Councils and Canon

I left the following comment on the blog Mormon Coffee for this post Fruits of the First Vision

RalphG said:

"As far as the Councils, yes they were set up to remove what was seen as heretical teachings - but in order to define what was heretical they had to come to an agreement as to what they wanted as standard teachings first. There were a few parties/theologies involved and the ones with greater support and louder voices won. After the creed was drawn up, anything else was then considered heretical. According to one webpage I have read there were at least 3 factions (deity theologies) represented - Arius was one. What would the Christian movement be like now if his party had the greater influence?"

As a gospel doctrine teacher for decades, I was adamant about allowing only the standard works and the conference addresses as lesson material in my classes.  You will find, especially in blogs like this one, that LDS will rally around the canon as the only ground on which they want to engage.  I don't blame them.  And I feel that there is enough "fertile ground" in the LDS canon in which to engage the spiritual battle, as it were.

So why are attempts by the traditional Christian church to define a canon, whether it be scripture or doctrine, unlike the LDS method?  They are similar:

1 - The law of common consent.  The LDS canon is the canon because members have accepted it and have bound themselves to it.  The councils were meant to arrive to a similar agreement.  R.C. Sproul points out that the Latin term recipemus (which means "we receive") is a common thread.  Doesn't this sound like raising the right hand, figuratively speaking? "What the church said is that we receive these particular books as being canonical, as being apostolic in authority and origin, and therefore we submit to their authority."

2 - Opposing views.  My understanding as a member of the LDS church was that the vocal nature of the councils seemed to eliminate the divine.  But, LDS history is not short of "louder voices" who won.  But LDS would say that God's hand was in those arguments.  Louder won not because it was louder but because it was right?  Why can we not say that the right won out in the councils?

Both LDS and traditional Christians claim divine intervention.  Both groups had their detractors. For example, Emma Smith was one.  "What would the [Mormon] movement be like now if [her non-polygamist] party had the greater influence?"