “There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,” said he, “when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.” That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.” [In Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19]

 

From the Church website:

"They found Hyrum standing beside the fireplace, speaking to a full house. He held the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants in his hand and declared that they were the law God had given them to build up His kingdom.“

Everything more than these,” Hyrum said, “is of man and is not of God.”

Brigham listened to Hyrum’s sermon, his emotions rising. Beside him, Joseph sat with his face buried in his hands. When Hyrum finished, Joseph nudged Brigham and said, “Get up.”

Brigham stood and picked up the scriptures Hyrum had set down. He laid the books in front of him, one by one, so everyone in the room could see. “I would not give the ashes of a rye straw for these three books,” he declared, “without the living oracles of God.” Lacking a latter-day prophet, he said, the Saints were no better off than they were before God revealed the gospel through Joseph Smith.

When he finished, Brigham could tell his sermon had moved Hyrum. Rising to his feet, Hyrum humbly asked the Saints to forgive him. Brigham was right, he said. As valuable as the scriptures were, they were no substitute for a living prophet." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/saints-v1/40-united-in-an-everlasting-covenant?lang=eng

[Fether]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Ezra Taft Benson:

Second:The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living oracles and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: “You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.”

When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, “Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.” Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: “There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,” said he, “when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.” That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.” [In Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19]

 

From the Church website:

"They found Hyrum standing beside the fireplace, speaking to a full house. He held the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants in his hand and declared that they were the law God had given them to build up His kingdom.“

Everything more than these,” Hyrum said, “is of man and is not of God.”

Brigham listened to Hyrum’s sermon, his emotions rising. Beside him, Joseph sat with his face buried in his hands. When Hyrum finished, Joseph nudged Brigham and said, “Get up.”

Brigham stood and picked up the scriptures Hyrum had set down. He laid the books in front of him, one by one, so everyone in the room could see. “I would not give the ashes of a rye straw for these three books,” he declared, “without the living oracles of God.” Lacking a latter-day prophet, he said, the Saints were no better off than they were before God revealed the gospel through Joseph Smith.

When he finished, Brigham could tell his sermon had moved Hyrum. Rising to his feet, Hyrum humbly asked the Saints to forgive him. Brigham was right, he said. As valuable as the scriptures were, they were no substitute for a living prophet." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/saints-v1/40-united-in-an-everlasting-covenant?lang=eng

There is a difference between importance and authority. The living prophet is more important because it gives us direction for our day and age. But are we to believe the modern day prophets have the same, or more, authority as scripture?

[Fether]

23 minutes ago, Obehave said:

No. The scriptures have no authority in and of themselves. The scriptures are the writings of men and women who were inspired by God to write them whether or not those men and women had any authority from God.  Usually men and women do have some authority from God to do particular things but I can conceive of men and women who may be inspired by God to write something regarding their feelings and thoughts without God authorizing them to do something other than write and live as God inspires them to live.

So you think scripture and modern day prophets have equal authority when it comes to speaking for God?

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Fether said:

So you think scripture and modern day prophets have equal authority when it comes to speaking for God?

Yes.

But there are limits to that authority for both. Specifically God can't lie so while he can change directions the modern day prophet shouldn't contradict doctrine established in previous revelation.

But yes, revelation trumps canon.

Edited July 10, 2022 by JLHPROF

[manol]

One of the problems with labeling a book of scripture as "the Word of God" is that in doing so we elevate portions which are NOT the actual words of God to a status which they do not deserve, and simultaneously de-value those portions which do legitimately qualify for that appellation.  So we have the words of Paul being elevated to equal standing with the words of Jesus Christ, and imo that is a mistake. 

The highest authority we have relative access to is God the Holy Spirit, via the Gift of the Holy Ghost and/or the Light of Christ (I do not think there is a qualitative difference between the two).  

I never was comfortable with resorting to an analysis of which book or prophet or apostle said what when, and has anyone else said anything trumping it since then, in order to decide what is "true". 

Disclaimer:  I'm not a member of any organized religion. 

Edited July 10, 2022 by manol

[Fether]

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.

But there are limits to that authority for both. Specifically God can't lie so while he can change directions the modern day prophet shouldn't contradict doctrine established in previous revelation.

But yes, revelation trumps canon.

Is canonized scripture fallible?

Are Prophets fallible?

does fallibility have any affect on their level of authority?

[Fether]

30 minutes ago, Obehave said:

No. How on Earth did you think I said or think that. Want to read what I wrote, AGAIN?

I’m sorry I offended you. I asked the question because I am trying g to understand. That wasn’t a “gotchya”question.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

Is canonized scripture fallible?

Are Prophets fallible?

does fallibility have any affect on their level of authority?

Yes, both are fallible.

It has an effect of acknowledging the fallacious statements.  It has no effect on their authority.  When either present the word of God it's with his authority.

It's a false dichotomy.  Scriptures are written words of the prophets.  Prophet's words are written down - the only difference is canonization which still contains errors.

Paul can be just as mistaken as Brigham.  President Nelson can be just as right or wrong as Nephi.

[Fether]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, both are fallible.

It has an effect of acknowledging the fallacious statements.  It has no effect on their authority.  When either present the word of God it's with his authority.

It's a false dichotomy.  Scriptures are written words of the prophets.  Prophet's words are written down - the only difference is canonization which still contains errors.

Paul can be just as mistaken as Brigham.  President Nelson can be just as right or wrong as Nephi.

Can you name a doctrine or principle from scripture that is false?

[OGHoosier]

I believe that the purpose of scripture is to serve as the focal point, the organizing principle, the central pillar of Zion.

Now to elaborate on that. This is going to be mostly stream of consciousness, I will try to condense it into a more concise tl;dr below. 

Zion is a people. Zion is wherever those who follow the Lord congregate. The whole point of it is to create a peculiar people, a tribe ultimately dedicated to Jesus Christ and His principles. However, such tribes do not form on their own. They need things that connect them to the past and project into the future. They need a common authority which gives them a frame of reference, a language in which to communicate on authoritative matters. The scriptures serve this purpose.

First, the scriptures are a record of God's dealing with mankind. Because of this, we know what we are. We know how we are connected to God's efforts thousands of years ago among people and places utterly foreign to us. The scriptures give us a picture of our place in things, our past, our nature relative to God. They establish a continuity between the Saints of different ages, eras, and areas which would otherwise be exceedingly difficult to create. 

Furthermore, they give us a means to communicate with God and each other. Prophets and laymembers often receive inspiration based on scripture study. The very questions we ask are often framed by the scriptures. They are useful mediums for interacting with God. We also use scripture in order to communicate with each other and discuss the nature of our doctrinal commitments and responsibilities. It's a common language, a common point of reference, a common but readily available source of authority which can ground us when we disagree. If we didn't have scripture, it would be very easy to a) just pull stuff out of our butts when we come across things we don't understand or b) dismiss others as doing the same. Scriptures set boundaries and ground our disagreements. I think it's an important function. 

Joseph Smith remarked (or is quoted to have remarked) that the Kingdom of Heaven is organized based on revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the Kingdom are placed. I believe this to be true. However, I think it would be impossible for such an organization to hold itself together through time without an additional point of common reliance. Our belief in the scriptures binds us together as prophets and policies come and go. They give us continuity. They are the soul of Zion. 

I should not move on before discussing the propositional content of scripture. I've talked about how the scriptures are useful in an anthropological sense, but the scriptural ideas themselves are important. By and large scripture is reliable, but scripture is not necessarily "simple truth." Scripture has different genres - some is eyewitness testimony, some is psalmody, some poetry, some allegory, some historical chronicle, probably a fair amount of oral tradition and dramatization etc. Furthermore, we have never claimed inerrancy - and I would like to see us act like it, as opposed to the whole "Mormons say the prophet is fallible but nobody really believes it" joke. Not all scripture is created equal. Some of it is pretty pure gospel truth, some is more diluted. That's just fine, because the purpose of the scriptures is to be a companion and medium to prophetic guidance and administration in real time, as opposed to a static repository of equally weighted propositions. Instructions for animal sacrifice and bans on shellfish are in there even though we don't practice that anymore, because it connects us with how God once interacted with His people. Scripture contains the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord unto salvation, but not perfectly for each point in history. 

TL;DR 

Scriptures give us a continuity between Saints of all places and ages on Earth. Very important for a worldwide Zion people. 

They serve as mediums for communication with God (a lot like Joseph Smith's seer stones). 

They set boundaries and provide a common frame of reference for intra-Zion disagreements. 

They illustrate the Lord's action and lay out His will, though not in perfect form. 

They're basically the default unless prophets say otherwise - which is useful because prophets don't have the time nor energy to lay out discourse on everything. It's hard to overestimate the impact of a good baseline default on group cohesion.

They are inspired by God, though for the most part I believe they aren't dictated by God. I think God has to allow a certain degree of prophetic idiosyncrasy for various reasons (out of scope here, will elaborate if requested), so He doesn't dictate, but He's very clearly capable of making connections within the prophet's mind as necessary. 

Don't think they're meant to be rationally exhaustive, more intuitive/inviting. 

Scripture - not a static collection of truth-propositions, more like an organizational tool that the Good Shepherd uses to herd us cats into the right direction - a pillar of stability in direct opposition to the centrifugal forces that would otherwise rend Zion limb from limb. 

I hope that made a modicum of sense. 

Edit: This thought just occurred to me. We talk about prophets translating scripture, but I think scripture itself is supposed to "translate" divine ideas and priorities for the people who receive it. Like how the Old Testament uses ancient Near Eastern cosmology even though the "firmament" and the "windows of heaven" and the "waters under the earth" don't literally exist - God's the creator, He's in charge, humans made a choice to fall from heaven in order to be here, and He needs to convey that without pushing His people so far from their current understanding that they just go after Moloch or something. So scripture also serves to sort of launder divine truths, turning meat into milk in some cases. 

Edited July 10, 2022 by OGHoosier

[Fether]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

I believe that the purpose of scripture is to serve as the focal point, the organizing principle, the central pillar of Zion.

Now to elaborate on that. This is going to be mostly stream of consciousness, I will try to condense it into a more concise tl;dr below. 

Zion is a people. Zion is wherever those who follow the Lord congregate. The whole point of it is to create a peculiar people, a tribe ultimately dedicated to Jesus Christ and His principles. However, such tribes do not form on their own. They need things that connect them to the past and project into the future. They need a common authority which gives them a frame of reference, a language in which to communicate on authoritative matters. The scriptures serve this purpose.

First, the scriptures are a record of God's dealing with mankind. Because of this, we know what we are. We know how we are connected to God's efforts thousands of years ago among people and places utterly foreign to us. The scriptures give us a picture of our place in things, our past, our nature relative to God. They establish a continuity between the Saints of different ages, eras, and areas which would otherwise be exceedingly difficult to create. 

Furthermore, they give us a means to communicate with God and each other. Prophets and laymembers often receive inspiration based on scripture study. The very questions we ask are often framed by the scriptures. They are useful mediums for interacting with God. We also use scripture in order to communicate with each other and discuss the nature of our doctrinal commitments and responsibilities. It's a common language, a common point of reference, a common but readily available source of authority which can ground us when we disagree. If we didn't have scripture, it would be very easy to a) just pull stuff out of our butts when we come across things we don't understand or b) dismiss others as doing the same. Scriptures set boundaries and ground our disagreements. I think it's an important function. 

Joseph Smith remarked (or is quoted to have remarked) that the Kingdom of Heaven is organized based on revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the Kingdom are placed. I believe this to be true. However, I think it would be impossible for such an organization to hold itself together through time without an additional point of common reliance. Our belief in the scriptures binds us together as prophets and policies come and go. They give us continuity. They are the soul of Zion. 

I should not move on before discussing the propositional content of scripture. I've talked about how the scriptures are useful in an anthropological sense, but the scriptural ideas themselves are important. By and large scripture is reliable, but scripture is not necessarily "simple truth." Scripture has different genres - some is eyewitness testimony, some is psalmody, some poetry, some allegory, some historical chronicle, probably a fair amount of oral tradition and dramatization etc. Furthermore, we have never claimed inerrancy - and I would like to see us act like it, as opposed to the whole "Mormons say the prophet is fallible but nobody really believes it" joke. Not all scripture is created equal. Some of it is pretty pure gospel truth, some is more diluted. That's just fine, because the purpose of the scriptures is to be a companion and medium to prophetic guidance and administration in real time, as opposed to a static repository of equally weighted propositions. Instructions for animal sacrifice and bans on shellfish are in there even though we don't practice that anymore, because it connects us with how God once interacted with His people. Scripture contains the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord unto salvation, but not perfectly for each point in history. 

TL;DR 

Scriptures give us a continuity between Saints of all places and ages on Earth. Very important for a worldwide Zion people. 

They serve as mediums for communication with God (a lot like Joseph Smith's seer stones). 

They set boundaries and provide a common frame of reference for intra-Zion disagreements. 

They illustrate the Lord's action and lay out His will, though not in perfect form. 

They're basically the default unless prophets say otherwise - which is useful because prophets don't have the time nor energy to lay out discourse on everything. It's hard to overestimate the impact of a good baseline default on group cohesion.

They are inspired by God, though for the most part I believe they aren't dictated by God. I think God has to allow a certain degree of prophetic idiosyncrasy for various reasons (out of scope here, will elaborate if requested), so He doesn't dictate, but He's very clearly capable of making connections within the prophet's mind as necessary. 

Don't think they're meant to be rationally exhaustive, more intuitive/inviting. 

Scripture - not a static collection of truth-propositions, more like an organizational tool that the Good Shepherd uses to herd us cats into the right direction - a pillar of stability in direct opposition to the centrifugal forces that would otherwise rend Zion limb from limb. 

I hope that made a modicum of sense. 

Edit: This thought just occurred to me. We talk about prophets translating scripture, but I think scripture itself is supposed to "translate" divine ideas and priorities for the people who receive it. Like how the Old Testament uses ancient Near Eastern cosmology even though the "firmament" and the "windows of heaven" and the "waters under the earth" don't literally exist - God's the creator, He's in charge, humans made a choice to fall from heaven in order to be here, and He needs to convey that without pushing His people so far from their current understanding that they just go after Moloch or something. So scripture also serves to sort of launder divine truths, turning meat into milk in some cases. 

Just to clarify why I am asking. There are many (not TOO many) that are asking when it is ok to disagree with what the prophets say. There is a history of incorrect teachings from prophets and they are wondering how we ought to treat such topics when they show up today and in the future.

many are holding them to the canonized scriptures. If we don’t like it and it isn’t i  scripture, we are justified in Going against it 

[JAHS]

6 hours ago, Fether said:

What is canonized scripture?

Specifically the official canonized scripture of the Church includes:
Bible
Book of Mormon
Doctrine and Covenants
Pearl of Great Price

Other sources that can be just as important or more important than those above are the words of our latter-day prophets.
President Joseph Fielding Smith taught: “When one of the brethren stands before a congregation of the people today, and the inspiration of the Lord is upon him, he speaks that which the Lord would have him speak. It is just as much scripture as anything you will find written in any of these records, and yet we call these the standard works of the Church." (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:186.)

[JLHPROF]

34 minutes ago, Fether said:

Just to clarify why I am asking. There are many (not TOO many) that are asking when it is ok to disagree with what the prophets say. There is a history of incorrect teachings from prophets and they are wondering how we ought to treat such topics when they show up today and in the future.

many are holding them to the canonized scriptures. If we don’t like it and it isn’t i  scripture, we are justified in Going against it 

We always have the right to disagree.  Our beliefs are our own.  I personally have many disagreements with the actions and teachings of Church leaders.

That's allowed. Groupthink isn't a gospel requirement.  What isn't allowed is trying to set those over you in order.  Steadying the ark etc.  They preside over the Church and hold that authority.  Any errors on their part is for God to correct.  We just need to live up to what we believe.

 

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

As far as I can tell, the idea that we renew our baptismal covenants by taking the sacrament is not taught in canonized scripture. When I researched the idea some years back, the best I could come up with is that the teaching can be inferred from the fact that the blessings of the two ordinances are so similar.

Thus, I would say that we don't reject teachings that are not found in the canon, but we do reject those that contradict it or are inconsistent with it. For thoae teachings that are neither supported nor denied by the canon, we have personal and prophetic revelation.

3 Nephi 18: 10 can be taken as a reference to renewing our baptismal and other priesthood covenants because partaking the sacrament “doth witness unto the Father that ye are willing to do that which I have commanded you," which entails keeping covenants already made. When we renew our original covenant witness, we  reaffirm or reestablish the covenant relationship between ourselves and God, and in practice improve and strengthen it. In many instances, this principle of repentance takes on as aspect of refreshing, repeating or replacing something that was broken, not necessarily the physical ordinance, but the spiritual covenant.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Fether said:

What is canonized scripture?

Is canonized scripture meant to be a tool so we can dispel false doctrine from others (including our latter-day prophets - ie. the scriptures don't teach anything gender so there isn't anything wrong with being transgender)?

Should we be weighing everything The Church says against the canonized scripture?

Are we justified to, or even expected to, go against the bretheren when they say somehting that isn't found in canonized scripture?

Can canon be changed?

According to our faith, are there other soures that have equal or more religious authority than canonized scripture?

If the bottom line of your question is to determine when is it OK to disagree with what the prophets say, I would say it is when you disagree in good faith and good conscience according to the companionship of the Holy Ghost you possess, and act in a way that retains your membership in the Church (the Lord does not wish you to leave it).

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, manol said:

Disclaimer:  I'm not a member of any organized religion. 

An interesting fact!  An independent thinker, but I do see advantages to having a "family" of millions.

Also I cannot think of anything in the COJCLDS I would change.

[manol]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

An interesting fact!  An independent thinker, but I do see advantages to having a "family" of millions.

How big your "family" is depends on how big of a circle you draw.

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Also I cannot think of anything in the COJCLDS I would change.

Not even the abbreviation for its name?

[Fether]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

COJCLDS

COJCLS*
 

there is no “D”. Latter-day is one word.

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, manol said:

How big your "family" is depends on how big of a circle you draw.

Not even the abbreviation for its name?

Two EXCELLENT points.

The problems we have I think are historical in nature which doesn't bother me at all, we still have literalists who accept the bible as history, worry about Blacks and the priesthood, polygamy, Joseph's personal life, etc.

We are all humans and have a humanist God, we worship, effectively the IDEA of Human perfection and how to achieve it.

How the heck could anyone argue against THAT!!??

But they all find confused reasons to do so, because humans are imperfect.

If we were perfect our church would be out of business!  

😁

Don't know what to do with these folks but love 'em

Edited July 11, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Fether said:

COJCLS*
 

there is no “D”. Latter-day is one word.

Hmmm.

Ok by me!  Thanks!