FWIW – For a while now I’ve been debating within myself just what the BoM is as well. One of the HUGE disadvantages of the book is that we can’t go back and look at the original language (like the Bible). So, the fact that we receive it King James English, means that there are a number of words and meanings that don’t/can’t shine through. So, Joseph’s use of the word “adieu” was a choice, just like ever other English word, but it would be still nice to see how that matches up with what Jacob really meant.

Also – MCQ’s post is worth a read.

http://www.nine-moons.com/?p=1380#more-1380

I’m reading the Old Testament again and am questioning the definition of scripture altogether. Because this is clearly a mish-mash. And I believe the Book of Mormon contains a lot of Joseph Smith’s personal feelings, beliefs, what have you, besides scripture.

It’s only an opinion.

I agree that Brigham has far less credibilty than Joseph Smith on gospel topics but I actually think even Brigham would agree with that. He never seemed to consider himself in the same category as Joseph, prophet-wise.

I think it’s ok to refer to quotes from any prophet in teacher’s manuals, as long as we all understand and agree that all prophets are fallible and any statement they make must be taken with a grain of salt until or unless confirmed by personal revelation. Some quotes don’t require confirmation, but anything controversial or too far out of the faith-repentance-baptism sweet spot should not necessarily be considred gospel in the absence of personal revelation.

We continually hear in the church that a living prophet is more important than a dead prophet (thank you Ezra T). However, as you correctly point out, some have greater weight than others. For example, Joseph Smith’s statements, regardless of if canonized, seem to hold great credibility when it comes to the interpretation/direction of gospel topics (Think King Follet discourse, etc.). Then think of poor Bro. Brigham and his Adam-God doctrine,etc. It seems so easy to dismiss the later but fully accept the former.

My point is that unless something was canonized, then all the quotes and non-scriptural references to JS in all the teaching manuals of the church should pretty much be stricken, just as much as BY’s quotes.

Also, since we seem to take the past 6 months talks as pretty much gospel and then pick and choose what we don’t like/accept from many years ago, perhaps the talk about living prophets being more important than dead ones really isn’t doctrine either ;-)

Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It qualifies according to the definition as a revelation and would do well that members of the church to read and follow it. It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow.

The italics are the part that was deleted and the bold is the part that was substituted. As you can see, the Church downgraded it from a revelation to a guide. I think that shows it is in no immediate danger of canonization.

I would suggest that more recent first presidency declarations such as the Family Proclamation and The Living Christ would actually fit in that category.

Except that the Church has specifically disclaimed that the Family Proclamation is scripture. I think those declarations are good policy statements that have more force than the typical conference address, but they are not scripture. The Church has the ability to make them scripture if it wished and has never done so. It would be a mistake to equate them with revelation that has been made scripture.