What counts as canonised revelation?

[_rcrocket]

You're right, though. Two wrongs don't make a right. However, I do consider Harmony a friend, and friends tend to look out for one another.

Based upon your vulgar tag-line, I can see why you feel that way. However, wouldn't it be more productive if you contributed to the thread's topics rather than try to look into my motivations?

Plutarch

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Doesn't seem like a good way to get revelation. The members ALWAYS vote the way their leaders tell them. Sustaining votes are ALWAYS 100% to 0%. Once every blue moon you have the rebellious hand go up to oppose a sustaining vote. That member is typically escorted out of the chapel so he can voice his concerns in private, but his concerns are never publicly debated. What's the point of sustaining votes?

This is an overstatement. In a well-known and documented case, Brigham Young was unable to change the stake presidency in Parowan when members did not sustain the change, and the old stake president, William Dame, stayed in another 10 years. Brigham Young castigated the saints for their decision, but that was the case.

Joseph Smith proposed to release Sidney Rigdon from the First Presidency and was overridden by the conference at Nauvoo. Smith was unhappy about it but Rigdon stayed in.

Plutarch

Like I said, once in a blue moon. But even the two examples you found were just administrative stuff. Are there any examples of the prophet announcing a revelation from the pulpit and having difficulty getting 100% sustaining vote? I suspect they had some push-back on polygamy, but even with that I imagine most of the anger over that revelation was kept private, I can't imagine any hands going up when they said "any opposed?" in general conference. But suppose they did get a bunch of opposing hands. What would they do? Would they really say, "OK, we won't practice polygamy since you all voted against it."? Also, aren't members supposed to pray to get their own answers? If a prophet announces a new doctrine over the pulpit, or announces he received a revelation, the sustaining vote occurs immediately, doesn't it? No time to find out for yourlself, you just raise your hand to sustain.

[_rcrocket]

Of course, if "once in a blue moon," it just might mean that the Church is guided by the hand of the Lord.

But, if you don't like the consent features of the Church, then quit. No need trying to change it; it doesn't work. The Reform Church (Evangelical) does not provide for common consent; either you accept or get out. Find a church that suits your particular moral framework and attend.

P

[_Yoda]

You're right, though. Two wrongs don't make a right. However, I do consider Harmony a friend, and friends tend to look out for one another.

Based upon your vulgar tag-line, I can see why you feel that way. However, wouldn't it be more productive if you contributed to the thread's topics rather than try to look into my motivations?

Plutarch

Frankly, I don't find my tagline (Vegas' quote) vulgar. I thought it was rather well-stated and humorous, which was why I decided to include it. If you find it offensive, I apologize. I will no doubt be rotating it out when another sig catches my attention.

As far as the topic goes, I actually agree with your stance. I had also been taught that LDS Canon simply means what is part of the scriptures (The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and the Bible).

Maybe, however, we need to clarify definitions. It seems that what Harmony was referring to was what we as Mormons consider to be "doctrine" as opposed to "canon".

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Of course, if "once in a blue moon," it just might mean that the Church is guided by the hand of the Lord.

But, if you don't like the consent features of the Church, then quit. No need trying to change it; it doesn't work. The Reform Church (Evangelical) does not provide for common consent; either you accept or get out. Find a church that suits your particular moral framework and attend.

P

I'm just pointing out what I see as flaws in the system. It seems the church is trying to have it both ways. On one hand, the prophet speaks for the lord, end of discussion; on the other hand, the members vote on doctrine. But the member votes don't really count, right? So what is the point of the sustaining vote? It seems more like a sign of loyalty, who can shoot their hand up the fastest to support the prophet/bishop/SP. I know it's the way things are done, it just seems weird to me. The FP and Q12 decide on the doctrine, not the members.

[_rcrocket]

I'm just pointing out what I see as flaws in the system. It seems the church is trying to have it both ways. On one hand, the prophet speaks for the lord, end of discussion; on the other hand, the members vote on doctrine. But the member votes don't really count, right? So what is the point of the sustaining vote? It seems more like a sign of loyalty, who can shoot their hand up the fastest to support the prophet/bishop/SP. I know it's the way things are done, it just seems weird to me. The FP and Q12 decide on the doctrine, not the members.

It seems to be a flaw if you don't trust the brethren as men called of God.

But, I must also point out Matt 18:19, which defines doctrine as that which any two of the apostles would agree upon. "That it any two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven." Thus, it is a little-known fact that doctrine and procedure is generated from the ground up; hence, common consent is required by the Lord.

P

[_Mercury]

Going off the main idea that the general body of Mormons believe in modern revelation. From where do we consider that we are receiving and distributing what could be considered canonized revelation? Would general conferance be considered such? how about the ensign? etc.

I was always taught, as i myself taught that conference talks and the ensign were modern scripture, whatever that means.

Its the common response from mo's that we do indeed have scripture released to the public during this day and age.

Its laughable to call these treatises on triviality scripture.

[_moksha]

how about the ensign?

I too thought the Ensign Magazine was an integral part of the new canonization process, however I was told at FAIR that this is not the case. One point I do think is true is that we should speak of the "Fluid Canon" since all LDS scripture is subject to ongoing change from revelation. To that end, a monthly magazine would seem o be a good medium.

[_truth dancer]

The thing that I found so odd is that no one seems to be clear on what is or is not doctrine, what is or is not opinion, what is or is not revelation, what is or is not binding, what is changable or what is not, or even what is true and what is not....but in the end, nothing seems to matter anyway because it seems it is all just opinion of man. Anything and everything can change. Anything can be true but you just never know.

No one seems to know how to even define what is doctrine in the LDS church, let alone what it actually is.

Scritpures can have material added to it, or taken away. Sometimes people vote, sometimes not. Some is considered revelation, some is not. Some people think prophets speak as prophets when they speak as a prophet representing church, others do not. Some people believe that you can know what is or is not true by praying but if those prayers are not in accord with the brethren they they are not true, but the brethren may or may not be sharing their opinion, so prayer may not be all that helpful.

It is all so weird to me.

Why have a prophet, or a one and only true church if anything and everything might true, like in every other church...and it is all just a guess, a changing, altering, confusing mess which may or may not be directed by God depending on the day, the person, and the circumstance?

Now, to be clear (I've said this a million times on various boards and it doesn't seem to be clear to some folks), I have no need to have some authority, some absolute knowledge, or some rigid doctrine. It is just that in a church that claims to be directed by God, with communication between Jesus and a prophet, one would seem that it would not be so darn confusing!

~dancer~

[_Jason Bourne]

Your rhetoric simply does not change the established fact that "canon" means nothing more and nothing less than that which is published in between the covers of the "quad."

"Scripture" is not "canon" in LDS theology. "Scripture" was not "canon" in the New Testament. (Matt 22:29; no canon yet.)

LDS "canon" intentionally omits scripture at times; in particular, the authorized marginal readings of the KJV. (Compare KJV to LDS authorized version.)

LDS "Canon" includes things which are not revelations, but are committee formulations: Introduction to the Book of Mormon; statement of witnesses; Official Declaration, etc.

"Canon" under Protestant theology means only the books of the Bible.

"Canon" under Catholic theology includes an assemblage of eccelesiastical law --- canonical encylicals.

Thus, and again, for Latter-day Saints, "canon" means only that which is contained in the "quad." There is nothing pernicious or arrogant about this formulation. It simply is that set of documents which leaders and missionaries are expected to have in their possession.

The fact that something is, or is not, in the canon is meaningful only with that in mind. Although the King Follett discourse is published under the authority of the First Presidency in Priesthood and Relief Society manuals, and is expected to be taught to its members, it is not in the authorized set of things to haul around to meetings generally. Similarly, hymnals and the things in our hymns carry the force and weight of scripture but are not canonized -- i.e., not contained in the quad.

Plutarch

Well I think at least two men who became prophets disagree with you. Both JFS and HBL stated that the standard works are out canon and all doctrine is to be measured by them.