DiscussMormonism.com

In order to not derail Jersey's WoW thread, I'm starting this new one for a conversation that was developing with maklelan.

In order to make sure we're all on the same page, it will help if maklelan will define some terms:

doctrine
commandment
canon
revelation
binding principle (he already did this and I'll bring his words over here)

Now some questions:

1. What is the relationship between a revelation, a commandment, and LDS docrine?

2. Where can members find LDS doctrine?

3. What is the canonization process? Is it also known as Common Consent?

4. How can commandments be commandments, if they are not canonized?

5. What is the canon's purpose, if not to contain the doctrine?

Here is how this was explained to me, by Pacumeni (Scott) over on ZLMB (evidently he's writing a book about this process):

Revelations can be doctrinal, refer to commandments, or in regards to programs or policies. Revelations are given to the prophet through the keys of the priesthood. They are then presented to the members for validation as part of the canon, if they are doctrinal. If they are not doctrinal and not in regards to commandments, they are presented to the members, but not for canonization. Those revelations do not become part of the canon. Only those revelations that are doctrinal or commandments need be passed by Common Consent.

The canon (the four standard works) is voted upon by the members through a process called Common Consent. By voting, the members agree that the canon is the word of God and is binding upon them. We did this in the beginning of the church when we voted on the canon, and we do this for every change in the canon, when we vote to accept further revelation. (I've participated in this process twice).

Doctrine and the commandments are two different things. Doctrine encompasses the commandments; it also encompasses information that is important to us, but is not commandments. The doctrine, which includes the commandments, is contained within the canon (the four standard works). Any discussion of the commandments always returns to the canon. There is no commandment that is not contained within the canon. If there is no revelation, voted upon by the members as to whether to accept it and include it in the canon, there is no commandment.

Ongoing revelation does not mean further commandments. Revelations are only commandments if they are binding upon the members, and are voted upon and entered into the canon. Revelations can refer to policy or program changes, which are not commandments and are not doctrinal.

I have always been hazy on exactly where the Ensign Magazine enters the cannonization process.

moksha wrote:I have always been hazy on exactly where the Ensign Magazine enters the cannonization process.

The Ensign has no place in the canonization process. Canonization is done in person, by voting (either by standing or by raising the right hand). Canonization may be done at several points around the globe at the same time.

harmony wrote:In order to not derail Jersey's WoW thread, I'm starting this new one for a conversation that was developing with maklelan.

In order to make sure we're all on the same page, it will help if maklelan will define some terms:

doctrine
commandment
canon
revelation
binding principle (he already did this and I'll bring his words over here)

Now some questions:

1. What is the relationship between a revelation, a commandment, and LDS docrine?

2. Where can members find LDS doctrine?

3. What is the canonization process? Is it also known as Common Consent?

4. How can commandments be commandments, if they are not canonized?

5. What is the canon's purpose, if not to contain the doctrine?

Here is how this was explained to me, by Pacumeni (Scott) over on ZLMB (evidently he's writing a book about this process):

Revelations can be doctrinal, refer to commandments, or in regards to programs or policies. Revelations are given to the prophet through the keys of the priesthood. They are then presented to the members for validation as part of the canon, if they are doctrinal. If they are not doctrinal and not in regards to commandments, they are presented to the members, but not for canonization. Those revelations do not become part of the canon. Only those revelations that are doctrinal or commandments need be passed by Common Consent.

The canon (the four standard works) is voted upon by the members through a process called Common Consent. By voting, the members agree that the canon is the word of God and is binding upon them. We did this in the beginning of the church when we voted on the canon, and we do this for every change in the canon, when we vote to accept further revelation. (I've participated in this process twice).

Doctrine and the commandments are two different things. Doctrine encompasses the commandments; it also encompasses information that is important to us, but is not commandments. The doctrine, which includes the commandments, is contained within the canon (the four standard works). Any discussion of the commandments always returns to the canon. There is no commandment that is not contained within the canon. If there is no revelation, voted upon by the members as to whether to accept it and include it in the canon, there is no commandment.

Ongoing revelation does not mean further commandments. Revelations are only commandments if they are binding upon the members, and are voted upon and entered into the canon. Revelations can refer to policy or program changes, which are not commandments and are not doctrinal.

I see your answer to my question is the opinion of a poster on ZLMB. I also see you have no "official" information regarding this. Irrespective, the Word of Wisdom is in the canon, and the church is currently under a covenant to obey it. It is universally binding on members. You will raise the issue that the revelation in the canon does not make it universally binding, but the common consent of the church did so, and no further addition to the canon need be made. You're trying to insist that a further addition need be made explaining that the principle is now universally binding, but this is not necessary. From President Packer in a 1996 Ensign article:

"While the revelation came first as a “greeting; not by commandment or constraint” (D&C 89:2), when members of the Church had had time to be taught the import of the revelation, succeeding Presidents of the Church declared it to be a commandment. And it was accepted by the Church as such.

The Word of Wisdom was “given for a principle with promise” (D&C 89:3). That word principle in the revelation is a very important one. A principle is an enduring truth, a law, a rule you can adopt to guide you in making decisions. Generally principles are not spelled out in detail. That leaves you free to find your way with an enduring truth, a principle, as your anchor."

It has been declared a law and a commandment by our leaders and accetped as such by the church as a whole. Irrespective of what your etic framework convinces you, you are wrong. Your failure to provide even one quote from a leader to support your argument makes that all the more clear.

I see your answer to my question is the opinion of a poster on ZLMB. I also see you have no "official" information regarding this.

I explained it, as it was explained to me. If you can find a more succinct explanation, please post it. It's not like this stuff is easily accessible. Pac's been working on his book for years. (and he's not just a "poster on ZLMB". He's an apologist just like you, and he owns the place. I respect him, even if he did eventually ban me for life.)

Irrespective, the Word of Wisdom is in the canon, and the church is currently under a covenant to obey it. It is universally binding on members. You will raise the issue that the revelation in the canon does not make it universally binding, but the common consent of the church did so, and no further addition to the canon need be made.

Revelations in the canon are binding on the members. Not all revelations are commandments. Revelations not in the canon are not commandments, thus are not binding. Sec 89 is a revelation, is in the canon, but was not a commandment but an advisory only when it was first made part of the canon.

You're trying to insist that a further addition need be made explaining that the principle is now universally binding, but this is not necessary.

Why is it not necessary? Because it didn't happen, yet the weight of Sec 89 was changed from advisory to commandment? All that means is that our leaders didn't follow the procedure (as if THAT has never happened before. Yeah, right). Our leaders often don't follow our own procedure. How do you think we got Adam-God, the priesthood ban, and other assorted BY-inspired nonsense? Just because people think it has the weight of a commandment doesn't mean it actually does.

We as members are used to leaders that circumvent their own rules to accomplish their own purposes. They do it all the time. And succeeding prophets have to go back and clean up the mess. Remember Pres Kimball's denouncement of Adam-God as non-doctrinal? He wasn't the first, he sure as heck isn't the last to have to go back and clean up messes. The WoW is a small thing; be grateful you were a child in 1977. Now that was a mess!

harmony wrote:

I see your answer to my question is the opinion of a poster on ZLMB. I also see you have no "official" information regarding this.

I explained it, as it was explained to me. If you can find a more succinct explanation, please post it. It's not like this stuff is easily accessible. Pac's been working on his book for years. (and he's not just a "poster on ZLMB". He's an apologist just like you, and he owns the place. I respect him, even if he did eventually ban me for life.)

If it's not so easily accesible then why does every anti-Mormon on the planet know exactly how it works, and better than faithful members?

harmony wrote:

Irrespective, the Word of Wisdom is in the canon, and the church is currently under a covenant to obey it. It is universally binding on members. You will raise the issue that the revelation in the canon does not make it universally binding, but the common consent of the church did so, and no further addition to the canon need be made.

Revelations in the canon are binding on the members. Not all revelations are commandments. Revelations not in the canon are not commandments, thus are not binding. Sec 89 is a revelation, is in the canon, but was not a commandment but an advisory only when it was first made part of the canon.

And then the church, by common consent, decided to make it binding. You left that part out.

harmony wrote:

You're trying to insist that a further addition need be made explaining that the principle is now universally binding, but this is not necessary.

Why is it not necessary? Because it didn't happen, yet the weight of Sec 89 was changed from advisory to commandment? All that means is that our leaders didn't follow the procedure (as if THAT has never happened before. Yeah, right).

What procedure? You claim it's all found in the psots of an apologist, then when that's shown to be wrong you claim it's too hard to find, and now you're falling back on the procedure argument. Document the procedure or just admit that you're building the procedure out of conjecture.

harmony wrote:Our leaders often don't follow our own procedure. How do you think we got Adam-God, the priesthood ban, and other assorted BY-inspired nonsense? Just because people think it has the weight of a commandment doesn't mean it actually does.

That was never voted on or even proposed for consideration. That's completely and totally different.

harmony wrote:We as members are used to leaders that circumvent their own rules to accomplish their own purposes. They do it all the time. And succeeding prophets have to go back and clean up the mess. Remember Pres Kimball's denouncement of Adam-God as non-doctrinal? He wasn't the first, he sure as heck isn't the last to have to go back and clean up messes. The WoW is a small thing; be grateful you were a child in 1977. Now that was a mess!

You said the procedure was presence in the canon and common consent. We have both of that, and yet you still whine about procedure. I notice you also neglected to respond to my quote from the acting president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles concerning the state of the revelation. He appears to disagree with you concerning their procedure. Would you like to lecture him as you are me, or would you just like to admit you're trying to force a round argument into square criteria? You're argument is toast. The sooner you stop trying to make it work the sooner you stop clinging to a foolish argument.

maklelan wrote:

harmony wrote:

I see your answer to my question is the opinion of a poster on ZLMB. I also see you have no "official" information regarding this.

I explained it, as it was explained to me. If you can find a more succinct explanation, please post it. It's not like this stuff is easily accessible. Pac's been working on his book for years. (and he's not just a "poster on ZLMB". He's an apologist just like you, and he owns the place. I respect him, even if he did eventually ban me for life.)

If it's not so easily accesible then why does every anti-Mormon on the planet know exactly how it works, and better than faithful members?

I think you're exaggerating. Every anti-Mormon? I agree that generally speaking, the faithful members don't know how it works. Common consent is doctrinal (see http://scriptures.LDS.org/en/gs/c/45), but that just gives the foundation. The procedure has changed over the years (http://www.lightplanet.com/Mormons/prie ... nsent.html) and now is not the same as it was in the beginnings. And since we so rarely have new doctrine or change the doctrine, we usually only use it for sustaining callings now.

harmony wrote:

Irrespective, the Word of Wisdom is in the canon, and the church is currently under a covenant to obey it. It is universally binding on members. You will raise the issue that the revelation in the canon does not make it universally binding, but the common consent of the church did so, and no further addition to the canon need be made.

Revelations in the canon are binding on the members. Not all revelations are commandments. Revelations not in the canon are not commandments, thus are not binding. Sec 89 is a revelation, is in the canon, but was not a commandment but an advisory only when it was first made part of the canon.

And then the church, by common consent, decided to make it binding. You left that part out.

But they didn't change it. If they had, we'd be agreeing now. Without a change, it's still the original revelation. So essentially, they consented to bind themselves to something that doesn't exist, since they left the revelation the same. So now, we're held to a standard that doesn't exist.

harmony wrote:

You're trying to insist that a further addition need be made explaining that the principle is now universally binding, but this is not necessary.

Why is it not necessary? Because it didn't happen, yet the weight of Sec 89 was changed from advisory to commandment? All that means is that our leaders didn't follow the procedure (as if THAT has never happened before. Yeah, right).

What procedure?

Common consent. They voted, yes... but they didn't change the revelation. Perhaps a simple administrative error, but still... no change was made, so how could the vote be binding?

You claim it's all found in the psots of an apologist,

Common consent is found in the canon. It's not my fault our leaders in 1851 didn't follow it.

then when that's shown to be wrong you claim it's too hard to find, and now you're falling back on the procedure argument. Document the procedure or just admit that you're building the procedure out of conjecture.

The procedure is found in the canon. D&C 26:2 to be precise.

harmony wrote:Our leaders often don't follow our own procedure. How do you think we got Adam-God, the priesthood ban, and other assorted BY-inspired nonsense? Just because people think it has the weight of a commandment doesn't mean it actually does.

That was never voted on or even proposed for consideration. That's completely and totally different.

It is not completely and totally different!

It was preached. It was followed. It was the doctrine of the church for 148 years. That it was never voted on, or even proposed for consideration, yet was the doctrine of the church is my point, maklelan. The church didn't follow its own procedure, yet it was doctrine for 148 years! Where's the revelation? Where is it in the canon? Where is the vote by common consent? Nowhere, none of it, but it was the doctrine until a revelation and vote by common consent changed it! Unless you're saying Pres Kimball didn't really receive the revelation at all?

harmony wrote:We as members are used to leaders that circumvent their own rules to accomplish their own purposes. They do it all the time. And succeeding prophets have to go back and clean up the mess. Remember Pres Kimball's denouncement of Adam-God as non-doctrinal? He wasn't the first, he sure as heck isn't the last to have to go back and clean up messes. The WoW is a small thing; be grateful you were a child in 1977. Now that was a mess!

You said the procedure was presence in the canon and common consent. We have both of that, and yet you still whine about procedure. I notice you also neglected to respond to my quote from the acting president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles concerning the state of the revelation. He appears to disagree with you concerning their procedure. Would you like to lecture him as you are me, or would you just like to admit you're trying to force a round argument into square criteria? You're argument is toast. The sooner you stop trying to make it work the sooner you stop clinging to a foolish argument.

[/quote]

Do you think I wouldn't, given the chance? The leaders screwed up, not me. They voted, but they didn't change the revelation; there is no new revelation, saying Sec 89 is now binding, and they didn't change the existing revelation... so how can it be binding??? Because Pres Packer says so? Nothing in this church is because the leaders say so, maklelan. Nothing. There is a procedure whereby things are done. If it's not followed, the members are not blame; it's the leaders job to make sure things are done correctly, so lay the blame where it belongs, please.

It's pointless arguin with you. You refuse to consider evidence, you change your story whenever you get backed into a corner, you create crazy criteria by which you judge an isolated incident and you are incapable of admitting you're wrong. I'm done.

maklelan wrote:It's pointless arguin with you. You refuse to consider evidence, you change your story whenever you get backed into a corner, you create crazy criteria by which you judge an isolated incident and you are incapable of admitting you're wrong. I'm done.

And you bail whenever someone doesn't agree with you. Come back when you don't need a leader to hold your hand.

harmony wrote:

maklelan wrote:It's pointless arguin with you. You refuse to consider evidence, you change your story whenever you get backed into a corner, you create crazy criteria by which you judge an isolated incident and you are incapable of admitting you're wrong. I'm done.

And you bail whenever someone doesn't agree with you. Come back when you don't need a leader to hold your hand.

Oh, you got me there. I'm cryin' in my Sprite now.