The Doctrinal Spectrum Index (DSI)

[mormon_fool]

I posted a slightly edited version of this on the FAIR boards, much to the approval of some of the posters there. While it is not an effort to be taken over-seriously, I think it does put LDS beliefs into perspective.

I have been thinking a little about the debates between critics and faithful LDS on what constitutes LDS doctrine. Latter-Day Saints often take care to explain how some sources of doctrine are more weighty than others, critics frequently contribute counter-examples to whatever guidelines the LDS correspondent outlines. Frequently this ploy is used to exhalt the doctrinal status of an un-related item. As a partial solution to this recurring un-productive type of dialogue, I offer the Doctrinal Spectrum Index, which gives a numerical score on how fervently LDS members should or, in fact, do believe in some item.

Step 1. Give your source a base score (parse if necessary to the debated item(s))

For accessible, written sources:

80 canonized scripture
60 signed First Presidency (FP) proclamations
40 Last General Conference or Books published under FP direction
30 Church magazines, other books by General Authorities (GA)
20 Scholarly Examinations by a faithful member
10 Something written by a well meaning lay-person

Exceptional Sources
80 “temple doctrines” (binding for those who participate, often symbolic and open to interpretation, details really shouldn’t be argued about–but their personal, doctrinal status should be acknowledged)
80 commonly consented to interpretations of scripture (ex: WoW)
60 non or pre-canonical revelations that the current prophet uses his prerogative to enforce (the score here might be debatable. I have in mind Nauvoo era polygamy here)
50 “administrative doctrines” (ex. Church Handbook of Instructions)

Other
10 ones own observations based on church experience
5 hearsay
-80 The Seer

The base score should be sufficient in most cases. But for fine tuned arguments more factors should be considered with score adjustments.

Step 2 Adjust for interpretation issues (scriptures don’t interpret themselves especially on most disputed beliefs)

2.1 Authority of interpreter: prophet +10, apostle +5, GA +2, scholar +0, lay member -2, former member -5, antagonistic critic -10

2.2 Interpretation characterized by: explicit, stated revelation +10, exhaustive analysis +5, strong reasoning +2, questionable reasoning -2, selective analysis -5, conclusion that has been explicitly renounced by a prophet -10

Step 3 Adjust for currency

current prophet’s administration -0, since 1978 -5, since 1890 -10, since 1820 -15

Step 4 Adjust for frequency that an average member would encounter that particular doctrinal source in church.

weekly +10, yearly +5, per decade -0, only through personal study -5, only if interested in apologetics -10

Step 5 Adjust for known, unresolved, differing POVs in the church or for uniformity of the belief

disagreement among GA’s -10, among influential mormon thinkers -5, among lay persons -2, a member might face church discipline for disagreeing +5, no LDS church member in their right mind would disagree +10

Step 6 Adjust for the LDS correspondent’s personal beliefs.

personal inspiration combined with exhaustive study +/- 10, one or the other +/- 5, leaning for or against +/- 1

Well there you have it. Now both critics and apologists have an empirical formula on how to score the authority of their LDS sources and analysis. If complex, multi-item doctrinal issues are being discussed within a debate it can be characterized by a mean, min, and max of the individual scores.

I note in passing that most of the latest squabbles on this board on whether a particular belief is doctrinal or not have a very low DSI.

later,
fool

 

[PaulDupre]

Interesting that you cite “the last general conference” and “the current prophet”. What galls non-Mormons is the ease with which Mormons change doctrines. Whatever the current prophet says trumps the prior prophets and the scriptures. And the members just take it.

Example: The standard works are clear that blacks are the seed of Cain, that dark skin is a curse and black people are “loathsome” and must be denied the priesthood. Brigham Young and later prophets expand on this principle, calling blacks “unintelligent”, “low” and other insults, and proclaim that intermarriage with them is punishable by death. BY declares that blacks will NEVER hold the priesthood until ALL the seed of Adam have had a chance to hear and accept the gospel. Later prophets specify that this will not occur until the millenial reign of Christ. The prophets are unanimous in teaching that blacks are born black because they were not “valiant in the pre-existence”.

Then, in 1978, the LDS Church is threatened with losing its tax-exempt status because of its racism. Suddenly, Spencer W. Kimball has a revelation! Happy day! The Lord has changed His mind, and now blacks can hold the priesthood. Huh? What happened to that rock-solid doctrinal foundation of standard works plus the teachings of the latter-day prophets all in harmonious agreement?
Mormons must suffer from frequent bouts of whiplash.

What say you?
Paul

 

[majick275]

Why are you so down on the seer? The first presidency commissioned it and no specific teachings in it were singled out as false when BY decided to “rein in” Orson Pratt.

 

[mormon_fool]

PaulDupre:

Interesting that you cite “the last general conference” and “the current prophet”. What galls non-Mormons is the ease with which Mormons change doctrines. Whatever the current prophet says trumps the prior prophets and the scriptures. And the members just take it.

I can see that staying current on present day beliefs might be taxing for a someone who has no motivation to do so. But relying on old, (uncollaborated by recent) sources considerably weakens someone’s claim to be repressenting current belief.

Example: The standard works are clear that blacks are the seed of Cain, that dark skin is a curse and black people are “loathsome” and must be denied the priesthood.

OK. If members pre 1978 applied the DSI to the doctrinal sources available then some of these teaching items would end up with a high DSI.

Brigham Young and later prophets expand on this principle, calling blacks “unintelligent”, “low” and other insults, and proclaim that intermarriage with them is punishable by death. BY declares that blacks will NEVER hold the priesthood until ALL the seed of Adam have had a chance to hear and accept the gospel. Later prophets specify that this will not occur until the millenial reign of Christ. The prophets are unanimous in teaching that blacks are born black because they were not “valiant in the pre-existence”.

All this “expanding” would have had a relatively low DSI back then.

Then, in 1978, the LDS Church is threatened with losing its tax-exempt status because of its racism.

Possibly. I am sure the desire to maintain churches in racially diverse countries that were experiencing rapid missionary success may have been another condition.

Suddenly, Spencer W. Kimball has a revelation! Happy day!

Indeed!

The Lord has changed His mind,

If I can make a low DSI observation: God is the most moved Mover.

and now blacks can hold the priesthood. Huh? What happened to that rock-solid doctrinal foundation of standard works plus the teachings of the latter-day prophets all in harmonious agreement?

They got updated through the rock-solid foundation of revelation to living apostles and the canonization to scripture though common consent.

later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

Why are you so down on the seer? The first presidency commissioned it and no specific teachings in it were singled out as false when BY decided to “rein in” Orson Pratt.

The FAIR thread I linked has some comments about “The Seer”. I think most of the informed LDS agree with me here, at least to the point of chuckling at the massive point deduction I assigned it.

later,
fool

 

[majick275]

Well in any case, I got a good chuckle out your DSI. Thanks for easing the tensions here with some lighthearted (yet still informative) snack food for thought.

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

Why are you so down on the seer? The first presidency commissioned it and no specific teachings in it were singled out as false when BY decided to “rein in” Orson Pratt.

The FAIR thread I linked has some comments about “The Seer”. I think most LDS who understand the background and usage of it agree with me here, at least to the point of ing at the massive point deduction I assigned it.

later,
fool

 

[BJRumph]

I agree with Majick, this is a very cute sytem you have created. Fun to play with.

Ironic though, that the Nauvoo period polygamy, which you admit is true, would still have a higher score when reported by such sources as, say, The Nauvoo Expositor, than if it were reported in a church publication like the Seer. Church sources say it happened, anti-church sources say it happened; why is the source such a critical, an unbalancing, point of evaluation. If an antimormon can provide you with written correspondece signed by the prophet of your choice, verifying a particular doctrine; why does it matter who the middle man is? This hypothetical document ultimately comes from the appropriate sources…

If this intends to be used in a serious manner, one would need to review and refine the weights; they should not be capable, in themselves, of changing the base category of the discussed topic (which means, in total, the modifiers should not equal more than +/- 9). Additionally, you have over compensated through duplicity several steps, the value of “currency”. Unless the new D&C is GBH’s work, rather than being Smith’s; or people no longer bear their testimony of Smith, in favor of GBH? I didn’t think so. It should only be used ONCE in factoring in a DSI modifier.

Additionally, step 6 is completely superfluous.

Still, criticism aside, I am sure the system has been an enjoyable experience for your yourself, as it has been for us. Thanks.

 

[mormon_fool]

BJRumph:

I agree with Majick, this is a very cute sytem you have created. Fun to play with.

Ironic though, that the Nauvoo period polygamy, which you admit is true, would still have a higher score when reported by such sources as, say, The Nauvoo Expositor, than if it were reported in a church publication like the Seer.

I would probably weight the Seer in the same ballpark the Expositor, both sources were condemned by a formal action involving First Presidency members.

If an antimormon can provide you with written correspondece signed by the prophet of your choice, verifying a particular doctrine; why does it matter who the middle man is?

I don’t consider private letters to be a public source of doctrine (They may be worthy of a low DSI rating though).

The DSI rewards doctrinal sources which are mutually reinforced by all the key players: the current prophet, canonized scripture, church members collectively, and individual correspondents.

Complex doctrinal items often require complex interpretive analysis drawing upon a network of ideas and sources. This is not exactly something that should be entrusted to antagonistic middle men.

[cont]

 

[mormon_fool]

BJRumph:

If this intends to be used in a serious manner, one would need to review and refine the weights; they should not be capable, in themselves, of changing the base category of the discussed topic (which means, in total, the modifiers should not equal more than +/- 9).

I don’t think it is important to maintain base categories. Step 1 is really a first order approximation and is really all that is needed. It is only when dialoguers want to make an advanced analysis involving more dynamics that the other steps need to be done.

Additionally, you have over compensated through duplicity several steps, the value of “currency”.

This is intentional. If something is a current belief it should be no problem demonstrating this from a current source.

Unless the new D&C is GBH’s work, rather than being Smith’s; or people no longer bear their testimony of Smith, in favor of GBH? I didn’t think so. It should only be used ONCE in factoring in a DSI modifier.

Additionally, step 6 is completely superfluous.

Still, criticism aside, I am sure the system has been an enjoyable experience for your yourself, as it has been for us. Thanks.

 

[BJRumph]

Tee Hee

Complex doctrinal items often require complex interpretive analysis drawing upon a network of ideas and sources. This is not exactly something that should be entrusted to antagonistic middle men.

While, in principle, I would agree to your point; complex doctrine requires complex analysis; I would point out that the CoJCoLDS does not claim to any doctrine that would be considered “complex”, and certainly would necessitate any form of analysis that would possibly be above the heads of any of its members. Otherwise you might end up with a situation that allows the traditions and philosophies of man to enter into the doctrine of God…

At any rate, you failed to notice my actual point. The intention of anyone providing factual knowledge does not impare the truth of the facts themselves. The Expositior, to continue my example, was telling the truth about the practice of polygamy in the church, which was then, several years later, the church itself revealed that they were, indeed, practicing polygamy during the nauvoo period (despite their contemprary refutations). Nauvoo Period polygamy is an undeniable fact (unless you are in the CoC); why does the discussion change in value, on this point, based upon “where” the discussion participants first learned the uncontroverted fact?

What “complexity” is there to apply “complex interpretive analysis” to the basic question of “was there polygamy during the nauvoo period?”. You are correct, there is none. Nor is there any complexity to the question of “did Smith lie about Nauvoo polygamy?”. The complexity only arises in these issues when trying to “justify” or otherwise rationalize away something that when analysis is applies, the result is disquieting.

I would like to point out to everyone reading this, I do believe that the doctrine of the LDS church does have far more depth to it than can usually be discerned in conversations here. My own issue is that no discussion can arise that would reveal or rationally appreciate this depth when the doctrine being scrutinized is categorically denied as being a doctrine in a topical fasion within the first or second lds responses. It is only after large amounts of strife and uncharity that, eventually, the lds slip and say something that reveals that the original doctrine questioned really is a doctrine of the church. But, by then, all parties involved are tired of the discussion, and so the few beuties and gems of lds doctrine (that are actually worth even discussing) are left untouched and undiscussed.

Furthermore, “analysis” is something that any party willing to exert the rationality required can do; it is not the exclusive pervue of the LDS. I will grant you that most “anti mormons” who never were will not have the motivation to provide an objective analysis, and so while I can conceed that their analysis would be suspect, I will also point out that any faults in their analysis can be made obvious to anyone making an analysis of those conclusions. Secondarily, most of the ex-mos here have left the church because of the conclusions made by this analysis, many of whom are far more talented in this area than either you or I. What is completely unjustified is your premise that an exmo is incapable of making such an analysis, even though it should be obvious to you that that analysis could have easily been made when they were still faithful defenders of your faith. Why does their current status as exmos demote an analysis made while still faithful, and with full interior knowledge of what is taught by the church?

Which brings me back to my personal contention with lds activities here; that if non mormons are not making the “correct” analytical conclusions as to your church’s doctrine, it is because they are witholding the information needed to form an objective assesment. As such, the resident lds are only feeding the fact that inquirerers/investigators, such as Ben_dy, must rely on anyone **but the lds ** for their information. If you want people to stop accepting the “lies” of their “antimormon pastors” and see for themselves, then provide them with the Truth. But, regardless, the fact is that much of the analysis provided by many non and particularly ex- mormons is objectively sound, even if it is not positive in regards to the conclusions made.

At any rate, the system can only be a quaint diversion from the more contentious “discussions” going on here, as there is no mean or reason for anyone to follow a system that rates itself (if I am understanding your values correctly) as a DSI -5. Better get GBH to “reveal” it to the membership at the next Conference so it can boost itself up to the high positives.

 

[BJRumph]

As a Position Classifier for an HR office, I fully understand the necessity for distinguishing the “weight” of a particular consideration as it applies to the specific concept that is being discussed. As such, I can see why your system cannot be used seriously. Just like the many such systems created as diversions in Classification for creating a mathematical model that would cut out the “BS” and correctly classify a positon into the proper, correct, and true, job class; it is a fun exercise, but ultimately useless in practicality.

One BIG factor that you failed to address is the different weights that necessarily must be assigned to different types of doctrinal issues. Different doctrines are defined in different sources; therefore different sourcs must be given a different weight pertaining to the doctrine in question. For example, someone trying to utilize the JST to discuss polygamy is not using a source particularly germain to the discussion, and therefore the “bonus” for using Standard Works should not be the same as one who is using the POGP for discussing preisthood rights and race.

As an example that should be obvious to understand from my past professional life; the factor of “supervisory authority” within a particular job description has a variable “weight” in its inclusion of analytical interpretation. As one might expect, the weight of supervisory responsibilities is a higher consideration when trying to make a distinction and classification between an Administrative Supervisor and an Administrative Manager class (both of which requires differing levels of supervisory responsibility); but the weight of the supervisory responsibility in making a class determination is substantially less when trying to decide between a Computer Techinican and a Computer Specialist (of which supervisory responsibility is not a distinguishing characteristic of either class).

I can also attest to the systematic lack of integrity utilized in counting a particular, distinct, point of analysis (such as “currency”) more than once in making such an analysis.

Currency also has no relevance when dicussing issues within a particular temporal frame of reference. A document for the 1840’s is more germain to a discussion that involves doctrines or events that occured in the 1840’s, than one produced in the Ensign’s last issue. Therfore, while I understand the reason you intentionally made currency such a weighter factor, it is still of limited use in objective analysis.

Have fun.

 

[mormon_fool]

I apologize for the bad quoting in my previous post. I posted prematurely and then didn’t get it fixed in time. Now I have to redo this part.

Unless the new D&C is GBH’s work, rather than being Smith’s; or people no longer bear their testimony of Smith, in favor of GBH? I didn’t think so. It should only be used ONCE in factoring in a DSI modifier.

I agree with this. If something is part of the current canon it should not be subject to currency modifiers. Sources that the church officially keeps in print like *Jesus the Christ *or keeps current like Gospel Principles also shouldn’t be modified (unless it is not the current edition.)

Additionally, step 6 is completely superfluous.

Hmmm. I would agree to this if mormonism is only being addressed in general. In a religous dialogue setting, I think step 6 is desirable. Some weight should be allotted for the believing correspondent to express themselves. Applying step 6 helps insure critics are not just beating up a strawman.

Still, criticism aside, I am sure the system has been an enjoyable experience for your yourself, as it has been for us. Thanks.

Thanks for the critique. The DSI as currently formulated is definitely not fool-proof . But it should give critics some hints how to make their presentations of what mormons believe more persuasive to their mormon correspondents. It also should help an LDS be introspective of where weak links are in their own repressentation are. It allows for acknowledgement of obscure teachings without over-inflating their importance.

later,
fool

 

[BJRumph]

Hmmm. I would agree to this if mormonism is only being addressed in general. In a religous dialogue setting, I think step 6 is desirable. Some weight should be allotted for the believing correspondent to express themselves. Applying step 6 helps insure critics are not just beating up a strawman.

This prolly wont be a suprise to you, but I disagree in the specific case of these particuar forums. It has been my observation that the majority of lds actively abuse this factor to turn what is, in fact, a real point or argument, into a supposed “strawman”. Therefore, while I can agree to its principle in theory, it has been shown to be untrue in a practical usage, and the actual souce of many a misunderstanding of the issues discussed.

Additionally, it should be quite clear to you that when someone asks what the church teaches, it is the rational expectation that the responses should be to define what the church teaches. Instead, many of the lds here have abused the inherent ight of a religion to define its own doctrines into a means to insert their own, very personal, interpretations of what the church teaches; and more consistantly, this personal interpretation becomes a full denial of what the church, demonstatably, teaches.

Therefore, in these discussion, the point is detrimental to actual discourse as a practical matter.

Finally (on this point), you have already given preferential weights to lds sources in every previous step; therefore, in a very real, and technical sense, it is wholly superfluous, especially in light of the fact that many of the base categories are weighted as the source of the doctrine in question, and therefore already take into account (at a fundamental and most governing factor) the aspect of your church defining its doctrine.

I assure you, no one here really cares what an individual lds beleives about a particular doctrine of your church; people want to know what your CHURCH has to say. IF some of the conversations have devoled into one’s personal beliefs, I will again assert that this is due to the free-wheeling and irrational style of response given by most lds who interchange their personalized religion with the institutional religion at whim.

It is these points that both cause me to reject, in toto, step #6; and it is also why I can have these fun, and non-contentious, discussions and debates with you; but have very different relationships with other lds here.

Yes, I actually enjoy my discussions with you. You and I can honestly agree that we disagree on some point or another, wthout having to make spurious or false petitions for “more Charity” in our discussions. We disagree because of our religions, but neither of us are attacking each other becuase of those disagreements, and therefore our conversations have a much higher level of charitable discourse than in those threads where others are trying to mask the differences.

If I am coming off a little “contradictory” to some who have seen my more recent “vitrolic” agruments; I will simply state a basic fact about me. I do respect the religions of others, and will protect their right to worship as they see fit. I do not, however, respect those who are denying their faith in order to mask their actual religion to make it appear to be another religion. Thus, for a historical example, I personally have more respect and understanting for Innocent’s crusade against the gnostic Cathars, than I do for the general movement of Crusading against the moors. Thus, I respect those mormons who do not hide their faith, and will even come to their defence when appropriate; but I have nothing but indignation for those who are rejecting it to repackage it as being “more mainstream Christian than the mainstream christians”, and calling all those who reveal the truth of it “liars”.

 

[BJRumph]

I must be getting tired. I heartily apologze for the increased number of fat-fingered and sloppy spelling errors.

 

[mormon_fool]

BJRumph:

While, in principle, I would agree to your point; complex doctrine requires complex analysis; I would point out that the CoJCoLDS does not claim to any doctrine that would be considered “complex”, and certainly would necessitate any form of analysis that would possibly be above the heads of any of its members. Otherwise you might end up with a situation that allows the traditions and philosophies of man to enter into the doctrine of God…

I disagree that there are no complex doctrines in the LDS church. Some doctrines are so complex that it is well understood that not everything has been revealed about that particular topic. For example we understand very little of what will happen in the afterlife. I am not against using philosophy and human tradition to understand doctrine. I am just cautious that such is not given very much weight.

The Expositior, to continue my example, was telling the truth about the practice of polygamy in the church . . . .why does the discussion change in value, on this point, based upon “where” the discussion participants first learned the uncontroverted fact?

Quoting the Expositor (to a mormon) is like quoting Satan (hyperbolically speaking). I don’t believe anything Satan says unless it is confirmed from a much more credible source, which in this case exist in abundance. Antagonistic sources have never been allowed to define mormon doctrine. It is alright to first learn about something from such a source, but it should definitely be verified in a more acceptable source.

The complexity only arises in these issues when trying to “justify” or otherwise rationalize away something that when analysis is applies, the result is disquieting.

I have Danel Bachman’s 300+ page Master’s Thesis that covers the complexity and doctrinal development of pre. 1845 polygamy. An up and coming scholar that posts on FAIR has 14 books on mormon polygamy in her personal library. Apparently some people think that the doctrinal issues are quite complex.

There may be truth value in the answers to “Did JS practice polygamy?” and “Was he evasive about it?” but very little doctrinal value. BTW, I am convinced JS wasn’t practicing polygamy according to legal definitions. How these questions are framed and answered are anything but simplistic.

I would like to point out to everyone reading this, I do believe that the doctrine of the LDS church does have far more depth to it than can usually be discerned in conversations here.

Now this I can agree with. Perhaps my reading of your comments earlier in this post was overly simplistic.

Why does their current status as exmos demote an analysis made while still faithful, and with full interior knowledge of what is taught by the church?

An exmo’s analysis has very little influence on the beliefs of the faithful. There is not much difference in DSI for a lay person’s analysis and a non-antagonistic ex-member’s analysis. It concentrates more heavily on methods used (exhaustive vs. selective, strength of reasoning, etc.) If an exmormon’s analysis resembles a member’s analysis then referencing that member’s analysis definitely strengthens the argument from an LDS POV.

Perhaps a different version of DSI could be drawn up to with weights and rules on how to convince others what level of belief mormons have in a particular item. This would put greater weight on so-called objective outsiders like a Jan Ships or Paul Owens, or former members. I have been known to argue on these boards that even critic X has debunked criticism Y.

At any rate, the system can only be a quaint diversion from the more contentious “discussions” going on here, as there is no mean or reason for anyone to follow a system that rates itself (if I am understanding your values correctly) as a DSI -5. Better get GBH to “reveal” it to the membership at the next Conference so it can boost itself up to the high positives.

As a whole, the DSI would indeed have a low DSI. The individual underlying values like staying current, prophets are more authoritative than critics, canonization, frequency of teaching, and personal study and inspiration are all fairly high DSI. DSI is just a creative way to synthesize these values and take them all into account.

 

[PaulDupre]

mormon_fool:

Antagonistic sources have never been allowed to define mormon doctrine.

Spencer W. Kimball may have disagreed with you back in 1978 when he caved to social pressure/bad press/renagade members and reversed the LDS position on blacks and the priesthood.

I remember well the bishop who, just months before the change, baptized black men in his swimming pool and then ordained them to the Aaronic priesthood (with news cameras flashing, of course).
God love you,
Paul

 

[majick275]

What weight would you give to previously canonized scripture that was later removed but not “denounced”? (like lectures on faith)

What about canonized scripture that was withheld from the canon until a much later date? (some of the later sections in the D&C)

Does the hymnal count as scripture?

Is there a difference in weight between original and current version of canonized scripture? (such as the edits in the BoM)

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

What weight would you give to previously canonized scripture that was later removed but not “denounced”? (like lectures on faith)

As a whole I would give it a base score of 30. The authorship of LoF is somewhat questionable, I have seen it attributed to both Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, although more the former. When it was de-canonized, irregularities in the canonization process were cited.

To do a more sophisticated analysis I would have to parse it into individual phrases. Where it follows scripture or is quoted in more recent LDS publications it scores high (avoiding the currency and lack of frequency penalty). The 5th article is the most problematic in that it reads awkwardly when it expounds on the Godhead. Some like historian Thomas Alexander see it as a milestone in doctrinal development. Others like Bruce R. McKonkie saw it as a “deep doctrine” type of challenge. It certainly provides food for thought for mormon thinkers, I have checked out a fat book of commentary edited by Larry Dahl, but couldn’t get into it much. The CES institute next to my university regularly teaches a class on it. My friend took it and matched me tit for tat when we had discussions on the very issues I have raised in this paragraph, so his instruction in the class was quite good.

For the problematic passages one can increase the DSI score of his doctrinal presentation by utilizing some of the later sections of the Doctrine and Covenants as well as “´The Father and the Son´: A Doctrinal Exposition of the First Presidency and the Twelve,” that was issued 1916 and is frequently cited. When it comes to nature of God beliefs one will easily get exhausted before their survey of relevant literature is exhaustive.

What about canonized scripture that was withheld from the canon until a much later date? (some of the later sections in the D&C)

It doesn’t matter to DSI when something was canonized, just as long as it is part of the (now) current canon. If someone retroactively applies DSI to then the score is based on the (then) current canon. The DSI of the LoF has gone down and DSI of say, Doctrine and Covenants 137 & 138 has gone up.

Does the hymnal count as scripture?

If a loose definition of scripture is used. DSI uses strict definitions.

Is there a difference in weight between original and current version of canonized scripture? (such as the edits in the BoM)

When church leadership make minor edits to scriptures they are not re-canonized, their actions are accepted (through annualy re-sustaining) as part of their perogative. If the choice is strictly between a the latest edition’s reading and an earlier reading then the latest has a higher DSI. (Same deal with editions of Gospel Principles). This is really a direct result of the use current sources to repressent current belief. Somebody can get a higher DSI score if they use multiple editions.

later,
fool