I think that you and I both, and perhaps most of those on this thread, tend to fall somewhere in the middle of your two extremes. Personally, I believe that scripture did and does transcend Joseph Smith and what he received as revelation. I believe that each of the prophets have received guidance and issued prophetic utterances that should be counted as scripture, On the other hand, I also have read some of what BY has said, and cannot necessarily accept it as the word of God.

I do not believe that every utterance from the mouths of the prophets, apostles, or other General Authorities, is necessarily inspired or scripture, though it may be inspiring for many.

On the other hand, I believe that, even though transient, the CHI has come together under the very specific direction of the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve, is inspired for our specific day, and will make of us better people as we follow the policies and procedures it outlines.

I suppose that when all is said and done, outside of “canonized” scripture, you and I will have to agree to disagree on other publications of the Church.

Thanks for the engaging conversation…

You’re right. However, I do believe that documents such as the CHI are far more transient in their usefulness than canonized scripture. So, I think the real question is: what constitutes canonized scripture and how does it differ from other inspired texts or pronouncements?

I think answering this question may help in bringing together the extreme ends of this argument – one end being fundimentalist in nature (i.e., inspired text generally ceases with the death of Joseph Smith) and the other being mystical in nature (i.e., every utterance sent forth from the Church’s administrative structure must be inspired because it’s the Church)

Again I go back to a previous post and quote from the February 1989 Ensign “Thus, by experience and revelation, Joseph learned and taught (1) that scripture is nothing more or less than the word of the Lord, (2) that the book of God’s word is not closed, (3) that God speaks to all dispensations, (4) that scripture must be correctly understood through the spirit of truth, and (5) that the words of the Lord’s servants when moved upon by the Holy Ghost are scripture, too. (See 2 Pet. 1:20–21; D&C 68:4.)”

If the CHI provides direction in the administration of the Lord’s Church, and the guidance of the Lord was sought by the General Authorities is the compilation of the CHI, then items 1 and 5 above both apply, and the CHI should be considered scripture.

If the CHI was written soley on a whim, based on personal bias of the writer(s) without any direction from the Lord, then yes, I would agree that it is “useful but not scripture”. But I don’t believe this, and I really don’t believe that you believe this.

Perhaps, it’s a stretch to say “not useful in any way whatsoever” which I think may be implied in my comment. However, the scriptures are not as useful as they use to be with regard to church administration. It is simply impossible to build the current administrative structure based upon the information set forth in the D&C alone. It is also impossible to address the many current welfare or moral problems that plague us today by simply turning to the scriptures. (as I’m sure has been true in every age to some degree)

At any rate, I was being a little silly when I reversed what you said in response to Jim – that is “…to see the CHI as useful, but not scripture”. (which I think is a correct assessment of Jim’s view on the matter) So, my question is: what constitutes an “inspired” text, that which is scripture but not useful, or that which is useful but not scripture? Hence my question about “definitions”.

I am curious to know what you consider “scripture and not useful” whether about church admin or “any number of other areas”.

I suppose the you and I will have to agree to disagree on this matter. You will continue to see the CHI as useful, but not scripture, while I will continue to see the CHI as essential and scripture.

The conversation, though, has been most useful in helping me understand the various positions that members of the Church take on this important topic. Thank you.

Sorry, I don’t know how to do html.

Jim, I found the article by Jiro interesting, but was surprised at the number of similarities to the ward in which I am a member. Jiro makes the point that many wards have attendance down around 150. While bishop, our attendance was averaging 122 each week (with total membership around 430). Jiro makes a point that much of this can be accounted to what I think he calls outmigration. Same here. In fact, there is one ward in north Phoenix we affectionately call Holiday Park North because so many of its members are the children of members who live in our ward but chose to move out (we call this “white flight”, an indication of the significant increase of Hispanics in this part of town. Our stake has two Spanish Wards that are growing, while the English wards are shrinking. As the Hispanic influence in business, food, culture increase, whites are looking for an escape to surroundings reflective of a white culture. Personally, I call this natural selection). Not to mention that in the 10 years I have been in this ward, perhaps as few as 25% of the current membership was here 10 years ago.

I guess my point is that, while the modernization of Mormonism to suit a Japanese culture would be a good thing, (I never understood celebrating the 24th of July in Japan), many of the problems extant in Japan are universal, and perhaps a discussion could be held to determine how to overcome these universal problems, while at the same time adapting the church (sans a change in doctrine, covenants, policy) to a local, more cultural level.

It might be kept in mind, however, that the reason Elders Oaks and Holland are in the Phillipines and Chile respectively is that the Church, left to local control, was slipping from its foundation into the local cultural abiss.

This issue has been explored to a certain extent at BCC, here. Generally, the conclusion is that all religions are flawed to some degree. But this Church possesses the power of God despite its weaknesses — therefore, where else should one turn? Moreover, not everyone believes in a take-it-or-leave-it church; that is, it’s entirely possible for people to pick those aspects of the Church they like, and remain active, happy mormons. To a certain extent, all of us do this — some just more so.

Does that help?