Everyone has probably heard the quote “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” — 2 Timothy 3:15.
You may or may not know that the word “scripture” in that citation is γραμματα which means “a letter, note, epistle, book, etc.; plural learning — bill, learning, letter, scripture, writing, written” — basically religions writings from religious romance novels to essays to the five books of Moses and popular music and poetry.
Apocrypha? Scripture (even the fish story). Romance novels, even? Already addressed. Words of prophets?
Which is where Brigham Young and Joseph Smith come in, talking about the limits of language, of how our understanding of what God says to us is limited by our experience, context and vocabulary. Where they gave sermons about how the LDS (Mormon) Church did not possess all the truth and that we needed to go to and study other churches to bring back the truth they had in them for our own use.
In addition, most “old” scripture is constrained by being oral tradition and addresses for an oral, not a written society. Even most new scripture is the same. Consider how much of the inspirational writing we have (which is a better translation from Timothy) consists of talks reduced to print for us.
So, what is scripture? Too often we think of it a a proof-text from God (and when you look at the Bible, especially the New Testament, we don’t have anything on proof-texting as it was done in the “good ol’ days”). Too often we lean too heavily on the “inspired” and not enough on the “inspirational” — too much on “text” and too little on “textual.”
So that, I suspect, we over-sell ourselves on the scope and value of scripture, while underselling ourselves on the sue of it as well.
Or so I think. What do you think scripture is, and what qualifies as scripture to you?
Wheat & Tares 
Stephen,
In my opinion scripture includes the Book of Mormon, the D&C and the Pearl of Great Price. Everything other book, including the Bible, should be treated the same way the Lord told Joseph to treat the Apocrypha as communicated in the 91st section of the D&C.
“Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha –There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;
There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.
Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.
Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;
And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;
And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated”
The last part is the key, receive and understand with the Spirit.
I’d note that in many ways I like the New Testament better than the Old.
Stephen,
I would agree with that statement. The Old Testament has some bizarre and hard to believe stories.
I am pretty open on what I consider to be scripture (conference talks, standard works, apocrypha, and I would be willing to include non-Christian sacred works in there perhaps, even). I also recognize that all scriptures are written by mortals and thus are fallible and prone to prejudice, assumptions, and errors. There are whole sections of the OT, and various statements by various apostles that I don’t consider scripture at all.
I judge them all by how well they measure up to the two great commandments – love God and love your neighbor as yourself. The ones that resonate with those ideas I consider to be more authoritative than the ones that don’t.
My 2 cents, for what they are worth.
Also, specifically regarding the OT – I have doubts about the histories, but I have come to really love the minor prophets. Amos, Malachi, and the rest have some fantastic social commentary that I think is both inspired and still highly relevant.
prometheus — nicely said.
Will, I like the Pearl and some other works as well.
I really like the first comment of prometheus. Those words in Scripture and at Conference that teach me how to come unto Christ, to love as He loved and live as He lived, resonate with me.
Mormonism embraces all Truth that is revealed and that is unrevealed, whether religious, political,
scientific, or philosophical. It comprehends all True Science known by man, angels, and the gods. There is one true system and science of life; all else tends to death. That system emanates from the fountain of life. True science, true art and true knowledge comprehend all that are in heaven or on the earth, or in all the eternities. By these all beings exist.
–Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses
To me this is the essence of Scripture, that which emanates from the fountain of life.
Hard to top or add to…excellent posts all…
Are we distinguishing between “scripture” (in what has merely been recorded versus CANONIZED scripture? And, if so, as Joseph Smith’s inquiry as to the role of the Apocrypha intended to resolve, what IS supposed to be the body of canonised scripture? The “latter” (pun intended) would say Bible, BoM, D&C, and PofGP…”the X-tians” deride us for having any but the first…
Still, there are instances where the Church could do a more thorough job on documenting practices and policies (and disseminating info on same). Example (and let’s not threadjack into a WoW debate, pls). We had canonized scripture in D&C 89 as the WoW, given NOT as a commandment. However, that was revealed through JS as of 1833. WHERE is the “revelation”, or policy letter (either would have the same force) where it, or a subset of proscriptions were given the force of a commandment? Cripes, if it’s so jolly important that one’s commitment to living the Gospel, being judged worthy to enter the House of the Lord and/or serve in important office hangs on it, could we at least have something in WRITING? As it is, though my best belief is that the “Forbidden Four” (alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea), (now Five, since ‘harmful’ and not just illegal drug use is as strictly proscribed) were “officially” prohibited as of the early tenure of Heber J. Grant, I can’t reliably point to anything written that supports it. This observation from an environmental engineer that lives and dies by appropriate and painstaking documentation. Part of the job.
Also, the attitude that “everything” that the General Authorities say is to be considered “Scripture” can, IMO, be taken to ridiculous extremes. It can also cause them to become ecclesiastical politicians, because they become afraid to speak what’s one their mind for fear it will generate more heat than light. A J. Golden Kimball would be rendered “Emeritus” pretty darned quick nowadays. Kinda the same that Babe Ruth’s partying ways would have made him a one-man media circus were he playing today.
I question whether anything is really scripture, certainly not in the sense that most Mormons mean it (literally the words of God written down verbatim by men who are especially in tune as if they were taking dictation). Otherwise, I would say any religious text that a religion reveres as instructive for its members.
But my own view is probably closer to Chris above. Certainly Jane Austen is scripture by that reckoning.
Well, Hawk, maybe Jane Eyre …
““everything” that the General Authorities say is to be considered “Scripture”” in the same way that apocrypha or the old Christian romance stories and similar literature and homilies are/where.
Will, I’ve heard that argument from evangelical Christians regarding the Book of Mormon.
I’ve become totally disillusioned since I read D&C 89 only to realize that scripture had totally been blown to hell. Don’t get me started.
PS you would be so chagrined to see how many times I’ve written “no way” or “this is crap” in my Old Testament.
I think the definition in the LDS Church’s Bible Dictionary is instructive – and supports this post. I’m going to quote it below almost in its entirety, with the parenthetical additions and emphases being mine:
“The word scripture means [nothing more than] **a writing**, and is used to denote a writing recognized by the Church as sacred and inspired.”
(That last statement points more toward “canonized / official scripture”, imo – since it puts limits on the “pure” meaning.)
“It is so applied to the books of the O.T. by the writers of the N.T. (Matt. 22:29; John 5:39; 2 Tim. 3:15). . .”
(It’s important to remember that there are **lots** of books referenced in the NT that we don’t have in our OT – meaning there were **lots** of things that the NT authors [and, presumably, Jesus] accepted as scripture but are not available to us currently.)
“Latter-day revelation identifies scripture as that which is spoken **under the influence of the Holy Ghost** (D&C 68:1–4).”
(That final addition throws the doors **wide open** for the type of things you mention in this post, Stephen – and I am glad it’s in the Bible Dictionary. I believe it’s determining individually exactly what falls into that final category, both within and without our “canonized scriptures” that is the issue – since even Joseph Smith excluded some of the “canonized scripture” from “actual scripture” (the entire Song of Solomon and everything he changed in his translation), as did Martin Luther (The Epistle of James), for no other reason than they didn’t feel the contents were recorded “under the influence of the Holy Ghost”.)
Annegb’
“Will, I’ve heard that argument from evangelical Christians regarding the Book of Mormon.”
Not quite sure what you are saying, most born agains i have encountered trash the Book of
Mormon. I have never heard any of them refer to it as scripture.
As for the Word of Wisdom in section 89, I think it us totally inspired. Don’t follow you here either.
As for the Word of Wisdom, it is easy to read the text as meaning that it starts as an advisory that is intended to become more as time passes.
Ray, thanks for the thoughtful comments.
#16 – Thanks, yes, it was given to be “doable” by the weakest of those that could be called “Saints”. The point is, WHERE is the documentation as to when a subset of it was given the force of commandment and considered a reliable yardstick to judge a member’s worthiness by? I do believe that it is and observe it strictly, but the argument of it being “SOP” doesn’t wash. Again, (I enjoy movie and/or popular culture references), from “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, as the big alien mothership lands and puts on the music and light show, a senior official declares: “I hope that someone is taking all of this down!”
It’s a good thing I don’t have to argue scripture, especially D&C 89, in a court of law: the judge would throw me out on my ear with a contempt charge in five minutes!
Douglas, changing times always have produced changed policies and practices – at least in any good organization.
That doesn’t mean automatically the change in the “enforcement” aspect of Section 89 was inspired – but it certainly doesn’t mean automatically that it wasn’t. Just like polygamy was practiced, then wasn’t, then was, then wasn’t (and that point could be made about LOTS of practices and policies throughout ancient Christian and modern Mormon history) – nothing in a change makes it right or wrong simply because it changed.
If change, in and of itself, was wrong, baptism would be about the biggest wrong possible – since there isn’t more of a radical change in history than going from circumcision to baptism as a symbol of divine chosen-ness. Seriously, going from what could be termed sexual mutilation to getting dunked in water (and expanding from just men to all people) is about as radical a change as it gets.
I don’t want my comment to lead to a spiral away from the discussion of scripture to a discussion of the Word of Wisdom. Anyone who is tempted to respond, please do so by focusing on the idea that scripture is not immutable throughout history – that it can be and has been malleable as long as we’ve had the concept in our vocabulary.
I must not be getting my point across…
Issue is NOT whether abstinence of the “Forbidden Five” from the WoW is inspired, since in recommend interview I get asked, I answer, and I have full confidence in the appropriateness of asking and the authority to do so.
The issue is simply, WHERE is the change (more precisely, an upgrade) DOCUMENTED? Should it require commentary from the “peanut gallery” to the Brethren that in their handling of the Lord’s affairs that their paperwork is sloppy?
#20 – Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
I find it instructive that among those things which we profess to have been blessed with in the latter-days, namely Prophets and continuing revelation (modern scripture if you will), we are not even able to define what those things are. So much of what is debated here and elsewhere revolves around sorting out divine impressions from our own chaotic impulses. Or, codifying and recodifying those things that are written or were said by our religious forebearers.
Will offers the simplist explanation that at very least tries to build upon a pattern of consistency. Yet, so many others want to be able to sort through the mess of things with their own contrived metrics. Yet in this time of restoration, shouldn’t the answers be so much clearer than this? If we can’t say what scripture is with any certainty, and more importantly with some unaninimity, how can we say anything? Sure, we can each individually decide that “scripture is anything that satisfies my personal expectation”, but who are we kidding?? We just made that up!
Literally, I believe “scriptures” are the 4 Standard Works – as the canonized scripture we mostly refer when I tell my son…”go get your scriptures so we can read.”
“Scripture” as defined in the bible dictionary Ray quoted is much more expansive, including anything that inspires or teaches us…and that is a lot of things including readings from Buddhism, other religions, General Conference, Church Handbook of Instructions, lesson manuals, and the “best books” that promote faith [“… seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom. …” (D&C 88:118.)]
But for some reason, I don’t think the word “scriptures” is used that openly, it is implied as the LDS Standard Works.
Literally, I believe the “scriptures” refers to the 4 Standard Works, as when I tell my son, “go get your scriptures so we can read.”
Based on the definition in the bible dictionary Ray quoted, in essence anything that inspires faith with truth could be considered scripture to me, such as Buddhist philosophies, sacred texts of other religions, General Conference talks, Church Handbook of Instructions, books by Apostles or other Church Leaders, AND other writings that inspire faith. “… seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom. …” (D&C 88:118.)
But realistically, when we refer to scriptures, I believe it is what is in the canonized Standard Works. Those are “the” scriptures.
Heber13:
But that’s not the question at hand. Referring to a collection of books as “the scriptures” (as in “go get the scriptures”) is hardly the same thing as defining what scripture is.
Because, if you define it that way, then nothing said post 1830 would satisfy such a classification. You choose whether that’s a good or bad thing. 😉
#23 – the late Elder Bruce R. McConkie tried that in 1966 with his first edition of “Mormon Doctrine” (he was then an Assistant to the Twelve, methinks he didn’t make Apostle until ’72). The “Conk” was probably as scholarly and a powerful intellect (but also an awesome testimony) as any since James E. Talmadge. And what reward did the brethren give for his hard work? They went practically “Ape-do-do”!! The first edition was pulled from the shelves and he had to do a rewrite. Even in the Church no good deed goes unpunished.
Of course, it’s hard to go wrong with Talmadge’s own “Articles of Faith” and “Jesus the Christ”. They’ve stood the test of time.
Perhaps I’m just too hard on the current crop of brethren because I’ve reached the age where I don’t engage in “hero worship”. My impression, though, is much like a saying in the Navy: “Iron men in wooden ships have been replaced by wooden men in iron ships”. Certainly one Joseph Smith Jr was an iron man. As to the material of the present generation, you decide for yourself….
#24 Daniel:
Elder Richard G Scott said:
“Throughout the ages, Father in Heaven has inspired select men and women to find, through the guidance of the Holy Ghost, solutions to life’s most perplexing problems. He has inspired those authorized servants to record those solutions as a type of handbook for those of His children who have faith in His plan of happiness and in His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ. We have ready access to this guidance through the treasure we call the standard works—that is, the Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.”
-Oct 2011 GC, “The Power of Scripture”
So…if you read through that talk…you can see he is not referring to scripture as all things inspired by the Holy Ghost, he clearly is talking about the 4 Standard Works throughout his talk.
I’m sticking to my other post…I think to Mormons when we talk about scripture, that is what we are talking about. The reading of scripture, and “go get your scriptures”, is referring to the books we have known as the Standard Works. All other writings post-1918 are “like” scripture and can help us with inspired teachings, but I don’t think people in the church consider anything else “the” scriptures…even GC talks or lesson manuals. Those are just help-meets to the scriptures.