- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
OK. I know we’ve taught in the church that the church will publish more scriptures, but how come we don’t have any more scriptures in the standard works? I know there are church magazines and church talks, but those aren’t the same. Those aren’t accepted as standard works in the church. Is it because God doesn’t feel we’re ready for any more scriptures to the standard works or is it because the brethren in Salt Lake City haven’t asked about any more scriptures? What are your feelings on this topic? I think it’s because there is a hesitancy to canonize more, since lots of members would make their to-do list that much longer. :thumbdown: 😈 I also think the leadership views “the standard works” as different than “scripture” – and, given the definition of “scripture” (anything uttered / written under the inspiration of deity), including all scripture would be a never-ending, rather pointless exercise open to way too much interpretation and argument. Finally, I think they see “the standard works” as the writings of the historical past and only make additions when major changes occur to what was considered “doctrine”.
I agree with Ray, and I also think we have more than we can digest as it is. In truth, we have what we need, and it is contained in the scriptures – the gospel of Jesus Christ. The great Jewish philosopher/leader Hillel said when asked about the essence of the scriptures said (and please know there are many different translations of this and I am paraphrasing) to do unto others and love your neighbor, the rest is commentary. Often left out of this famous quote among Jews are the words that follow – go study. I think Hillel’s statement still holds true. I would suggest that when a problem arises that cannot be solved by policy change, that new scripture will arise to support the change or solution. However, I do not expect it to be spiritual teachings, but something more along the lines of Doctrine and Covenants, which really outlines organizational needs and methods. I think there is a difficulty in crafting new spiritual writings, as every scripture we have in our contemporary experience are the writings or ideas of peoples and cultures long dead. I don’t think anyone has a clue how to write modern scripture because we aren’t doing any of the fantastic or inspiring things that are prevalent in existing scripture. We aren’t crossing waters parted by God, or travelling to a promised land on submarines, or destroying our enemies, or even healing and performing miracles. We don’t convert entire cities. I don’t think we are even giving inspiring sermons for the most part.
Joseph Smith made an attempt with the further adventures of Abraham, but the result does not stand up as inspiring scripture. Instead it serves the purpose of exposition, to justify the overall narrative.
Thanks. All those replies are excellent and make alot of sense. What I meant to ask was why hasn’t Thomas S. Monson translated any more scriptures since Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price? That’s what I would like to know. Ilovechrist77 wrote:Thanks. All those replies are excellent and make alot of sense. What I meant to ask was why hasn’t Thomas S. Monson translated any more scriptures since Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price? That’s what I would like to know.
For one…he’s probably not looking to do it.I think a lot of Joseph’s revelations came about because he was searching for it. Searching for more meaning from the Bible. Searching for meaning behind the church teachings of his day. Searching for ways to establish the church as he felt he was called to do. Searching for artifacts and scrolls and links to the ancient order of things.
Quote:Matthew 7:
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
It could be Thomas S Monson is seeking answers for problems in governing the church, so he isn’t seeking new scripture…and therefore, not finding any.
There is an organization now to distribute information (church manuals), and to teach principles (General Conference), and to clarify doctrine (CHI, Priesthood Training). With methods in place, why need to go back to methods earlier prophets used when these methods weren’t in place?
Ilovechrist77 wrote:Thanks. All those replies are excellent and make alot of sense. What I meant to ask was why hasn’t Thomas S. Monson translated any more scriptures since Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price? That’s what I would like to know.
I used to wonder about this. That’s probably how I came to the conclusion that we already have everything we need. Heber’s point about TSM not looking to do so is good – he’s probably not. JS was a seeker of truth, IMO, and I don’t think he was convinced that all we need, or at least all there is, was in the Bible. If you watch those History Channel shows about banned books of the Bible and so forth, they make a good argument that there was stuff left out because it didn’t necessarily agree with religious teachings of the time or clearly conflicted with other books included. Why don’t the prophets look at these and perhaps re-translate them? I don’t know, except that I really do believe all we need could be written on a page or two.
I think that a fairly TBM response is that no church leader since has had the gift of being a “Seer”. I don’t think anyone has claimed this gift. Prophet – Sure. Revelator – I guess. Seer – Not so much. 
I think the more orthodox response would be that General Conference talks are scripture, so we don’t need to expand our official canon. It’s a reasonable cop-out, imo. Because no one since Joseph has had the audacity to claim God is speaking to them. No current or former leader is willing to claim revelation at the drop of a hat. Ah, the big question: What is scripture? We have a couple letters Paul wrote to the church in Corinth, a couple he wrote to Timothy, one to Titus, an so on, and they have been immortalized in the canon of scripture. If papyrus were discovered that proved to be a birthday card from Paul to his aunt, would it be canonized? Okay, that was facetious, but I think you get my point.
Revelations to John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff could have been added to the D&C. If the experience in the temple in 1978 were recorded a certain way, it could have been included. If Brother Hinckley had recorded the decisions to build smaller temples and start the Perpetual Education Fund in the form of revelations, they could be scripture. There are other such things. I wonder…
Well, I basically agree with everything that has been said. I especially agree with Ray’s statement: Quote:I think it’s because there is a hesitancy to canonize more, since lots of members would make their to-do list that much longer.
:thumbdown: 😈 I also think the leadership views “the standard works” as different than “scripture” – and, given the definition of “scripture” (anything uttered / written under the inspiration of deity), including all scripture would be a never-ending, rather pointless exercise open to way too much interpretation and argument. Finally, I think they see “the standard works” as the writings of the historical past and only make additions when major changes occur to what was considered “doctrine”.
It’s true that if more scriptures were translated and canonized, more people would get more bogged down and might cause more people to have faith crises.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.