What makes scripture....well....Scripture?

[Moliere]

Just wondering if there are any thoughts on this topic.

There was a post a while back on how Teryl Givens can pretty much call anything scripture, which he probably does. This seems to contradict the LDS assumption that scripture can only come from the prophets and apostles (and maybe the seventy when we like what they say), which assumption is interesting given the fact the current makeup of the New Testament is about 50% anonymous (Gospels and Acts), 25% writings by Paul who was not directly in synch with Peter and Jerusalem, and 25% pseudo-Paul (although scholars don’t fully agree on which letters were likely not written by Paul). Keep in mind I’m making rough percentages as I’m striving more to incite discussion and not specific precision of percentages. We could do the same thing with the Old Testament and obviously the historicity of the BoM has also been debated in this forum.

I have some thoughts that I’ll share later when I have more time and I’m at home on a regular keyboard. Suffice it to say that I find it interesting in Mormonism with the repeated reference to the current standard works when trying to validate a point of doctrine. It’s almost as to say that because the standard works were written a long time ago and they are bound together by a leather cover (or faux leather for the not so affluent ) that they are more authoritative than anything else, in spite of the fact some of them were likely not written by prophets or apostles.

[Jacob]

This is not easy. But I'd say that Paul's having written all those epistles is almost a matter of LDS scripture (even though he probably didn't).

[Sullyute]

Common consent, at least in the LDS concept. There are multiple published and unpublished revelations that are not concerned "scripture" because they have not be presented to the body of the Church for consent.

[Moliere]

Common consent, at least in the LDS concept. There are multiple published and unpublished revelations that are not concerned "scripture" because they have not be presented to the body of the Church for consent.

Is common consent necessary to call something scripture or necessary to add it to the official canon?

[DapperDan]

Is common consent necessary to call something scripture or necessary to add it to the official canon?

Officially canon has been approved by the church body. Although in practice new scripture is whatever the church says it is (GC talks and such).

[Moliere]

Officially canon has been approved by the church body. Although in practice new scripture is whatever the church says it is (GC talks and such).

Who in the church can say its scripture? I had a seminary teacher convince me that hymns were scripture. Are all GC talks scripture or only the ones given by prophets and apostles? Is there a line of demarcation or is there a vast gray expanse on what is scripture?

[Sullyute]

Who in the church can say its scripture? I had a seminary teacher convince me that hymns were scripture. Are all GC talks scripture or only the ones given by prophets and apostles? Is there a line of demarcation or is there a vast gray expanse on what is scripture?

I guess we should distinguish between scripture and cannon. D&D 68:4 states:

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

So anything said when moved by the Holy Spirit is scripture. This could be primary lessons, testimony given during Sacrament meeting, blessing to the sick, a compliment to someone that needs it, Hymns, etc. So this definitely is a very wide definition of scripture and the one that I personally like.

The Cannon is what we officially recognize as scripture for the church. The lectures on faith used to be part of our Cannon, but were removed in the early twenthieth century (I could be wrong on the time frame).

True prophets and apostles will continue to receive new revelation, and from time to time the legal authorities of the Church will see fit to formally add to the collection of scripture.

I don't know who the "legal authorities of the Church" are but I assume the president of the church, FP, and the Q12.

So to add to your question... why do we hold up the Cannon higher than other scripture? Is one scripture better than another? Can we really do as Nephi said and apply all scripture unto ourselves if scripture is so individualized to those to whom it was originally given?

[DapperDan]

Who in the church can say its scripture? I had a seminary teacher convince me that hymns were scripture. Are all GC talks scripture or only the ones given by prophets and apostles? Is there a line of demarcation or is there a vast gray expanse on what is scripture?

Officially it's voted on in GC if it is to be included in the canon. The last item that was added was Official Declaration #2 on Sept 30, 1978.

Unofficially the church wants people to view GC talks as scripture, and most members reciprocate.

[Clark Addison]

Old-timey locution.

[Moliere]

Officially it's voted on in GC if it is to be included in the canon. The last item that was added was Official Declaration #2 on Sept 30, 1978.

Unofficially the church wants people to view GC talks as scripture, and most members reciprocate.

Right, but maybe I'm not stating my point directly enough. The canon has some writings that of which we don't know the author and some that are directly contrary to out doctrine. But yet, when we need to validate some doctrinal assertion, we always go back to the canon as if it is the baseline. One example of this is the extensive attempt to legitimize the PH ban by reference to Abraham 1:26. In fact part of the process to lift the ban was to validate that there was no doctrinal statement within the canon that supported it.

On one hand we say that the living prophet is more important than the dead prophets, but in practice it's exactly the opposite. We always revert back to the canon to prove our doctrine, with living prophets acting more as interpreters of the anonymously written canon.

[jay santos]

Right, but maybe I'm not stating my point directly enough. The canon has some writings that of which we don't know the author and some that are directly contrary to out doctrine. But yet, when we need to validate some doctrinal assertion, we always go back to the canon as if it is the baseline. One example of this is the extensive attempt to legitimize the PH ban by reference to Abraham 1:26. In fact part of the process to lift the ban was to validate that there was no doctrinal statement within the canon that supported it.

On one hand we say that the living prophet is more important than the dead prophets, but in practice it's exactly the opposite. We always revert back to the canon to prove our doctrine, with living prophets acting more as interpreters of the anonymously written canon.

What do you mean by this? Examples?

[Moliere]

Old-timey locution.

Ha! And it came to pass that I agreeth with thine phrase.

This is kind of like my GD teacher that thinks speaking to God by using "you" instead of "thou" is offensive.

[Moliere]

What do you mean by this? Examples?

Well, they are always up for interpretation, but for starters the PH ban and Acts 10:34.

See also 1 Corinthians 14:34 and women speaking in church
D&C 132 and polygamy, although its still practiced in an eternal sense today so I guess it kind of works when coupled with OD1.
We also apply a more Peterian (I'm sure that's not a word) gospel than Pauline.

Those are off the top of my head. I'm sure there are plenty others.

[DapperDan]

Right, but maybe I'm not stating my point directly enough. The canon has some writings that of which we don't know the author and some that are directly contrary to out doctrine. But yet, when we need to validate some doctrinal assertion, we always go back to the canon as if it is the baseline. One example of this is the extensive attempt to legitimize the PH ban by reference to Abraham 1:26. In fact part of the process to lift the ban was to validate that there was no doctrinal statement within the canon that supported it.

On one hand we say that the living prophet is more important than the dead prophets, but in practice it's exactly the opposite. We always revert back to the canon to prove our doctrine, with living prophets acting more as interpreters of the anonymously written canon.

Gotcha, and the bolded part is an extra good point. For example, when Orson Pratt battled BY on the Adam-God doctrine his main point of contention was the lack of scriptural precedent.

[Sullyute]

On one hand we say that the living prophet is more important than the dead prophets, but in practice it's exactly the opposite. We always revert back to the canon to prove our doctrine, with living prophets acting more as interpreters of the anonymously written canon.

Great question. IThis is something that you could ponder for a long time and come to many different conclusions. I think that this may be the result of choosing great administrators instead of great theologians for Church leaders.