What counts as canonised revelation?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

Hi Jason...

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.


But you know apologists will claim that these prophets were just sharing their opinion. :-(

The standard works are canon... which doesn't mean "true" or unchangeable, since we know canon has been changed, and we know what is contained in canon is not necessarily true either.

So... one measures something against canon which mean absolutly nothing...

Prophets are supposed to be able to clarify but they just give their opinion, and the opinions are not consistent, and depending on who is in charge (not Jesus) doctrine, canon, policy, practice, revelation changes.

The bottom line is.... something being doctrine, canon, policy, revelation, practice, teaching, or whatever does not mean it is true. It just means it is either canonized, voted upon, current, or what is in vogue at the moment. Nothing else.

~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_rcrocket

Post by _rcrocket »

Jason Bourne wrote:
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.


Chapter and verse please where JFS and HBL say that canonical things equal something other than between the covers of the "quad." Or explain what you mean, because it is not apparent.

Plutarch
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

rcrocket wrote:
Jason Bourne wrote:
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.


Chapter and verse please where JFS and HBL say that canonical things equal something other than between the covers of the "quad." Or explain what you mean, because it is not apparent.

Plutarch


Why is what he said so hard to understand? (Oh, I forgot. You're an apologist. You don't understand that which is quite clear to the average member) The scriptures are the canon; the canon is the doctrine. If it's not in the canon, it's not doctrinal.
_Yoda

Plutarch and Jason

Post by _Yoda »

This is interesting. Here is a quote from a talk given by Harold B. Lee. It is from "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Harold B. Lee", Chapter 7, The Scriptures: Great Reservoir of Spiritual Power:

I say that we need to teach our people to find their answers in the scriptures. If only each of us would be wise enough to say that we aren’t able to answer any question unless we can find a doctrinal answer in the scriptures! And if we hear someone teaching something that is contrary to what is in the scriptures, each of us may know whether the things spoken are false—it is as simple as that. But the unfortunate thing is that so many of us are not reading the scriptures. We do not know what is in them, and therefore we speculate about the things that we ought to have found in the scriptures themselves. I think that therein is one of our biggest dangers of today.

When I meet with our missionaries and they ask questions about things pertaining to the temple, I say to them, as I close the discussion, “I don’t dare answer any of your questions unless I can find an answer in the standard works or in the authentic declarations of Presidents of the Church.”


According to this quote, President Lee states that the core of the gospel is in the scriptures. However, it appears that he does give some "wiggle room" allowing for continued revelation by modern prophets. Look at the second bolded section. Notice the wording, though. To me, "authentic declaration" implies that this is a revelation which will be added to the canon in some official written form.

Thoughts?
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

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.


Chapter and verse please where JFS and HBL say that canonical things equal something other than between the covers of the "quad."


You seem to think the quad is little more then some doctine put in paper and that there is all sorts of stuff that is binding in addition to that. But the quad is the binding doctrine and measure what is or is ont binding.

The Enyclopedia of Mormonism declares


“Whenever new doctrines are to be introduced, they are first presented by the President to his counselors and then to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in a meeting of the council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. If unanimously approved, they are then presented to the membership of the Church at a general conference for a sustaining vote.” -- Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.3.




B.H. Roberts has said “.

I do not think the world should require such perfection of us as to insist that our religious teachers always deliver the inerrant word of God! In any event it must be allowed by us that many unwise things were said in times past, even by prominent elders of the Church; things that were not in harmony with the doctrines of the Church; and that did not possess the value of Scripture, or anything like it; and it was not revelation. Moreover, no revelation even becomes the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until it is accepted by that Church by formal action; it must be accepted by official vote of the Church before it becomes the law of the Church (see B.H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, Vol. 2 p. 458).




Joseph Fielding Smith has written

“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 teaching 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. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol.2, p.113-14).



More recently, in an area conference Harold B. Lee stated:

"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, with Reports and Discourses)



Understand now?
Last edited by Lem on Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
_SatanWasSetUp
_Emeritus
Posts: 1183
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:40 pm

Post by _SatanWasSetUp »

Jason Bourne wrote:
rcrocket wrote:
Jason Bourne wrote:
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.


Chapter and verse please where JFS and HBL say that canonical things equal something other than between the covers of the "quad."


You seem to think the quad is little more then some doctine put in paper and that there is all sorts of stuff that is binding in addition to that. But the quad is the binding doctrine and measure what is or is ont binding.

The Enyclopedia of Mormonism declares


“Whenever new doctrines are to be introduced, they are first presented by the President to his counselors and then to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in a meeting of the council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. If unanimously approved, they are then presented to the membership of the Church at a general conference for a sustaining vote.” -- Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.3.




B.H. Roberts has said “.

I do not think the world should require such perfection of us as to insist that our religious teachers always deliver the inerrant word of God! In any event it must be allowed by us that many unwise things were said in times past, even by prominent elders of the Church; things that were not in harmony with the doctrines of the Church; and that did not possess the value of Scripture, or anything like it; and it was not revelation. Moreover, no revelation even becomes the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until it is accepted by that Church by formal action; it must be accepted by official vote of the Church before it becomes the law of the Church (see B.H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, Vol. 2 p. 458).



Joseph Fielding Smith has written

“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 teaching 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. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol.2, p.113-14).



More recently, in an area conference Harold B. Lee stated:

"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, with Reports and Discourses)



Understand now?









Or explain what you mean, because it is not apparent.

Plutarch


So we can ignore General Conference speakers who speak of things not in the scriptures? For example, the earring and tattoo commandment by GBH is not referenced in scripture, at least no scripture I can find. Also, the Word of Wisdom as practiced today is not in harmony with the sciptural account in the D&C.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »


So we can ignore General Conference speakers who speak of things not in the scriptures? For example, the earring and tattoo commandment by GBH is not referenced in scripture, at least no scripture I can find. Also, the Word of Wisdom as practiced today is not in harmony with the sciptural account in the D&C.


If what is said agrees with canon then you should follow it. If not then allegedly you can set it aside.
_rcrocket

Post by _rcrocket »

harmony wrote:
rcrocket wrote:
Jason Bourne wrote:
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.


Why is what he said so hard to understand? (Oh, I forgot. You're an apologist. You don't understand that which is quite clear to the average member) The scriptures are the canon; the canon is the doctrine. If it's not in the canon, it's not doctrinal.


I'm glad you understand what is meant by "the standard works are out canon." I have no clue what that means.

The canon is neither the scriptures nor the doctrine, although the canon contains scriptures and doctrine.

The canon is simply defined as what is between the covers of the "quad" as approved by common consent.

The scriptures include most of what is in the canon (the canon contains things other than scripture) but can be the words of the living prophets.

Doctrine is defined in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism as a broader concept, but I view it as something that is derived from scripture and policy pronouncements, and that which is learned only by keeping the commandments. In other words, if one is out of harmony with the brethren, that one does not know the doctrine.

P
_rcrocket

Post by _rcrocket »

Jason Bourne wrote:Understand now?


Aside from the fact that your original post was incomprehensible, but not to Harmony -- perhaps she can explain --, the two of us are not talking about the same thing. "Canon" means only the printed words between the covers of the quad.

Doctrine, scriptures, etc, are not co-equal with canon and never have been unless you are a sola scriptura Protestant. (Doctrine and scriptures are not co-equal with canon for most Christians -- Catholics and Orthodox included.)

My immediate prior post to Harmony discusses scripture and doctrine, in addition to "canon." It is really fruitless to give me quotes on doctrine and scripture when the topic is "what is canonical?"

P
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

In other words, if one is out of harmony with the brethren, that one does not know the doctrine.


Did this apply when BY taught that Adam was our God and the Father of Jesus Christ, that he brought one of his plural wives with him from another planet and ate of the food of this earth thus causing his immortal resurrected God like body to become corrupt and once again subject to death? Did Orson Pratt not know the doctrine when he challenged BY on this? Were the rest of the apostles out of step when after BY died they brushed this teaching under the rug?
Post Reply