Probably another semantics issue. I was referring to official canon but the practiced canon is open. Essentially the exact opposite of what I was saying in that other comment.

My definition of LDS scripture/doctrine comes down to whatever I could say is scripture (or not scripture) in SS or over the pulpit without getting lynched.
So you could say the Proclamation is scripture without getting lynched, just as you could say whatever was in last GC is scripture without getting lynched. But there would be lots of people keeping their pitch forks in the shed who know they're not really scripture in the canonized sense (and they would include heretics like me as well as some orthodox members). And there might be times depending on the context and the audience (and how many allies I have in the room) when I might say something like "I was speaking of the canon" or "Let's stick to canonized scripture." I know there's been some conversation in other threads about the CoC and how their D&C has continued to grow. Their canon does include things like the Proclamation. In that sense, I am glad ours is more limited.
Excellent point. Also, the idea that anything we do "earns" us God's grace or that some of us have earned it and others have not. The new word is "qualifying" for grace.BAD:
Obsession with worthiness. Holding worthiness interviews. Temple recommend status. Pigeonholing people into a label - investigator, convert, inactive, worthy, not in good standing, etc.
"You don't get a bonus for doing the basics."