In this other thread, a discussion began on which works of scripture are inspired or not inspired, and how different people hold different parts/works of scripture up to different standards of inspiration.
I understand that certain groups met and came to agree on canonical works, but how does one decide what belongs in that group and what doesn’t? Is the standard different for each individual? Why the disagreements on such works as the Book of Mormon or the Apocrypha?
If one holds to the decisions of certain canonization processes, why are these adhered to?
Well, I gave my views on the nature of inspiration over in the thread you spun this one off from, under the mistaken idea that what you were going to address was what constitutes a prophet.
As for the canon of Scripture, I’m an Anglican – we see the edges as being a bit fuzzy, anyway: even the Articles of Religion, way back at the separation of the Church of England from Roman Catholicism, count the deuterocanonical (“Apocryphal”) works as sort of a “second-class Scripture.”
I personally refuse to publicly malign the character of Joseph Smith Jr. – but I don’t feel he was any more inspired than, say, Desmond Tutu or Isaac Watts.
I believe that some writings reflect, in the language of their authors and of their author’s time and place, a spectacular and important understanding of God and of visions for humankind that makes them special.
I am not the only person to have this belief, and the common phrase used by people with this belief with regards to such writings is “inspired by God”.
There are and have been councils and official proclamations from authorities within institutionally established religions regarding which specific writings are indeed “inspired by God”. To varying extents, the statements of the councils and the proclamations from these authorities have also been held to have been “inspired by God”, thus creating a sort of second-tier authority for writings so designated. And, to varying extents, priests and preachers and sunday school teachers have instructed and explained that it is part of <insert name of denomination or creed>'s orthodoctrinal truths, part of what “we hold to be true”, that those councils and proclaiming authorities were indeed “inspired by God”, thus adding a tertiary layer.
What makes a scripture divinely inspired is that it is divinely inspired. What causes you to recognize it as such is your perception thereof. Wisdom is as light and its Source shineth of its own accord. If a scripture requires a council’s designation or a pontiff’s proclamation in order for you to know that it is divinely inspired, i.e., if you people could not determine that on their own, then it either isn’t divinely inspired to any remarkable extent or it isn’t rendered very well.
Whatever one accepts is inspired, whatever one doesn’t, isn’t. The official set is by vote “Luke is inspired by a vote of 10 to 2.” And we have the popular inspired but incorrect category - the “it is just a parable, not science” class of text.
I disagree that historical authenticity plays any part. No one seems to have let evidence that Matthew didn’t write Matthew or that Moses didn’t write the Torah stop them from thinking them inspired.
Sorry for joining the party late. I wanted to participate and then got swamped at work.
This is a slightly different question than I expected, but I’d say that the only way to know that scripture is inspired is the same way that you know that Jesus is your Savior and that he was indeed resurrected on the third day. From the witness of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 16:17).
Jesus explained in John 7:17 that each of us can know for ourselves the veracity of his message.
The Book of Mormon contains a promise that we can know it is a true record via the same testimony of the Spirit.