What counts as canonised revelation?

[_Mephitus]

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.

[_harmony]

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.

The only revelations that are canonized are those in the canon. The revelation has to be presented for a vote of the members, who then vote to accept it via common consent.

The Ensign and general conference talks are not in the canon and are not canonized.

Things weren't quite so orderly in the beginning. Thus we end up with no canonization of the restoration of the M priesthood, and a priesthood ban that has no basis in canonization, but the revelation that ended the priesthood ban is canonized. The Lectures of Faith were canonized, but were later decanonized. The Journal of Discourses is not canonized, nor is the King Follett Discourse.

Even though we have a clear process for creating and accepting doctrine, the early leaders didn't use it all the time because it required the leaders to humble themselves before the members, and show the foundation for the doctrine. Plural marriage is an example of a doctrine that was canonized that shouldn't have been; the M priesthood is an example of one that wasn't canonized and should have been.

[_rcrocket]

In the LDS practice, canon is simply defined as the KJV. the current Doctrine & Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon. Nothing more, nothing less. Material is added, sometimes by common consent, sometimes not.

I would say that most revealed scripture to Latter-day Saints is not canonical. The reason? We do not believe in a closed canon or closed revelations. They continue and continue; thus, the concept of "canon" means only that set of documents missionaries and authorities in the church are expected to rely upon for sermons.

The concept of "canon" has nothing to do with the humility or arrogance of Church leaders. Harmony's analysis is, as usual, particularly malevolent.

Plutarch

[_Yoda]

Harmony's analysis is, as usual, particularly malevolent.

Plutarch

Hmmm...malevolent...it's interesting how the definition of malevolent describes your attitude toward Harmony and others on this board to a tee.

This is the Merriam-Webster definition:

malevolent-having, showing, or arising from intense often vicious ill will, spite, or hatred

Pot? Meet Kettle.

;)

[_harmony]

In the LDS practice, canon is simply defined as the KJV. the current Doctrine & Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon. Nothing more, nothing less. Material is added, sometimes by common consent, sometimes not.

Material is also sometimes taken away. Or did you forget that?

I would say that most revealed scripture to Latter-day Saints is not canonical. The reason? We do not believe in a closed canon or closed revelations. They continue and continue; thus, the concept of "canon" means only that set of documents missionaries and authorities in the church are expected to rely upon for sermons.

The canon is not closed. We add to it from time to time as dictated by God. Your first sentence decries the essential foundation of our church. I'm surprised that an apologist and bishop would say such a thing. ALL of our scripture is canonical. Not all of our doctrines are, but all of our scripture is. And if doctrines aren't in the canon, then they aren't doctrines that are voted on and accepted by the members as binding. Not that that stops the leaders from treating them as if they were binding. Either the canon is binding on us (because we agree that it is) or it isn't (in which case, this church is slipping on a sandy foundation). To say that the canon does not contain most of our revealed scripture is untrue. The canon is our scriptures, contains our doctrine (or most of it), and is the foundation of our church.

The concept of "canon" has nothing to do with the humility or arrogance of Church leaders. Harmony's analysis is, as usual, particularly malevolent.

Plutarch

Your opinion of my analysis is interesting, of course, Plu... but worthless in this discussion. We know that the prophet is the one who holds the keys to opening the heavens. If we have no new revelations to canonize, then either God is done with us (unthinkable) or our leaders aren't asking the right questions. Since we haven't canonized the "no teased hair" doctrine or the "no double earring holes" doctrine, I guess I'd have to concede that you're right: the heavens are closed (or else our leaders are too consumed with buying up real estate or worrying about dress codes to get their act together and come up with something actually pertinent, like giving women the priesthood or opening up the doors of the temple for marriages).

[_rcrocket]

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

[_SatanWasSetUp]

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.

The only revelations that are canonized are those in the canon. The revelation has to be presented for a vote of the members, who then vote to accept it via common consent.

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?

The Ensign and general conference talks are not in the canon and are not canonized.

Things weren't quite so orderly in the beginning. Thus we end up with no canonization of the restoration of the M priesthood, and a priesthood ban that has no basis in canonization, but the revelation that ended the priesthood ban is canonized.

Why was a revelation necessary to end a priesthood ban that was never canonized in the first place? Wouldn't it have been easier to simply inform members that there is no priesthood ban and never has been a priesthood ban?

The Lectures of Faith were canonized, but were later decanonized. The Journal of Discourses is not canonized, nor is the King Follett Discourse.

Even though we have a clear process for creating and accepting doctrine, the early leaders didn't use it all the time because it required the leaders to humble themselves before the members, and show the foundation for the doctrine.

So the church ends up teaching a mish-mash of canonized doctrine mixed with a mish mash of various philosophies of man, and the poor member has no way to know which is which because they are both presented as doctrine in the teacher manuals

Plural marriage is an example of a doctrine that was canonized that shouldn't have been; the M priesthood is an example of one that wasn't canonized and should have been.

Sounds like a chaotic mess to me. Luckily the lord's church is a church of order.

[_rcrocket]

Hmmm...malevolent...it's interesting how the definition of malevolent describes your attitude toward Harmony and others on this board to a tee.

I frankly have no clue what you're talking about. No need for generalized personal attacks.

P

[_rcrocket]

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

[_Yoda]

Hmmm...malevolent...it's interesting how the definition of malevolent describes your attitude toward Harmony and others on this board to a tee.

I frankly have no clue what you're talking about. No need for generalized personal attacks.

P

By your comment about Harmony's analysis being, "as usual, malevolent", you were indicating that her general view of the Church is one which shows vicious ill will or hatred. Since Harmony has stated in many threads that her membership in the Church is important to her, in spite of some of the finer points she chooses to discuss, I would say that the first personal attack in this conversation was thrown by you.

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.