Josephine Sessions

[_tagriffy]

Well, there is D&C 88:118, "seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yeas, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and by faith." The Church may sometimes forget this, but Mormonism is more than just the Church.

You sound like Elder Poelman, and he got censured for such heretic chatter as "the Church is not The Gospel".

I never claimed to be orthodox.

[_tagriffy]

Tagriffy,

Compton may have regarded Woodruff's Journals as scripture, because in them he refers to himself as a "Prophetic Historian":

This is the last day of 1861 which has past and gone and borne its report to heaven of the deeds of all Nations and men. This year has brought to pass much of the fulfillment of the predictions of the Ancient and Modern Prophets of God. See this Journal Jan 1st 1861. I there declaired as a Prophetic Historian that this year would be the most distressing year America Ever saw since they were an independant Nation. Time has proven it so.
(Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 5, p. 615, December 31, 1861.

Could be. In the end, the only way to find out would be to ask him.

[_DrW]

Woodruff's Journals pose many problems ... Take for example his reference to January 1, 1861:

<SNIP>
The foundation has been laid during the year 1860 To break up & annihilate the American Government and the scenes which will follow in quick succession will be terrible & horrible in their detail. This Nation is guilty of sheding the Blood of the Lords anointed, of his Prophets & Saints and the Lord Almighty has decreed their destruction. The Lord has Commenced a Controversy with the American Government and Nation in 1860 and he will never cease untill they are destroyed from under heaven, and the Kingdom of God Esstablished upon their ruins. Let the Gentiles upon this land prepare to meet their God. (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 5, p. 527-529)

Thanks for posting this.

Sounds a lot like Warren Jeffs, or Timothy McVey.

[_tagriffy]

Or Jeremiah. Or Ezekiel.

[Guest]

Really? I thought Mormonism teaches that it is they (Mormonism) alone that has the full truth and no other source(s) need be consulted. I'd like to see something official that says members should research non official sources to find additional truth.

Teachings for Our Times - John Taylor Lesson 23 "Eternal Truth"

We are after the truth. We commenced searching for it, and
we are constantly in search of it, and so fast as we find any true
principle revealed by any man, by God, or by holy angels, we
embrace it and make it part of our religious creed.

A man in search of truth has no peculiar system to sustain, no
peculiar dogma to defend or theory to uphold. He embraces all
truth, and that truth, like the sun in the firmament, shines forth
and spreads its effulgent rays over all creation. If men will divest
themselves of bias and prejudice, and prayerfully and conscientiously
search after truth, they will find it wherever they turn
their attention.

One great reason why men have stumbled so frequently in
many of their researches after philosophical truth is that they
have sought them with their own wisdom, and gloried in their
own intelligence, and have not sought unto God for that wisdom
that fills and governs the universe and regulates all things. That is
one great difficulty with the philosophers of the world, as it now
exists, that man claims to himself to be the inventor of everything
he discovers. Any new law and principle which he happens to
discover he claims to himself instead of giving glory to God.

There is nothing of more value to me than the principles of
eternal truth; than the principles of eternal lives; eternal salvation,
and eternal exaltations in the kingdom of God. But then it
is for us to comprehend them, for if we do not comprehend
them, no matter how great the truths, they cannot benefit us.

We are open for the reception of all truth, of whatever nature it
may be, and are desirous to obtain and possess it, to search after
it as we would for hidden treasures; and to use all the knowledge
God gives to us to possess ourselves of all the intelligence that he
has given to others; and to ask at his hands to reveal unto us his
will, in regard to things that are the best calculated to promote the
happiness and well-being of human society.

If there are any good principles, any moral philosophy that we
have not yet attained to, we are desirous to learn them. If there
is anything in the scientific world that we do not yet comprehend, we desire to become acquainted with it. If there is any branch of philosophy calculated to promote the well-being of
humanity, that we have not yet grasped, we wish to possess
ourselves of it. If there is anything pertaining to the rule and government
of nations, or politics, if you please, that we are not
acquainted with, we desire to possess it. If there are any
religious ideas, any theological truths, any principles pertaining
to God, that we have not learned, we ask mankind, and we pray
God, our Heavenly Father, to enlighten our minds that we may
comprehend, realize, embrace, and live up to them as part of
our religious faith. Thus our ideas and thoughts would extend as
far as the wide world spreads, embracing everything pertaining
to light, life, or existence pertaining to this world or the world
that is to come. . . . They would soar after the intelligence of the
Gods that dwell in the eternal worlds. They would grasp everything
that is good and noble and excellent and happifying and
calculated to promote the well-being of the human family.
There is no man nor set of men who have pointed out the
pathway for our feet to travel in, in relation to these matters.
There are no dogmas nor theories extant in the world that we
profess to listen to, unless they can be verified by the principles
of eternal truth. We carefully scan, investigate, criticize, and
examine everything that presents itself to our view, and so far as
we are enabled to comprehend any truths in existence, we gladly
hail them as part and portion of the system with which we are
associated.

If there is any truth in heaven, earth, or hell, I want to embrace
it; I care not what shape it comes in to me, who brings it, or who
believes in it; whether it is popular or unpopular, truth, eternal
truth, I wish to float in and enjoy.

ETA: While I was a doubting member far along the path of Nomishness when this lesson was taught it really stuck with me. Especially the second paragraph I quote above - "A man in search of truth has no peculiar system to sustain, no peculiar dogma to defend or theory to uphold. He embraces all truth, and that truth, like the sun in the firmament, shines forth
and spreads its effulgent rays over all creation. If men will divest themselves of bias and prejudice, and prayerfully and conscientiously search after truth, they will find it wherever they turn their attention."

That's a creed I could live by. I hope at my best I do.

[_SteelHead]

Or Jeremiah. Or Ezekiel.

Crazy is as crazy does. That's what my mamma always says.

[_honorentheos]

Thank you for your follow-up. To be perfectly frank, after I wrote the last sentence of that post, I realized I didn't know where I wanted to take my thought. I hoped that further discussion would help me clarify my thoughts.

I had something specific in mind. In "Christian Scholarship and the Book of Mormon," (https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/103-74-81.pdf) Todd Compton wrote he was reading Wilford Woodruff's journals and regarded them as scripture. His comment was in defense of Signature Books for publishing the diaries, and as far as I know, he never expanded on that thought. I assume that means he heard God's voice through them. As he read them, they became scripture for him. I would also assume that Woodruff's diaries as scripture does not in any way detract the canonical status of the Standard Works. I'm speculating too much here, but that is an illustration of my point.

I guess what I'm trying to say (Please ask more questions!) is that an individual need not be bound solely by the canon of his or her community.

Thanks for the reply, tagriffy. I find the example of Compton and Woodruff's journals very interesting.

I have an example from my own life that probably had as great an effect in the course of my life as any accepted canonical work. When I was 16, I happened to get hold of a copy of Eli Yoshikawa's masterpiece Musashi. The book changed my life in ways that more commonly accepted scripture has only shadowed since. I can't say why. But it moved me in a way that made the legendary character a hero of religious import to me. I still read the book on a semi-regular basis. If I were to be honest, I could almost describe a personal religion that formed from it in me (using Stephen Prothero's technique for comparative religion): The problem? Mediocrity. The solution? Discipline. The technique? Right action, always. The Exemplar? Musashi. Like most Christians, I can't say I adhere to it perfectly. But it's the ideal form in my mind.

That's a little bit of an exaggeration, but not wholly. And from this experience I've added books that have contributed to my own canon. The Tao Te Ching informs my personal understanding of technique and solution. The Book of Five Rings are the words of the exemplar and interesting to read in a pseudo-scriptural way. (It's been co-opted into a business book now so I'm not the only one I guess). The Gita speaks of yoga/discipline as the technique. There are many examples.

With this in mind, I wonder if the term "Canon" is best applied to those texts that others have found to act as scripture for themselves? But the challenge is that the individual who is a member of the community may come to read the texts, religiously, without ever having the experience that renders them to become Scripture. Or worse, the expectation that a person should experience the reading of a text as scripture leads a person to act as if it were so for them, but in so doing never experiencing actual scripture-making in the reading.

On the other hand from a sociological perspective, I think most community-based canons serve as vehicles for culturization rather than individual spiritual awaking or expansion. In this sense, I wonder (and am interested in your thoughts on the question) in what ways can cultural canon be actual scripture rather than tools to cultivate the individual into a member of the communal whole?

[_DonBradley]

Thank you for your follow-up. To be perfectly frank, after I wrote the last sentence of that post, I realized I didn't know where I wanted to take my thought. I hoped that further discussion would help me clarify my thoughts.

I had something specific in mind. In "Christian Scholarship and the Book of Mormon," (https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/103-74-81.pdf) Todd Compton wrote he was reading Wilford Woodruff's journals and regarded them as scripture. His comment was in defense of Signature Books for publishing the diaries, and as far as I know, he never expanded on that thought. I assume that means he heard God's voice through them. As he read them, they became scripture for him. I would also assume that Woodruff's diaries as scripture does not in any way detract the canonical status of the Standard Works. I'm speculating too much here, but that is an illustration of my point.

I guess what I'm trying to say (Please ask more questions!) is that an individual need not be bound solely by the canon of his or her community.

Thanks for the reply, tagriffy. I find the example of Compton and Woodruff's journals very interesting.

I have an example from my own life that probably had as great an effect in the course of my life as any accepted canonical work. When I was 16, I happened to get hold of a copy of Eli Yoshikawa's masterpiece Musashi. The book changed my life in ways that more commonly accepted scripture has only shadowed since. I can't say why. But it moved me in a way that made the legendary character a hero of religious import to me. I still read the book on a semi-regular basis. If I were to be honest, I could almost describe a personal religion that formed from it in me (using Stephen Prothero's technique for comparative religion): The problem? Mediocrity. The solution? Discipline. The technique? Right action, always. The Exemplar? Musashi. Like most Christians, I can't say I adhere to it perfectly. But it's the ideal form in my mind.

That's a little bit of an exaggeration, but not wholly. And from this experience I've added books that have contributed to my own canon. The Tao Te Ching informs my personal understanding of technique and solution. The Book of Five Rings are the words of the exemplar and interesting to read in a pseudo-scriptural way. (It's been co-opted into a business book now so I'm not the only one I guess). The Gita speaks of yoga/discipline as the technique. There are many examples.

With this in mind, I wonder if the term "Canon" is best applied to those texts that others have found to act as scripture for themselves? But the challenge is that the individual who is a member of the community may come to read the texts, religiously, without ever having the experience that renders them to become Scripture. Or worse, the expectation that a person should experience the reading of a text as scripture leads a person to act as if it were so for them, but in so doing never experiencing actual scripture-making in the reading.

On the other hand from a sociological perspective, I think most community-based canons serve as vehicles for culturization rather than individual spiritual awaking or expansion. In this sense, I wonder (and am interested in your thoughts on the question) in what ways can cultural canon be actual scripture rather than tools to cultivate the individual into a member of the communal whole?

Wow, Honorentheos. You are cool!

Don

[_Bazooka]

ETA: While I was a doubting member far along the path of Nomishness when this lesson was taught it really stuck with me. Especially the second paragraph I quote above - "A man in search of truth has no peculiar system to sustain, no peculiar dogma to defend or theory to uphold. He embraces all truth, and that truth, like the sun in the firmament, shines forth
and spreads its effulgent rays over all creation. If men will divest themselves of bias and prejudice, and prayerfully and conscientiously search after truth, they will find it wherever they turn their attention."

That's a creed I could live by. I hope at my best I do.

I don't disagree with you on this opinion.
However, I think the doctrine of Latter Day Saintism is that they are God's one true Church and the sole holders of the full Gospel of Jesus Christ. You are not officially considered a Mormon if you believe something that is contrary to established core doctrine or fundamental teaching.

“Members of the Church vary in their levels of participation or belief. Latter-day Saints who have seriously contravened or ignored cardinal Church teachings (publicly or privately) are considered apostates, whether or not they have officially left the Church or affiliated with another religion” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism [1992], 1:59).

A cardinal Church teaching is that nobody who isn't a Mormon (sealed in the Temple to at least one partner of the opposite sex) will not live with God in the next life. That alone, tells you that truth from other sources outside of Mormonism is largely irrelevant, regardless of sound bites in lessons and News articles.

Here are a couple of things to remember about anti-Mormon material.

First, it would be a waste to spend a lot of time and energy reading it. For one thing, it’s incredibly repetitive. Most of its questions and claims have been brought up—and answered—time and time again for over 100 years. But because anti-Mormon authors want to discredit the Church, they keep writing the same stuff over and over in the hope that they can reach a new audience. For another thing, you may not have the knowledge and experience to successfully investigate and counter all of the arguments they make. If you do end up reading something that criticizes the Church, discuss it with someone you trust who is knowledgeable in the gospel, like your parents, bishop, or seminary teacher. They can help you find answers and, more importantly, put things in proper perspective.

Second, you should never take the claims of anti-Mormon literature at face value. Although some critics of the Church may be doing what they sincerely believe to be right, too many of them are either misinformed about the Church or downright antagonistic toward it. This latter group is often all too willing to rely on deception and dishonesty to achieve their goals. The literature they produce often uses lies or half-truths; it distorts, sensationalizes, or misinterprets Church teachings and history; its intent is to tear down the Church and scare people away from it.

Think of how you feel when you read the Book of Mormon, pray, or bear your testimony. How do those feelings compare with the feelings that come from reading anti-Mormon literature? Which is guiding you to the truth?

It is worth pointing out that material expressing that the Priesthood ban was racist and not doctrinal was considered anti-mormon material until very recently. Now it has been shown to be truthful.

The point I am making is that the Church wants members to believe that it is open to truth from outside sources, whereas in reality the Church wants to dictate to members what the truth is or isn't, regardless of the source, through a filter of "The Church is right". Yet it has a track record of getting this badly wrong.

[_tagriffy]

I had something specific in mind. In "Christian Scholarship and the Book of Mormon," (https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/103-74-81.pdf) Todd Compton wrote he was reading Wilford Woodruff's journals and regarded them as scripture. His comment was in defense of Signature Books for publishing the diaries, and as far as I know, he never expanded on that thought. I assume that means he heard God's voice through them. As he read them, they became scripture for him. I would also assume that Woodruff's diaries as scripture does not in any way detract the canonical status of the Standard Works. I'm speculating too much here, but that is an illustration of my point.

I guess what I'm trying to say (Please ask more questions!) is that an individual need not be bound solely by the canon of his or her community.

I have an example from my own life that probably had as great an effect in the course of my life as any accepted canonical work. When I was 16, I happened to get hold of a copy of Eli Yoshikawa's masterpiece Musashi. The book changed my life in ways that more commonly accepted scripture has only shadowed since. I can't say why. But it moved me in a way that made the legendary character a hero of religious import to me. I still read the book on a semi-regular basis. If I were to be honest, I could almost describe a personal religion that formed from it in me (using Stephen Prothero's technique for comparative religion): The problem? Mediocrity. The solution? Discipline. The technique? Right action, always. The Exemplar? Musashi. Like most Christians, I can't say I adhere to it perfectly. But it's the ideal form in my mind.

That's a little bit of an exaggeration, but not wholly. And from this experience I've added books that have contributed to my own canon. The Tao Te Ching informs my personal understanding of technique and solution. The Book of Five Rings are the words of the exemplar and interesting to read in a pseudo-scriptural way. (It's been co-opted into a business book now so I'm not the only one I guess). The Gita speaks of yoga/discipline as the technique. There are many examples.

Yes! I think you've gotten exactly what I mean, even though I struggled to find the right way to express it. Although the realm is scholarship, Comption's "Christian Scholarship" has much the same effect on me. It inspired a desire to move beyond mere apologetics in Book of Mormon scholarship. Originally, I put it in terms of "I have to take something away, I want to give something back." Now, I think I'd just be happy to contribute something that would be useful to all the parties interested in the Book of Mormon. I wrote my Environmental Theory essay as a prologue to that work, but unfortunately life got in the way of actually doing more work. Still, the desire to engage the Book of Mormon "in a warm, convincing, admiring way" remains.

On another level, I have to say that I find Tobit and Judith (apocryphal to Protestants and Mormons, deuterocanonical for Catholics and Orthodox) and the tale of Ahikar (apocryphal to all four traditions) far more fascinating and engaging than, say, Esther. So I know what you mean by how books outside the accepted canon can overshadow what is within it.

With this in mind, I wonder if the term "Canon" is best applied to those texts that others have found to act as scripture for themselves? But the challenge is that the individual who is a member of the community may come to read the texts, religiously, without ever having the experience that renders them to become Scripture. Or worse, the expectation that a person should experience the reading of a text as scripture leads a person to act as if it were so for them, but in so doing never experiencing actual scripture-making in the reading.

On the other hand from a sociological perspective, I think most community-based canons serve as vehicles for culturization rather than individual spiritual awaking or expansion. In this sense, I wonder (and am interested in your thoughts on the question) in what ways can cultural canon be actual scripture rather than tools to cultivate the individual into a member of the communal whole?

Ben Bag Bag, a disciple of the legendary Hillel, said, "Turn it, and turn it, for everything is in it. Reflect on it and grow old and gray with it. Don't turn from it, for nothing is better than it." He was speaking of the Torah, but it is applicable to all Scripture of course. The idea is that one needs to keep engaging and reengaging Scripture, always finding new insights, always finding new applications, always, as the Book of Mormon says, "liken[ing] all scriptures" to ourselves. The role of the community is to encourage it and give enough freedom to individuals to do exactly that.

Moreover, ben Bag Bag's insight not only applies to individuals, but to generations. One Jewish commentary I read listed some heroes of Torah scholars who brought new insights out of the Torah who continue to inspire Jewish readers to this day. His list included ibn Ezra, Maimonides, Nahmanides, and more recently, E. A. Speiser. If the author were writing today, he'd probably add Umberto Cassuto and Robert Alter to the list. Communities can encourage the development of such heroes who will push boundaries while keeping the true fundamentals intact. It is through these heroes the community as whole find new ways to "turn" the Scripture and help render it as Scripture to new generations.