DiscussMormonism.com

What do you immediately think of when someone refers to "the word of God"?

As Mormon believers, we typically think of some sort of written form of communication, like a GC talk, Book of Mormon, the Bible, etc. At the same time, we believe in some form of personal, divine inspiration. We are taught that the difference between authorized canon and other forms of divine communication is that the latter does not come from the designated channels.

But why (according to Mormonism) were the prophets limited to literature as a means to communicate the word of God? Why not other forms of expression, such as:

Dance
Music
Film
Textiles/fashion
Painting
Drawing
Sculpture
Food

?

We have all heard that the scriptures (written canon) are interpreted by the reader to become a sort of tool for personal inspiration. The other forms of expression I listed above could do the same thing. So why not allow these other forms to be used to create authorized canon?

Thanks,

Zee.

Fashion




Textiles




Sculpture




Food




All part of the LDS canon. Unfortunately.

But why (according to Mormonism) were the prophets limited to literature as a means to communicate the word of God? Why not other forms of expression, such as:

There are many of those things already which are published (the standard for doctrine) by the Church (except for food unless in recipe form).

Morley wrote:


All part of the LDS canon. Unfortunately.

Ah yes, Green Ambrosia. A food fit to nourish and strengthen any gods-in-training.

Of all the things you mention, the written word is the only thing that can be preserved through the ages, and accessed by people thousands of years after the fact. When Christ came to the Nephites, He didn't teach them how to dance; He asked to see their written records and made corrections in them. Without the written word accompanying such things as sculpture and art, the interpretations would quickly be skewed and lost over the generations. We have enough problem keeping scripture in its correct and original interpretation; these other things would be mass confusion. Except for the jello, maybe.

I move that Johnny Lingo be officially included in the canon.

Many people consider the hymn book to be canon.

cinepro wrote:Many people consider the hymn book to be canon.

Thank you, cinepro!

Yes, but what about the actual sound of the music. The expression of the music itself, organ/piano and voices. That is what I mean. I don't mean the words as they are written on the pages.

I mean, what if the act of singing and producing the sound being scripture?