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.
I apologize. I types it quick and did not proof it.
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.)
Harold B Lee and JFS disagree with you.
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?"
There is doctrine that may not be in the canon or even generally revealed to everyone. But the doctrine that is in the Canon is what measures that which is binding on the saints.
It seems that Mormons struggle to understand exactly what they're supposed to believe as 'official' LDS church teaching. That would certainly explain the confusion among Mormons when I've asked simple questions about their beliefs.
Fortigurn wrote:It seems that Mormons struggle to understand exactly what they're supposed to believe as 'official' LDS church teaching. That would certainly explain the confusion among Mormons when I've asked simple questions about their beliefs.
They struggle to understand only when they dance around the issues they are presented with.
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
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.
As for canon, the four standard works and most of their associated works (such as the Guide to the scriptures). The Bible Dictionary is a glaring example otherwise.
As for what is doctrinal, it is simply that which is published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of latest date.
It needs to be made clear that the Church has no "canon" at all in the normall accepted sense of the term. Since the "canon' is an open one, and always subject to growth and addition, and since revelation, or the Spirit of Prophecy, is the central organizing and mediating principle through which doctrinal truth is known, in this sense, while the "canon' is the four Standard Works of the church, true doctrine is whatever each individual through the revelations of Jesus Christ knows it to be, and the degree of such knowledge will be different from person to person depending upon their level of spiritual maturity.
While the Lord's servants are authorized and set apart to receive revelation for the whole church, individual members can have the same knowledge they have, and to the same degree, within themselves, even though they may not teach unknown doctrines or principles publically until the Lord makes them known to the general membership through his servants, the prophets. Wringing our hands over confusing and fragmented ideas like Adam-God, which was not only never official docrtine but was never openly taught to the general membership in anything but cryptic fragments and never presented to the general membership as accepted doctrine, is an utter waste of time and, more to the point, somewhat of a denial of the central place the Holy Spirit has in revealing, teaching, confirming, and witnessing the truth to us as we are capacitated to receive it.
There is nothing whatever difficult about differentiating official doctrine from the opinions of GAs and other such quandries if one understands the order and organization of Priesthood government and, more importantly, is living in such a way as to be able to receive the revelation necessary to "keep one abreast", so to speak, of the different degrees of truth found in various teachings of church leaders and which principles are "official" and which are only perhaps only potentially so at a given time. We also wish to know which are the opinions and theories of different church leaders and can be taken or left.
Try reading through my post again and then thinking about it deeply and in a serious, reflective way (I imagine the problem here is probably a lack of a basic understanding of LDS doctrine on this point, and if that's the case, you'll be in over your head on this kind of thing until you go back and make a concerted attempt to understand and digest LDS concepts about its "canon" and the nature of revealed truth).
I actually think you have another agenda in mind here, so perhaps we should talk about that?
Coggins7 wrote:Try reading through my post again and then thinking about it deeply and in a serious, reflective way (I imagine the problem here is probably a lack of a basic understanding of LDS doctrine on this point, and if that's the case, you'll be in over your head on this kind of thing until you go back and make a concerted attempt to understand and digest LDS concepts about its "canon" and the nature of revealed truth).
I actually think you have another agenda in mind here, so perhaps we should talk about that?
The only agenda I have in mind is attempting to determine exactly what is, and what is not 'official' LDS teaching. That is, teaching which is authoritative and binding on all members. At present what I am seeing is that the LDS church is in exactly the same position as the Roman Catholic Church - there is a considerable difference between what is formally taught by the church, what is believed by members, and what is alleged as formal teaching by apologists.