phaedrus ut Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 Quote The Doctrine and Covenants Section 138 A vision given to President Joseph F. Smith in Salt Lake City, Utah, on October 3, 1918. In his opening address at the 89th Semiannual General Conference of the Church, on October 4, 1918, President Smith declared that he had received several divine communications during the previous months. One of these, concerning the Savior’s visit to the spirits of the dead while His body was in the tomb, President Smith had received the previous day. It was written immediately following the close of the conference. On October 31, 1918, it was submitted to the counselors in the First Presidency, the Council of the Twelve, and the Patriarch, and it was unanimously accepted by them. Phaedrus 4
smac97 Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 Official Declaration - 2 was not canonized? It's not revelation? Thanks, -Smac 4
rongo Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 He means assigned a D&C section number. I'm surprised canonization of the PotF isn't on anyone's speculation radar list. Not that it will happen, but it's as plausible as any of the other ones. 3
Popular Post phaedrus ut Posted October 3, 2018 Author Popular Post Posted October 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: Official Declaration - 2 was not canonized? It's not revelation? Thanks, -Smac Official Declaration 2 is an announcement that was canonized. We have yet to see the revelation published. Phaedrus 5
cinepro Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 33 minutes ago, smac97 said: Official Declaration - 2 was not canonized? It's not revelation? Thanks, -Smac If so, I think there should be more revelations that start "To Whom It May Concern..." 2
smac97 Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 26 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said: Official Declaration 2 is an announcement that was canonized. We have yet to see the revelation published. Phaedrus A distinction without a difference, I think. The scriptures are replete with accounts / summaries of revelations. For example, 1 Nephi 2:2 provides: "And it came to pass that the Lord commanded my father, even in a dream, that he should take his family and depart into the wilderness." Do you disregard this as non-revelatory because it summarizes, rather than quotes verbatim, what "the Lord commanded?" Thanks, -Smac 4
phaedrus ut Posted October 3, 2018 Author Posted October 3, 2018 1 hour ago, smac97 said: A distinction without a difference, I think. The scriptures are replete with accounts / summaries of revelations. For example, 1 Nephi 2:2 provides: "And it came to pass that the Lord commanded my father, even in a dream, that he should take his family and depart into the wilderness." Do you disregard this as non-revelatory because it summarizes, rather than quotes verbatim, what "the Lord commanded?" Thanks, -Smac Yes most of the canonized Bible and Book of Mormon are narrative not revelation. However OD2 is a departure from other canonized revelations since the beginning of the Latter-day Saint movement. Phaedrus
smac97 Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said: Quote A distinction without a difference, I think. The scriptures are replete with accounts / summaries of revelations. For example, 1 Nephi 2:2 provides: "And it came to pass that the Lord commanded my father, even in a dream, that he should take his family and depart into the wilderness." Do you disregard this as non-revelatory because it summarizes, rather than quotes verbatim, what "the Lord commanded?" Yes most of the canonized Bible and Book of Mormon are narrative not revelation. I don't understand. Are you saying that anything other than verbatim quotes of God Himself are "not revelation?" 2 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said: However OD2 is a departure from other canonized revelations since the beginning of the Latter-day Saint movement. Phaedrus And yet the title of your thread references "the last canonized revelation" being from "100 years ago," notwithstanding OD-2. Thanks, -Smac
phaedrus ut Posted October 3, 2018 Author Posted October 3, 2018 7 minutes ago, smac97 said: I don't understand. Are you saying that anything other than verbatim quotes of God Himself are "not revelation?" And yet the title of your thread references "the last canonized revelation" being from "100 years ago," notwithstanding OD-2. Thanks, -Smac What I'm saying is that D&C 138, formerly part of the PofGP contains revelation and is canonized. OD2 is canonized but does not contain the revelation. Therefore the last canonized revelation was received 100 years ago today on October 3, 1918. Q.E.D. Phaedrus 1
bluebell Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 1 hour ago, smac97 said: A distinction without a difference, I think. The scriptures are replete with accounts / summaries of revelations. For example, 1 Nephi 2:2 provides: "And it came to pass that the Lord commanded my father, even in a dream, that he should take his family and depart into the wilderness." Do you disregard this as non-revelatory because it summarizes, rather than quotes verbatim, what "the Lord commanded?" Thanks, -Smac If it is a distinction without a difference, I wonder why the brethren decided to call it an official declaration instead of giving it a section number? They must have had some reason for giving it a different title than the other sections. Does anyone know? 3
smac97 Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 17 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said: Quote I don't understand. Are you saying that anything other than verbatim quotes of God Himself are "not revelation?" And yet the title of your thread references "the last canonized revelation" being from "100 years ago," notwithstanding OD-2. What I'm saying is that D&C 138, formerly part of the PofGP contains revelation and is canonized. Okay. I understand this. 17 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said: OD2 is canonized but does not contain the revelation. I don't understand this. At all. Again, are you saying that anything other than verbatim quotes of God Himself are "not revelation?" Thanks, -Smac 1
HappyJackWagon Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 2 hours ago, rongo said: He means assigned a D&C section number. I'm surprised canonization of the PotF isn't on anyone's speculation radar list. Not that it will happen, but it's as plausible as any of the other ones. I definitely expect to see this one happen some time during the Nelson/Oaks Presidencies
phaedrus ut Posted October 3, 2018 Author Posted October 3, 2018 22 minutes ago, smac97 said: I don't understand this. At all. Again, are you saying that anything other than verbatim quotes of God Himself are "not revelation?" Thanks, -Smac Defining what qualifies as revelation is about as possible as defining who is or isn't Christian. You'll never find universal agreement but in the case of OD2 it's much easier. OD2 doesn't say it's a revelation but merely an announcement that a revelation was received. Does the announcement that a revelation was received itself qualify as a revelation? The church released a statement clarifying that the policy regarding children of same sex couples aren't eligible for baptism and that policy was received by revelation to Thomas Monson. Does that statement qualify as revelation? You are more that welcome to consider and announcement about a revelation itself to be a revelation. In fact you are welcome to consider a forum discussion about the announcement about a revelation to be revelation. I do not. Phaedrus
smac97 Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said: Quote I don't understand this. At all. Again, are you saying that anything other than verbatim quotes of God Himself are "not revelation?" Defining what qualifies as revelation is about as possible as defining who is or isn't Christian. So how do you define it? 2 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said: You'll never find universal agreement but in the case of OD2 it's much easier. OD2 doesn't say it's a revelation but merely an announcement that a revelation was received. I'm not sure I appreciate the distinction. Again, are you saying that anything other than verbatim quotes of God Himself are "not revelation?" 2 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said: Does the announcement that a revelation was received itself qualify as a revelation? I think it can, particularly if it is canonized. 2 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said: The church released a statement clarifying that the policy regarding children of same sex couples aren't eligible for baptism and that policy was received by revelation to Thomas Monson. Does that statement qualify as revelation? I believe so, yes. But it's not been canonized. But revelation doesn't need to be canonized in order to be revelation. 2 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said: You are more that welcome to consider and announcement about a revelation itself to be a revelation. In fact you are welcome to consider a forum discussion about the announcement about a revelation to be revelation. I do not. You're evading my question, and I'm not sure why. But I won't press you further. Thanks, -Smac
Robert F. Smith Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 3 hours ago, rongo said: He means assigned a D&C section number. I'm surprised canonization of the PotF isn't on anyone's speculation radar list. Not that it will happen, but it's as plausible as any of the other ones. No, it is not.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said: Yes most of the canonized Bible and Book of Mormon are narrative not revelation. However OD2 is a departure from other canonized revelations since the beginning of the Latter-day Saint movement. Phaedrus We have other D&C sections which are not revelations. Are you now formulating rules for what is and what is not technically a "revelation"? If so, you have thus far done a ham-handed job of it.
smac97 Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 53 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I definitely expect to see this one happen some time during the Nelson/Oaks Presidencies If it was received/formulated by revelation, and if it's congruent with the Lord's will, I sure would like to see the Proclamation canonized. Thanks, -Smac 1
Benk Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 Smac, it seems clear that Phaedrus does not consider "verbatim quotes of God Himself" as the only candidate for revelation given that the original post concerns a revelation that does not contain the "verbatim quotes of God Himself." It also seems fairly clear that there is a difference between a revelation itself and the announcement of that revelation. As for canonisation, I think it's also clear that acceptance into the canon does not de facto make something revelation, even in the Doctrine and Covenants, as section 135 will attest. Which, by the way, is also an announcement (although this time not of a revelation).
smac97 Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 Just now, Benk said: Smac, it seems clear that Phaedrus does not consider "verbatim quotes of God Himself" as the only candidate for revelation given that the original post concerns a revelation that does not contain the "verbatim quotes of God Himself." I'm asking him for clarification on this point. Just now, Benk said: It also seems fairly clear that there is a difference between a revelation itself and the announcement of that revelation. That's not clear to me at all. There are many, many examples of narrative descriptions of revelations. And not all revelations come in words. So this may well be a distinction without a difference. Just now, Benk said: As for canonisation, I think it's also clear that acceptance into the canon does not de facto make something revelation, even in the Doctrine and Covenants, as section 135 will attest. Which, by the way, is also an announcement (although this time not of a revelation). I think canonized scriptures are about as revelatory as we can hope to get. It comes down to a matter of faith, of course. Thanks, -Smac 1
phaedrus ut Posted October 3, 2018 Author Posted October 3, 2018 11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: We have other D&C sections which are not revelations. Are you now formulating rules for what is and what is not technically a "revelation"? If so, you have thus far done a ham-handed job of it. The definition is in the eye of the beholder so they obviously can't be my rules. For example with what now is D&C 138 an announcement was made by N. Eldon Tanner Quote April 3, 1976 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 the 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; 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 those in favor manifest it. Those opposed, if any, by the same sign. “Thank you. President Kimball, the voting seems to be unanimous in the affirmative.” I don't consider this announcement to be a revelation and I don't think the announcement implies it is a revelation. It's merely an announcement of two other items of revelation. Phaedrus 1
Benk Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 (edited) Smac, Apologies, I don't know how to do that quote thing you've done... I don't understand why that point needs clarified considering the post is about a revelation that doesn't contain "verbatim quotes of God himself." I also don't understand how you fail to see a difference between a revelation that comes without words and the announcement that said wordless revelation has been received with words. As for canonised scripture being as revelatory as we can hope to get, do you hold to the act of canonisation transforming what is canonised into revelation even when, in its original state, it has not been presented as such? As, for examples, section 135 announcing the martyrdom, or Joseph Smith's history in the Pearl of Great Price, which while including accounts of revelation does not itself purport to be revelation. Edited October 3, 2018 by Benk to make clear what the post is addressing /// deleting extra word 1
HappyJackWagon Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 25 minutes ago, smac97 said: If it was received/formulated by revelation, and if it's congruent with the Lord's will, I sure would like to see the Proclamation canonized. Thanks, -Smac Is it your position that every canonized scripture IS revelation? Are the songs of Solomon revelation? Are Bible stories like Job, revelation? Are all D&C verses taken from personal journals revelation? If so, were they revelations at the time they were written down, or did they become revelation when canonized? Something doesn't need to be "revelation" to have value as canonized scripture.
JAHS Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: 4 hours ago, rongo said: He means assigned a D&C section number. I'm surprised canonization of the PotF isn't on anyone's speculation radar list. Not that it will happen, but it's as plausible as any of the other ones. I definitely expect to see this one happen some time during the Nelson/Oaks Presidencies I am wondering that if this were to happen if a few clarifications might be needed in the text. For example: "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." Considering the sex of some individuals is not always so certain (intersexed), but they make a choice and have elective surgery to finalize their choice. Did they choose correctly the sex that coincides with what they were in the premortal life? 1
rongo Posted October 3, 2018 Posted October 3, 2018 50 minutes ago, JAHS said: I am wondering that if this were to happen if a few clarifications might be needed in the text. For example: "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." Considering the sex of some individuals is not always so certain (intersexed), but they make a choice and have elective surgery to finalize their choice. Did they choose correctly the sex that coincides with what they were in the premortal life? Their eternal gender is what it is. On rare occasions, it isn't always obvious in mortality what it is (e.g., hermaphrodites). I don't think any adjustment in wording is needed.
Recommended Posts