What counts as canonised revelation?

[_Coggins7]

I see no such problems whatsoever. I explained it above, but I don't think you have the background as of yet to understand that explanation.

[_Fortigurn]

I see no such problems whatsoever.

That is unfortunate.

I explained it above...

No you didn't. The closest you came was this:

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.

So in other words, there's no difficulty in differentiating official doctrine from the opinions of GAs and other such quandries, if you're able to differentiate between offcial doctrine and the opinions of GAs and other such quandries. That's a truism, but it doesn't actually tell us how the process of differentiation takes place.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

So are the standard works the measuring rod for official doctrine or not.

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.

Unfortunatly you are mistaken about Adam God. It was taught from the pulpit at a general conference and numerous other times. Many members recorded it. BY even said there was mush consternation about it and it was taught in the lecture at the veil in the St. George temple. Had not Orson Pratt so stridently opposed Brighamon it, declaring that he could prove BY wrong from the canon/scriptures, it might be official today.

But Loren, it was taught, it was not obscure, it was well known and it is misleading to argue otherwise. Your simple dimissal of it is why I soured on apologetics in general. So often this it the approach. This or that was never official, it was his opinion, it was obscure, blah, blah, blah. Well if the prophet of God did not know who God was then what good is he? BY did not think it was justhis opinion nor did many who listened to him.




Loran

[_Coggins7]

Quote:
Coggins7 wrote:
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.

So are the standard works the measuring rod for official doctrine or not.

They are one standard. The other is what the Lord's servants say is official doctrine, whether or not its in the standard works (and there is much in the standard works that is not official doctrine, like most of the Law of Moses). The Holy Ghost is the teacher of truth to all who are worthy of his companionship, and it is he who ultimately sifts wheat from chaff. This chruch is built upon revelation Jason, not a closed canon of standard stattic reference works.


Quote:
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.

Unfortunatly you are mistaken about Adam God. It was taught from the pulpit at a general conference and numerous other times. Many members recorded it. BY even said there was mush consternation about it and it was taught in the lecture at the veil in the St. George temple. Had not Orson Pratt so stridently opposed Brighamon it, declaring that he could prove BY wrong from the canon/scriptures, it might be official today.

But Loren, it was taught, it was not obscure, it was well known and it is misleading to argue otherwise. Your simple dimissal of it is why I soured on apologetics in general. So often this it the approach. This or that was never official, it was his opinion, it was obscure, blah, blah, blah. Well if the prophet of God did not know who God was then what good is he? BY did not think it was justhis opinion nor did many who listened to him.

I'm sorry but it is you who are uninformed here. It was taught to a few selected individuals in toto. It was taught publically in highly fragmented form in bits and peices. It was indeed, for all intents and purposes, obscure. You are just flat footedly wrong here. I've read and/or have on disk every statement that was ever made by Young on the matter and it isn't that much text, except for his teachings in the St. George Temple, where he sets it out to a few others in much more detail. The other fact of the matter is that it was never put before the Saints for their approval as a settled doctrine of the church and Brigham Young apparantly, according to hsi own words, never intended to. You're trying so very hard to be an enlightened, freethinking "liberal" Mormon Jason, but all it makes you look like is intellectually squishy and spiritually evasive.

[_harmony]

Quote:
Coggins7 wrote:
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.

So are the standard works the measuring rod for official doctrine or not.

They are one standard. The other is what the Lord's servants say is official doctrine, whether or not its in the standard works (and there is much in the standard works that is not official doctrine, like most of the Law of Moses). The Holy Ghost is the teacher of truth to all who are worthy of his companionship, and it is he who ultimately sifts wheat from chaff. This chruch is built upon revelation Jason, not a closed canon of standard stattic reference works.

You people really need to learn how to use the quote function.

If what the Lord's servants say is official doctrine, then the FP letter from 1982 is doctrine. You can't have it both ways, Loran. And our canon is not closed. It's been added to several times and some of it's been changed and/or taken away at least once.

Quote:
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.

I'm seeing little wringing of hands, and even less wasting of time.

Unfortunatly you are mistaken about Adam God. It was taught from the pulpit at a general conference and numerous other times. Many members recorded it. BY even said there was mush consternation about it and it was taught in the lecture at the veil in the St. George temple. Had not Orson Pratt so stridently opposed Brighamon it, declaring that he could prove BY wrong from the canon/scriptures, it might be official today.

But Loren, it was taught, it was not obscure, it was well known and it is misleading to argue otherwise. Your simple dimissal of it is why I soured on apologetics in general. So often this it the approach. This or that was never official, it was his opinion, it was obscure, blah, blah, blah. Well if the prophet of God did not know who God was then what good is he? BY did not think it was justhis opinion nor did many who listened to him.

I'm sorry but it is you who are uninformed here. It was taught to a few selected individuals in toto. It was taught publically in highly fragmented form in bits and peices. It was indeed, for all intents and purposes, obscure. You are just flat footedly wrong here. I've read and/or have on disk every statement that was ever made by Young on the matter and it isn't that much text, except for his teachings in the St. George Temple, where he sets it out to a few others in much more detail. The other fact of the matter is that it was never put before the Saints for their approval as a settled doctrine of the church and Brigham Young apparantly, according to hsi own words, never intended to. You're trying so very hard to be an enlightened, freethinking "liberal" Mormon Jason, but all it makes you look like is intellectually squishy and spiritually evasive.

It was written down in the JoD, which means it's available to an audience of billions.

You say "it was never put before the Saints for their approval as a settled doctrine of the church". Yet you just got through saying that just the Lord's servants saying something makes it doctrine. One or the other, Loran. Either doctrine must be put to a vote of the members for it to be binding (called Common Consent) or it doesn't need to be voted on. Which are you going to support? (Both have their supporters and their detractors. Be careful how you answer this)

[_Coggins7]

The letter said the First Presidency "interpreted" oral sex to be sinful. Nowhere did it mention doctrine, or that it was to be understood as anything more that just that, their interpretation. Had it been, it would not have languished for thirty years in obscurity to be dredged up buy enterprising anti-Mormons as grist for their endless bash festival.

You are, of course joking about of JofD. Most Mormons have never read it, and the vast majority of the world's population is unaware of it and always will be. But this is beside the point. It is well known among the Saints (of which you clearly are not a part in any meaningful way, despite your continuing pose to the contrary) that much of what is said in that tome is opinion, speculation, and of the cuff remark, mixed with inspired counsel and doctirnal teaching.

When I say that official doctrine is whatever the Prophets say it is, I do not mean that whatever they say is doctrine. Those are words you put in my mouth. If they say that something is doctrine and it is to be accepted, than it is. That is the way the entire New Testament came into being. The thing is, and you would understand this if you were really a Mormon, is that there are mechanisms within the church through which such things are handled. New scripture, doctrine, or teaching, if it is to be "official" has formal mechnisms for its acceptance. Other teachings, which, although inspired, may not be "official" (the Word of Wisdom before becoming a commandment, for example), need not be put before the Saints in any formal way (yet informally in talks and esssays) but there are still keys and principles by which opinion can be separated from inspiratoin in these matters.

How long will the fraud continue Harmony?

[_Mister Scratch]

The letter said the First Presidency "interpreted" oral sex to be sinful. Nowhere did it mention doctrine, or that it was to be understood as anything more that just that, their interpretation.

Then how do you justify the "no BDSM or bizzare [sic] fetishes"? Is that not doctrine, or is it just "their interpretation"? The ban on oral sex was predicated upon the same doctrine as that which prohibits "BDSM."

[_harmony]

When I say that official doctrine is whatever the Prophets say it is, I do not mean that whatever they say is doctrine. Those are words you put in my mouth. If they say that something is doctrine and it is to be accepted, than it is.

Only if it's voted on. If it's not voted on, it's not.

That is the way the entire New Testament came into being.

If I remember right, there are no prophets at all in the New Testament. Apostles yes, prophet no.

The thing is, and you would understand this if you were really a Mormon, is that there are mechanisms within the church through which such things are handled. New scripture, doctrine, or teaching, if it is to be "official" has formal mechnisms for its acceptance.

Exactly. Common consent. Voting. Been there, done that. Watched the canonization process work like it's supposed to.

Other teachings, which, although inspired, may not be "official" (the Word of Wisdom before becoming a commandment, for example), need not be put before the Saints in any formal way (yet informally in talks and esssays) but there are still keys and principles by which opinion can be separated from inspiratoin in these matters.

These are called opinions and policies, and are not doctrinal. Which is why we have these wonderful discussions on bulletin boards on the internet.

How long will the fraud continue Harmony?

I suggest you pull back from where you're going, Loran. Accusations of fraud are actionable should you proven to be incorrect. Stick to what you can prove... and you can't prove fraud on my part.

[_Coggins7]

If I remember right, there are no prophets at all in the New Testament. Apostles yes, prophet no.

You're lack of fundamental knowledge of the New Testament and of LDS doctrine is so glaring, Harmony, that further discussion is just not possible at this point. This is without excuse, especially given the vehement and aggressive pose you have taken up here as a valiant and knowledgeable maverick fighting to save the church from itself.

I'm out of this.

[_Mister Scratch]

If I remember right, there are no prophets at all in the New Testament. Apostles yes, prophet no.

You're lack of fundamental knowledge of the New Testament and of LDS doctrine is so glaring, Harmony, that further discussion is just not possible at this point. This is without excuse, especially given the vehement and aggressive pose you have taken up here as a valiant and knowledgeable maverick fighting to save the church from itself.

I'm out of this.

In other words, you are a quitter.