How official is Nelson's revelation about the name of the Church?

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it was very easy to predict the negative reaction myself just due to the hassle it creates for people.

I also think if they were predicting interest, it would have been predicted at a lower level because it is something so ignorable by nonmembers (and I suspect by most members outside of highly dense Latter-day Saint areas where conversations with fellow members are limited to mainly Sunday).

Perhaps they did predict negative responses by the media.  This could still effectively take the focus off the other more negative stories that were out there recently in the media.  

[smac97]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Ok.  Well, it's been 40 years.....so we will see how long we have to wait for it to happen again. 

It's been 40 years since we saw the Brethren "following that process for common consent" to canonize a revelation.

The last time we saw the Brethren "following that process for common consent" in a church-wide context was April 2018.  

And the next time we will see the Brethren "following that process for common consent" in a church-wide context will, I anticipate, be in October 2018.  Just a few weeks from now.

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I think it's possible of course, just not "quite clear" that it will definitely happen.  Just my opinion.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's been 40 years since we saw the Brethren "following that process for common consent" to canonize a revelation.

Exactly (which was what I asked).  We will see if and when this happens again.  I do think the leaders are a little gun shy regarding this and it's understandable, IMO. 

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The last time we saw the Brethren "following that process for common consent" in a church-wide context was April 2018.  

And the next time we will see the Brethren "following that process for common consent" in a church-wide context will, I anticipate, be in October 2018.  Just a few weeks from now.

I think they are making a distinction between canonization in scripture and just regular sustaining of the leaders.  You aren't predicting that we'll have newly canonized scripture in the Oct 2018 conference are you?  

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Perhaps they did predict negative responses by the media.  This could still effectively take the focus off the other more negative stories that were out there recently in the media.  

But why not go for a positive PR story instead?

We could go to all the effort and expense to serve up liver and onions even if everyone hates it so they won't keep complaining about the blood sausage we served last week and the mushy okra the week before and that undercooked chicken pot pie that had everyone running for the loo last month....or we could have waffles or pizza that everyone loves.  Let's go with liver and onions!  Great decision, pat each other on the back.  No way are people going to talk about how our menu is crap all the time now!  Now they will just grouse about the liver!!!

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

The last time we saw the Brethren "following that process for common consent" in a church-wide context was April 2018.  

And the next time we will see the Brethren "following that process for common consent" in a church-wide context will, I anticipate, be in October 2018.  Just a few weeks from now.

I think they are making a distinction between canonization in scripture and just regular sustaining of the leaders. 

Yes, I agree.  I think that's a reasonable distinction.  These are two different things.

But both are examples of the Brethren adhering to the doctrine of Common Consent.  

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You aren't predicting that we'll have newly canonized scripture in the Oct 2018 conference are you?  

No.  I am predicting that the doctrine of Common Consent will be once again observed when we are asked to give a sustaining vote.

We observe this doctrine every six months at least.  I see no reason to think that it will not be observed again in October.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

It's been 40 years since we saw the Brethren "following that process for common consent" to canonize a revelation.

Exactly (which was what I asked). 

You made a reference to "that process for common consent and new revelations again."

I'm not sure what you mean by "new revelations."  If you are referring to God giving us revelation to be canonized in the scriptures, then that would seem to be mostly on His timeline.

But if you want "new revelations," we could point to the 2015 policy changes.  Pres. Nelson is on record saying they were revelatory.

And if you want an example of Common Consent being observed, you'll get that chance in October.  

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We will see if and when this happens again.  I do think the leaders are a little gun shy regarding this and it's understandable, IMO. 

I don't follow.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You made a reference to "that process for common consent and new revelations again."

I'm not sure what you mean by "new revelations."  If you are referring to God giving us revelation to be canonized in the scriptures, then that would seem to be mostly on His timeline.

Oh, I think you knew what I meant and what was being discussed.

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But if you want "new revelations," we could point to the 2015 policy changes.  Pres. Nelson is on record saying they were revelatory.

And why do you believe this policy that Pres. Nelson stated was a revelation was never read to the church members and voted on following the process of common consent?

Why did Pres. Monson not ever even mention it or speak to the members about it being a revelation (as far as I know)?

That's what I mean by them being a bit gun shy about doing this now.  You can disagree, but I have my own thoughts and opinions as to why they didn't read this new revelation (or policy) to the church for a vote.  I certainly understand why they may not have wanted to do this. 

Edited August 22, 2018 by ALarson

[Gray]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Such as?

Thanks,

-Smac

The elimination of the office of the Presiding Patriarch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presiding_Patriarch#The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

 

[hope_for_things]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

But why not go for a positive PR story instead?

We could go to all the effort and expense to serve up liver and onions even if everyone hates it so they won't keep complaining about the blood sausage we served last week and the mushy okra the week before and that undercooked chicken pot pie that had everyone running for the loo last month....or we could have waffles or pizza that everyone loves.  Let's go with liver and onions!  Great decision, pat each other on the back.  No way are people going to talk about how our menu is crap all the time now!  Now they will just grouse about the liver!!!

I don't know, maybe by getting a negative story out there, it gets more attention and better distracts from the other more negative stories.  Those other stories are significantly more negative, its not like comparing liver to blood sausage.  I would say its more like comparing spinach to rat poison.  

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

The elimination of the office of the Presiding Patriarch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presiding_Patriarch#The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

 

This is a good example.  One reason why I think church leaders are hesitant to add to the canon formally is that they've been using a different tactic throughout history for changing doctrines.  An example of this off the top of my head is the Adam God doctrine.  Brigham Young clearly taught it at multiple stages during his tenure, but for various reasons, perhaps because of some push-back from other church leaders this doctrine never really took hold and after his death became less frequently adhered to, until in more recent times we had church leaders disavowing its existence all together, in spite of the historical evidence to the contrary.  

This method appears to be modus operandi for the church.  

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't know, maybe by getting a negative story out there, it gets more attention and better distracts from the other more negative stories.  Those other stories are significantly more negative, its not like comparing liver to blood sausage.  I would say its more like comparing spinach to rat poison.  

Pizza would tend to distract a lot more from rat poison than spinach would.

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Pizza would tend to distract a lot more from rat poison than spinach would.

Not if it had anchovies on it. 

[JLHPROF]

13 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Quote

All we get are official declarations.  Haven't read a new revelation in over a century.

Wasn't D&C 138 revealed in October 1918?  Do you not consider that revelation?

Sorry, should have said just under a century.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

And the OD-2 was canonized in 1978.

And is not a revelation, but a claim that one was received.

[mrmarklin]

22 hours ago, Thinking said:

Is it an official declaration?

Will it be voted on in GC?

My memory is not what it once was, but I think we have been through this before. 😎

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Sorry, should have said just under a century.

And is not a revelation, but a claim that one was received.

A distinction without a difference, I think.

[JulieM]

17 hours ago, ALarson said:

And why do you believe this policy that Pres. Nelson stated was a revelation was never read to the church members and voted on following the process of common consent?

Why did Pres. Monson not ever even mention it or speak to the members about it being a revelation (as far as I know)?

That's what I mean by them being a bit gun shy about doing this now.  You can disagree, but I have my own thoughts and opinions as to why they didn't read this new revelation (or policy) to the church for a vote.  I certainly understand why they may not have wanted to do this. 

I think you’re right.  They know how they’re held to making it an official revelation (from looking at history and how the church has evolved and changed).  It’s hard to walk that back. If they’d read it to the members for a vote and declared it a revelation, there would be a much more documented record.

This gives me even more hope that this is just a policy and it will be changed in the future.  This would be much more difficult to do, if President Monson (the Prophet at the time) had spoken to the members about it, called it a revelation and put it to the members for a vote to canonize it by common consent.

Edited August 23, 2018 by JulieM

[smac97]

19 hours ago, ALarson said:

And why do you believe this policy that Pres. Nelson stated was a revelation was never read to the church members and voted on following the process of common consent?

I'm not sure there is a need.  

The Church has decided to withdraw from its association with the BSA.  There was no presentation to the members on that issue, nor a request for a sustaining vote.

The Brethren didn't submit the "raising the bar" changes for a sustaining vote, either.  Nor the change in missionary ages.

The Brethren didn't have a sustaining vote on the modifications to the guidelines for bishop interviews.

And on and on and on.

As I said before:

Quote

As to matters of church governance, I believe the Brethren are guided by A) revelation, B) scripture, and C) principled and reasoned exercise of their discretionary authority pursuant to D&C 58:26 ("For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant"). 

I think some of us are giving short shrift to the "discretionary authority" bit above.  

And as I previously quoted from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Quote

To day the Church continues to operate by divine revelation and common consent. Callings to positions of Church service at all levels of the organization and ordination to the priesthood are made by the inspiration of authorized leaders and are then brought before the appropriate body of members to be sustained or opposed. Members do not nominate persons to office, but are asked to give their sustaining vote to decisions of presiding councils by raising their right hand, and anyone may give an opposing vote in the same way. This procedure is also followed in accepting important revelations and scriptural additions.

Personally, I would like to see The Proclamation canonized.  If that happens, I am confident it will be presented to the body of the Church pursuant to the Common Consent doctrine.

19 hours ago, ALarson said:

Why did Pres. Monson not ever even mention it or speak to the members about it being a revelation (as far as I know)?

You want me to guess at that?  No thanks.

Pres. Nelson spoke at some length about it during a worldwide young adult devotional:

Quote

We sustain 15 men who are ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators. When a thorny problem arises—and they only seem to get thornier each day—these 15 men wrestle with the issue, trying to see all the ramifications of various courses of action, and they diligently seek to hear the voice of the Lord. After fasting, praying, studying, pondering, and counseling with my Brethren about weighty matters, it is not unusual for me to be awakened during the night with further impressions about issues with which we are concerned. And my Brethren have the same experience.

...

This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries and again with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.

Pres. Nelson prefaced his remarks with this:

Quote

I bring you greetings and love from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. We are thankful for your devotion to the Lord and His restored gospel. We are grateful for each time you stand up and speak up for truth—especially when it is not popular.

Good enough for me.

I'm curious as to your thoughts about OD-2, which was read to the body of the Church by N. Eldon Tanner, then the First Counselor in the First Presidency.  He read it at the request of Pres. Kimball ("President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter...").

Do you dispute the validity of OD-2 because it was not presented by Pres. Kimball himself?

Likewise, in 1976, Pres. Kimball asked Pres. Tanner to present two revelations for canonization.  See here:

Quote

President Kimball has asked me to read a very important resolution for your sustaining vote. At a meeting of the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve held in the Salt Lake Temple on March 25, 1976, approval was given to add to the Pearl of Great Price the two following revelations:

First, a vision of the celestial kingdom given to Joseph Smith, the Prophet, in the Kirtland Temple, on January 21, 1836, which deals with the salvation of those who die without a knowledge of the gospel; and second, a vision given to President Joseph F. Smith in Salt Lake City, Utah, on October 3, 1918, showing the visit of the Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit world and setting forth the doctrine of the redemption of the dead.

It is proposed that we sustain and approve this action and adopt these revelations as part of the standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

All in favor manifest it. Contrary, if there be any, by the same sign. Thank you. President Kimball, the voting seems to be unanimous in the affirmative.

The revelations referenced here are today known as D&C sections 137 and 138, respectively (more information here).

Do you dispute the validity of sections 137 and 138 because they were not presented by Pres. Kimball himself?

The above article by Robert Millet (this one) makes some interesting points about these sections, given that they were canonized long after having been received:

Quote

There can be no question but that the vision of the redemption of the dead was scripture before April 3, 1976; it was certainly spoken by the power of the Holy Ghost, and it represented the will, mind, word, and voice of the Lord (see D&C 68:4). The First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, and Patriarch in 1918 recognized and acknowledged it as “true and from God.” Once it had been voted upon and accepted by the membership of the Church, however, it shifted in significance from scripture to canonized scripture. Prior to April 3, 1976, it represented a theological document of inestimable worth to the Saints, one that deserved the study of those interested in spiritual things; on that date it was circumscribed into the standard works, and thus its message—principles and doctrines—became binding  upon the Latter-day Saints, the same as the revelations of Moses or Jesus or Alma or Joseph Smith. The vision of the redemption of the dead became a part of the canon, the rule of faith and doctrine and practice, the written measure by which we discern truth from error. And at a time and in a day when the First Presidency has specifically defined the threefold mission of the Church (proclaiming the gospel, perfecting the Saints, and redeeming the dead),  it seems fitting that we focus greater attention upon a significant revelation that provides a spiritual justification for the Church’s continued thrust in genealogical research and temple work. President Joseph F. Smith’s vision has expanded our vision “from this point of view and this side of the veil,” so that now, better than ever before, “we can look beyond the thin veil which separates us from that other sphere.” 

Interesting stuff.

19 hours ago, ALarson said:

That's what I mean by them being a bit gun shy about doing this now.  You can disagree, but I have my own thoughts and opinions as to why they didn't read this new revelation (or policy) to the church for a vote.  I certainly understand why they may not have wanted to do this. 

We can all speculate, I suppose.

But if the Brethren are "gun shy," why did they present the Proclamation in 1995?  Why did they push for Prop 8 in 2008?  Why did they issue policy changes regarding same-sex marriage in 2015?

Seems like the Brethren are willing to do what needs to be done, even when doing so is not popular.  As Pres. Nelson put it (see above):

Quote

I bring you greetings and love from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. We are thankful for your devotion to the Lord and His restored gospel. We are grateful for each time you stand up and speak up for truth—especially when it is not popular.

"Especially when it is not popular."

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure there is a need.  

The Church has decided to withdraw from its association with the BSA.  There was no presentation to the members on that issue, nor a request for a sustaining vote.

Has anyone specified or stated that a revelation was received regarding that withdrawal?  (I'll look, but don't remember one.)  If not, I'm not sure how that's applicable to what's being discussed here.

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You want me to guess at that?  No thanks.

Ok.

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The revelations referenced here are today known as D&C sections 137 and 138, respectively (more information here).

Do you dispute the validity of sections 137 and 138 because they were not presented by Pres. Kimball himself?

Where have I stated that?  (I haven't).  And once again, this isn't applicable to the discussion regarding why the policy (a revelation according to Elder Nelson at the time and not confirmed by the living Prophet at the time) was never read to the church members, no vote was taken for a common consent to canonize it.  So you're comparing two things that are not the same here.

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We can all speculate, I suppose.

Yes, we can.  The fact still remains that the last revelation that was voted on by members of the church for common consent to canonize took place 40 years ago.

All your quotes about other topics don't change that fact either (but nice distraction tactic )

Once again, time will tell if and when this takes place with any future revelation.

Edited August 23, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Has anyone specified or stated that a revelation was received regarding that withdrawal?  (I'll look, but don't remember one.)  If not, I'm not sure how that's applicable to what's being discussed here.

As I said before:

  Quote

As to matters of church governance, I believe the Brethren are guided by A) revelation, B) scripture, and C) principled and reasoned exercise of their discretionary authority pursuant to D&C 58:26 ("For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant"). 

I think some of us are giving short shrift to the "discretionary authority" bit above.  

And I really, really doubt that the Brethren did not seek divine guidance regarding the BSA decision.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Quote

The revelations referenced here are today known as D&C sections 137 and 138, respectively (more information here).

Do you dispute the validity of sections 137 and 138 because they were not presented by Pres. Kimball himself?

Where have I stated that?  (I haven't). 

I know.  Hence the question.

So I'll take your answer as "No, I do not dispute the validity of sections 137 and 138 based on them not being presented by Pres. Kimball himself."  Is that a fair statement?  If not, please clarify.

You seemed to be disputing the validity of Pres. Nelson's claim that the policy changes in 2015 were revelatory.  The (apparent) basis for your disputation is that Pres. Monson did not present the changes to the body of the Church (which, technically, is not correct - he did).  Perhaps I have misunderstood you.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

And once again, this isn't applicable to the discussion regarding why the policy (a revelation according to Elder Nelson at the time and not confirmed by the living Prophet at the time) was never read to the church members, no vote was taken for a common consent to canonize it.  So you're comparing two things that are not the same here.

Not "the same."  But pretty similar.

The policy changes were issued via a letter signed by the First Presidency.  President Nelson thereafter explained that the policy changes were revelatory.  Do you dispute these things?

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Yes, we can.  The fact still remains that the last revelation that was voted on by members of the church for common consent to canonize took place 40 years ago.

Not really.  The last revelation to be canonized in scripture was voted on 40 years ago.

The last time the principle of Common Consent was observed was in April 2018.  And we are just a few weeks away from observing it again.

Is it your position that the doctrine of Common Consent only "counts" when it is used to canonize scripture?  I guess I don't understand your point here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As I said before:

  Quote

As to matters of church governance, I believe the Brethren are guided by A) revelation, B) scripture, and C) principled and reasoned exercise of their discretionary authority pursuant to D&C 58:26 ("For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant"). 

I think some of us are giving short shrift to the "discretionary authority" bit above.  

And I really, really doubt that the Brethren did not seek divine guidance regarding the BSA decision.

I know.  Hence the question.

So I'll take your answer as "No, I do not dispute the validity of sections 137 and 138 based on them not being presented by Pres. Kimball himself."  Is that a fair statement?  If not, please clarify.

You seemed to be disputing the validity of Pres. Nelson's claim that the policy changes in 2015 were revelatory.  The (apparent) basis for your disputation is that Pres. Monson did not present the changes to the body of the Church (which, technically, is not correct - he did).  Perhaps I have misunderstood you.

Not "the same."  But pretty similar.

The policy changes were issued via a letter signed by the First Presidency.  President Nelson thereafter explained that the policy changes were revelatory.  Do you dispute these things?

Not really.  The last revelation to be canonized in scripture was voted on 40 years ago.

The last time the principle of Common Consent was observed was in April 2018.  And we are just a few weeks away from observing it again.

Is it your position that the doctrine of Common Consent only "counts" when it is used to canonize scripture?  I guess I don't understand your point here.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm done interacting with you on this, smac, because you continue to completely misrepresent what the meaning of my original question was and what this discussion is really about (read the OP again).  Your tactics of long, drawn out posts that are not relevant (IMO) aren't real effective (again, IMO).

Here are the facts (and what my question was originally about and also what the OP topic was):

- The last time a Prophet stated he'd received a revelation that was then read to the members for a common consent vote (and then canonized), was 40 years ago.

- The policy change that Elder Nelson stated was a revelation, was not addressed or presented as a revelation (or spoken about by the living Prophet at that time) to the members for a common consent vote.  

- Time will tell if any revelation in the future is presented to the general membership of the church for a common consent vote or to be canonized into scripture (including this new announcement regarding the name of the church). 

 

 

 

Edited August 23, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm done interacting with you on this, smac, because you continue to completely misrepresent what the meaning of my original question was and what this discussion is really about (read the OP again).  Your tactics of long, drawn out posts that are not relevant (IMO) aren't real effective (again, IMO).

As you like.  I thought we were having a civil discussion.  Not even an argument.  

Quote

Here are the facts (and what my question was originally about and also what the OP topic was):

- The last time a Prophet stated he'd received a revelation that was then read to the members for a common consent vote (and then canonized), was 40 years ago.

Yes.  Common Consent is required for canonization.

But a revelation's status as such is not conditioned on Common Consent.  D&C 137 and 138 were canonized many, many decades after they were received as revelations.  There were still revelations during those decades, just not canonized revelations.

The same can be said for the policy changes.  Must be said, in fact (unless you are going to accuse Pres. Nelson of lying, which I hope you will not).

Quote

- The policy change that Elder Nelson stated was a revelation, was not addressed or presented as a revelation (or spoken about by the living Prophet at that time) to the members for a common consent vote. 

Not specifically and directly, no.

However, the policy changes were enacted in late 2015.  I can't recall offhand if they were promulgated before or after the October 2015 General Conference.  If before, then the policy changes were effectively ratified by the sustaining vote in the October 2015 General Conference.  If after, then the policy changes were effectively ratified in the April 2016 General Conference.

Either way, Common Consent was observed.

Quote

- Time will tell if any revelation in the future is presented to the general membership of the church for a common consent vote or to be canonized into scripture. 

I'm quite confident it will. 

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."   (AoF 1:9).

I believe revelations are being received all the time.  I believe Pres. Nelson's description of the revelatory experience which precipitated the policy changes in 2015.  I also believe Pres. Nelson when he stated on August 16 that "[t]he Lord has impressed upon [his] mind the importance of the name He has revealed for His Church."

I also believe that we will receive further revelations which will be canonized.  The Proclamation, for example, would be very cool.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 23, 2018 by smac97

[rongo]

54 minutes ago, ALarson said:

- The last time a Prophet stated he'd received a revelation that was then read to the members for a common consent vote (and then canonized), was 40 years ago.

I think the choice of words "I've received a revelation" vs. "been impressed on my mind" is significant. I think there is aversion to saying "received a revelation" (as opposed to "revelatory" or "it was a revelation"). Once the prophet announces he's received a revelation to present, it almost demands a common consent vote specifically for that (as opposed of smac's generic twice a year blanket common consent).

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think the choice of words "I've received a revelation" vs. "been impressed on my mind" is significant.

I agree, though perhaps for different reasons.

Quote

I think there is aversion to saying "received a revelation" (as opposed to "revelatory" or "it was a revelation").

Hmm.  "Revelation" seems to be a fairly consistent topic in General Conference.

I guess some members may differentiate between, on the one hand, "revelation" that involves actual words from God (such as D&C 137:7-10) and/or revelations that reveal something new or previously unknown (such as portions of D&C 138) and, on the other hand, "revelation" that only alludes to a revelatory experience, and/or does not include specifically-dictated-by-God-Himselve verbiage (OD-2).

Some members may also differentiate between canonized and non-canonized revelation.  That distinction is quite a bit easier to understand, and I think the sort of thing that Pres. Nelson is hoping to accommodate. 

Some members may also differentiate between "revelation" that pertains to ethereal "things of the spirit" (D&C 137 and D&C 138) as opposed to "revelation" that appears to administrative/procedural issues (the 2015 policy changes).  Again, Pres. Nelson may be hoping to accommodate that differentiation.

Quote

Once the prophet announces he's received a revelation to present, it almost demands a common consent vote specifically for that (as opposed of smac's generic twice a year blanket common consent).

I guess the key words here are "he's received a revelation to present [to the body of the Saints]."  

I believe the Brethren are guided by revelation as to all sorts of things, but only some few instances of such guidance merit being presented as such to the body of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 23, 2018 by smac97