Lecture on Faith Number V

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Joseph Smith approved of their inclusion in the D&C.

I would answer your second question with a "no."

Well maybe 10 years down the road the LDS prophet will decide D&C 20 is no longer up to snuff and will axe it. After all, what did that silly Joseph Smith know anyway.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Well maybe 10 years down the road the LDS prophet will decide D&C 20 is no longer up to snuff and will axe it. After all, what did that silly Joseph Smith know anyway.

Having an open canon means that writings can move in and out of it. It means that the value of scripture is not static and allows for subsequent prophets to call our attention to this or that idea, and to minimize this or that idea.

Taking D&C 20 out of the canon would not make Joseph Smith silly. Prophets preach in part and prophesy in part. They disagree with each other, and sometimes their disagreements are sitting right there in scripture. Scripture is full of wonderful tensions, diverse ideas, and contradictory counsel. Like anyone, prophets are wrong about things sometimes, and their rightness can be limited in time and/or space. They are certainly not omniscient (Brigham Young famously said in 1854 that "I have known many times I have preached wrong but I asked the Father in the name of Jesus to take it from the minds of the people and I believe he always did drop the veil over it.")

Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 13 is valuable: For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

If you want absolute truth, you won't find it from a human being--from any human being. The passage from 1 Thess. 5 in my signature line applies here.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Having an open canon means that writings can move in and out of it. It means that the value of scripture is not static and allows for subsequent prophets to call our attention to this or that idea, and to minimize this or that idea.

Taking D&C 20 out of the canon would not make Joseph Smith silly. Prophets preach in part and prophesy in part. They disagree with each other, and sometimes their disagreements are sitting right there in scripture. Scripture is full of wonderful tensions, diverse ideas, and contradictory counsel. Like anyone, prophets are wrong about things sometimes, and their rightness can be limited in time and/or space. They are certainly not omniscient (Brigham Young famously said in 1854 that "I have known many times I have preached wrong but I asked the Father in the name of Jesus to take it from the minds of the people and I believe he always did drop the veil over it.")

Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 13 is valuable: For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

If you want absolute truth, you won't find it from a human being--from any human being. The passage from 1 Thess. 5 in my signature line applies here.

Actually, the removal of canon is more of a witness of a living, breathing organ. We are a congregation historically built upon charismatic leadership, with faith, reason and experience determining our dialects. Our culture will educate us, will advance us and will cause us to grow out of our coocoons.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Actually, the removal of canon is more of a witness of a living, breathing organ. We are a congregation historically built upon charismatic leadership, with faith, reason and experience determining our dialects. Our culture will educate us, will advance us and will cause us to grow out of our coocoons.

I agree with this (and was trying to articulate this, in my convoluted way), although I think my emphasis on fallibility is both accurate and healthy. Your "growing out of cocoons" sounds exactly like Emerson.