The last canonized revelation was 100 years ago today

[clarkgoble]

1 hour 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? 

I'd assume that if gender were eternal that there would be cases here on earth where the biology didn't match. Presumably that'd be resolved in the millennium prior to resurrection. In the same way I'm sure there are people who actually suffer body dimorphism thereby "picking" a wrong gender due to other tragic problems in the brain. How to resolve this isn't quite clear. Hopefully science will continue to progress in the future.

[JAHS]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd assume that if gender were eternal that there would be cases here on earth where the biology didn't match. Presumably that'd be resolved in the millennium prior to resurrection. In the same way I'm sure there are people who actually suffer body dimorphism thereby "picking" a wrong gender due to other tragic problems in the brain. How to resolve this isn't quite clear. Hopefully science will continue to progress in the future.

That would be an interesting surprise if someone chose the wrong gender and at the resurrection was suddenly changed to the correct gender.  😲 

[clarkgoble]

19 minutes ago, JAHS said:

That would be an interesting surprise if someone chose the wrong gender and at the resurrection was suddenly changed to the correct gender.  😲 

Depends whether their memory is restored at the resurrection. I assume it is in most cases, although it's not clear. In any case their period in the spirit world would be without a body so presumably the biology would have far less of an effect. I suspect they'd have already converged on their proper gender over time. Although that clearly makes a lot of assumptions of the psychology of spirits in the spirit world.

Edited October 3, 2018 by clarkgoble

[strappinglad]

Some people are born blind, some deaf , some without limbs, etc. We are told that the spirit in its true form is human in shape, ie. head, torso , 4 limbs , 5 digits etc. How much of us is eternal ? How much is unchanging?

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

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 

Agreed.  I don't see how anyone can call OD2 a revelation.  The revelation is what happened in the upper room of the temple.  OD2 is a press release.

It's the shadow representing the actual thing.

[Coop]

I like to think of the Book of Mormon as revelation.  It was produced in approximately 90 days by Joseph and Oliver and contains 531 pages.  In my mind this comes close to qualifying as an actual miracle.

 

Others suggest that the Proclamation on the family is revelation.  This document took 15 men and untold others working for over a year to produce.  The proclamation is one page.

 

The question is, is there a difference between these two documents?  And the answer is obviously yes.  The question is does this difference mean that one is revelation and the other isn’t?  I’m sure we could argue both sides and I’m equally sure that both sides would present compelling arguments.

 

And the thing is that I don’t care what you believe.  I borrowed this line from my Stake President who used it during a Temple recommend interview.  He, like me, is only concerned about what you and I do.  So if it helps you to be a better person to believe one side or the other then you have my blessing.

 

On the other hand if you think that your position is the only true position then by definition you aren’t a better person.  You are a bigot.  And being a bigot isn’t a good thing.  The word bigot isn’t in the Scriptures but the word fool is and I think it is the same thing.  The word I prefer is idiot.  Here is my definition of an idiot.  An idiot is someone who thinks some is true when it isn’t.  And by the way we are all idiots, fools or bigots so don’t get all huffy if you find yourself offended.  I’m not singling anyone out but rather pointing out that discussions like this seem to miss the point which is does your belief in XY or Z make you a better person.  Without this dimension we are just wasting our time.

 

All the best,

Bob

 

Ps as a relatively new poster I’m unable to start a discussion but if anyone one would be so kind as to ask the question what do we do to ensure that we aren’t a bigot, fool or idiot I would love to chime in.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

 

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

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 

I don't see that you have adequately replied to the quandary which exists over ODs and other items in the D&C which are not revelations, but only announcements of revelations.  If you wish to formulate rules for what is and is not a revelation, then you must systematically address all those sections of the D&C which are not revelations.  Do you even understand what I am saying?  This is the second time I have had to say it.

So far you have ignored the inconsistencies in your formulation of rules, and you have even declared that only modern times may be taking into consideration.  That is just dirty pool.  You either understand what a revelation is or you don't, and that applies to all times and all places.  Moreover, many modern revelations are not even in the D&C.

Scholars (both Mormon and non-Mormon) certainly to not agree that the definition of revelation is in the eye of the beholder.

[mrmarklin]

6 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

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 

Semantics. 

[strappinglad]

I wonder if there is a file somewhere that contains all the revelations received after 138. A D&C part 2 if you will. If we include all the mission calls, like some of the D&C sections are, the file might need its own room in the granite mountain vaults.

[Duncan]

9 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I wonder if there is a file somewhere that contains all the revelations received after 138. A D&C part 2 if you will. If we include all the mission calls, like some of the D&C sections are, the file might need its own room in the granite mountain vaults.

I think the creation of the welfare program in 1936 was a revelation, I don't know all the particulars but Pres. McKay has made statements. It existed prior to that but a US nationwide to worldwide growth of it

[phaedrus ut]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't see that you have adequately replied to the quandary which exists over ODs and other items in the D&C which are not revelations, but only announcements of revelations.  If you wish to formulate rules for what is and is not a revelation, then you must systematically address all those sections of the D&C which are not revelations.  Do you even understand what I am saying?  This is the second time I have had to say it.

Why exactly do I need to address other items in the D&C? I'm not making up any rules like you seem to claim that I am.   My post said 2 things.  What we know know as D&C 138 is the most recent canonized item that purports to be a revelation and that happened exactly 100 years ago from the date of the post on October 3, 1918.  

Phaedrus 

[clarkgoble]

Worth noting that even Joseph mostly stopped with the written revelations by the end of the 1830's. A lot of the stuff in the later sections are fragmentary notes from sermons and not revelations as such. i.e. D&C 131. D&C 132 is the one exception but even it wasn't really written to the Church. Some sections like D&C 128 aren't even revelatory at all but are just fairly practical instructions. So if we look at the later sections of the D&C there's quite a bit from the last 100 years that's fairly similar even if outside of OD2 it's not canonized. 

Why these things haven't been added to canon is an interesting question. For that matter it's interesting asking why OD1 & OD2 weren't really put into the D&C in a more formal way rather than as almost appendices. My sense is that with regard to canon there's a certain conservatism. It's actually remarkable we got the changes from 1978-1983 in canon we did. Things like extended JST quotations and footnotes along with the modifications to the D&C and PoGP. It's worth asking whether Nelson might change that somewhat. There's no reason why he couldn't. Heaven knows there's tons of stuff that could easily be added.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said:

Why exactly do I need to address other items in the D&C? I'm not making up any rules like you seem to claim that I am.   My post said 2 things.  What we know know as D&C 138 is the most recent canonized item that purports to be a revelation and that happened exactly 100 years ago from the date of the post on October 3, 1918.  

Phaedrus 

That would all be fine, if and only if your statement were true.  Since it is not, I am raising legitimate questions about your invalid judgments.  For you, revelation is in the eye of the beholder (so you say).  For others, a more professional approach is called for.

When, for example, Joseph was in Liberty Jail, he wrote some letters (epistoles) which later became D&C sections.  Are they therefore revelations?

Was the WoW always a revelation?  What about administrative sections of the D&C?  Have some sections been transformed into revelations?  How do we tell the difference?

[phaedrus ut]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That would all be fine, if and only if your statement were true. 

What about my statements are untrue? 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  For you, revelation is in the eye of the beholder (so you say).  For others, a more professional approach is called for.

What about my approach is unprofessional? Again my post made two claims. D&C 138 was the most recent canonized item that purports to be revelation and that happened exactly 100 years ago to the day of my original post. 

 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

When, for example, Joseph was in Liberty Jail, he wrote some letters (epistoles) which later became D&C sections.  Are they therefore revelations?

Was the WoW always a revelation?  What about administrative sections of the D&C?  Have some sections been transformed into revelations?  How do we tell the difference?

 

 I'm sure those are interesting questions to you but you are just moving the goal posts with your misdirection.  I've been on this forum for 14 years, I don't hold any supernatural beliefs about revelations, astrology, magical powers, or angelic beings. 

Now you have called me dishonest and unprofessional.  I made exactly two claims.   D&C 138 was the most recent canonized item that purports to be revelation and that happened exactly 100 years ago to the day of my original post. Please demonstrate my dishonestly and unprofessionalism. 

Phaedrus

Edited October 4, 2018 by phaedrus ut

[smac97]

3 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

Why exactly do I need to address other items in the D&C?

It looks like you are arbitrarily picking and choosing here.  

3 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

I'm not making up any rules like you seem to claim that I am.   My post said 2 things.  What we know know as D&C 138 is the most recent canonized item that purports to be a revelation and that happened exactly 100 years ago from the date of the post on October 3, 1918.  

The title of this thread speaks of "the last canonized revelation" being 100 years old.  You discount OD-2 as not revelation.  That seems fairly ad hoc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[phaedrus ut]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It looks like you are arbitrarily picking and choosing here.  

The title of this thread speaks of "the last canonized revelation" being 100 years old.  You discount OD-2 as not revelation.  That seems fairly ad hoc.

Thanks,

-Smac

You're right I don't consider OD2 a revelation and I don't think it purports to be a revelation.  And I'm not alone in this opinion and I don't believe it's ad hoc.  If you read the wikipedia entry for Official Declaration 2 you will find this description

Quote

Unlike much of the Doctrine and Covenants, Official Declaration 2 is not itself presented as a revelation from God. However, its text announces that Jesus Christ "by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood." Thus, it is regarded as "the official declaration of the revelation."

The footnote for this references Doctrine and Covenants, Student Manual: Religion 324 and 325  which also describes Official Declaration 2 not as a revelation but as "the official declaration of the revelation".

 

Phaedrus 

[clarkgoble]

18 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Some people are born blind, some deaf , some without limbs, etc. We are told that the spirit in its true form is human in shape, ie. head, torso , 4 limbs , 5 digits etc. How much of us is eternal ? How much is unchanging?

Where are we told the spirit in its "true" form is a perfect human? It seems some have inferred that on the basis of Ether 3 but I don't think there's any revelation to that effect. There's a case to be made on the basis of the conception of spirits in Nauvoo that Joseph didn't believe this. (See some of Jonathan Stapley's work there although I'm not ultimately persuaded -- I think it more ambiguous)

1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said:

You're right I don't consider OD2 a revelation and I don't think it purports to be a revelation.  And I'm not alone in this opinion and I don't believe it's ad hoc.  If you read the wikipedia entry for Official Declaration 2 you will find this description

The footnote for this references Doctrine and Covenants, Student Manual: Religion 324 and 325  which also describes Official Declaration 2 not as a revelation but as "the official declaration of the revelation".

This seems to hinge on an odd distinction between revelation and representation of the revelation that breaks down I think when examined carefully. For instance many describe seeking for words to try and put into word the revelation they feel they are receiving when giving a blessing. So is the revelation that feeling or is the revelation the dictation? Likewise Brigham Young clearly thought that had someone else done the translation of the Book of Mormon that textually it would look quite different. So what is the revelation and what is the description of the revelation?

I get at what you're trying to get at. But look even at your example of the "last" revelation - D&C 138. D&C 138 isn't a dictated revelation. It's a description after the fact of a vision he had. In that sense it's exactly the same as OD-2 which is a description of the event after it transpired. Heck much of D&C 138 is narrative of what led to the vision. If anything D&C 138 is much closer in form to OD-2 than it is to most of the D&C.

Now maybe I'm just misreading you and you don't think there was any revelation behind OD-2 at all and that it was just a policy change based upon their reasoning. I can but note that many of those present don't think that's what happened. So at best you're just denying it was a revelation. Which is of course fine if that's what you're doing. Mormons tend to do that with the addition to the D&C that the RLDS (now Church of Christ) or Bickerites did.

Edited October 4, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

What about my statements are untrue? 

What about my approach is unprofessional? Again my post made two claims. D&C 138 was the most recent canonized item that purports to be revelation and that happened exactly 100 years ago to the day of my original post. 

And both claims were false.

2 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

 I'm sure those are interesting questions to you but you are just moving the goal posts with your misdirection.  I've been on this forum for 14 years, I don't hold any supernatural beliefs about revelations, astrology, magical powers, or angelic beings. 

Now you have called me dishonest and unprofessional.  I made exactly two claims.   D&C 138 was the most recent canonized item that purports to be revelation and that happened exactly 100 years ago to the day of my original post. Please demonstrate my dishonestly and unprofessionalism. 

Phaedrus

You are wallowing in falsehood  now.  I did not call you dishonest and unprofessional. Those are your false claims, and on a par with your false claim that the last revelation to enter the D&C came in 100 years ago.  Those are all false statements, not due to dishonesty, but because you are simply mistaken.  Moreover, when challenged, you automatically reject the challenges without giving them any real thought.  Are you really so set on narrow and superficial definitions?  Is it possible that you have missed the point?

It was very telling when you substituted a vote on canonization as adequate comparison with an official declaration.  Not the same thing at all.  In addition, you made a category mistake in imagining that all revelation must be verbal or dialogic, and cannot be of another more spiritual sort.  Anyone reading McConkie's description of what took place for everyone in the First Pres & Twelve in 1978 would conclude that it was certainly not a verbal/dialogic experience.  Why can't an official declaration do the job?

[phaedrus ut]

51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And both claims were false.

I've provided evidence where official church publications are in agreement with me with both my claims.  Are you saying the church is making false claims? Should we notify church headquarters they have been spreading false information for 40 years? 

51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are wallowing in falsehood  now.  I did not call you dishonest and unprofessional. Those are your false claims, and on a par with your false claim that the last revelation to enter the D&C came in 100 years ago.  Those are all false statements, not due to dishonesty, but because you are simply mistaken.  Moreover, when challenged, you automatically reject the challenges without giving them any real thought.  Are you really so set on narrow and superficial definitions?  Is it possible that you have missed the point?

It was very telling when you substituted a vote on canonization as adequate comparison with an official declaration.  Not the same thing at all.  In addition, you made a category mistake in imagining that all revelation must be verbal or dialogic, and cannot be of another more spiritual sort.  Anyone reading McConkie's description of what took place for everyone in the First Pres & Twelve in 1978 would conclude that it was certainly not a verbal/dialogic experience.  Why can't an official declaration do the job?

I really have no idea where you are coming up with any of this.  I'm "imagining that all revelation must be verbal or dialogic" ... really? I can't remember doing that.   You are making arguments for me then arguing against those arguments and then expanding that with demands to answer questions that are not anyway relevant.  

51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Why can't an official declaration do the job?

In your reality it can be anything you want it to be.  I share the same view as church publications that OD2 wasn't presented as a revelation but as an official declaration of the revelation. 

 

Phaedrus 

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said:

...................  I share the same view as church publications that OD2 wasn't presented as a revelation but as an official declaration of the revelation. 

Phaedrus 

Which is to say the same thing in any case.  A distinction without a difference.  Scriptural examples were given to you in which there was talk about a revelation, but not a presentation of the formal revelation itself.  At which point you insisted that we can only consider modern revelation.  My argument that we should judge the definition of a revelation in broader context was simply ignored by you in all such instances. Why?  Is it really so absurd that the definition of "revelation" might be broader than you allow?  Again, it seems to me that the official declaration does the job, and it does so with one of the most significant revelations ever rec'd by the LDS faith.

[strappinglad]

I suppose one could define as revelations only those that begin with " Thus sayeth the Lord" , or " the word of the Lord came..."

They would still have to declare that the statement was revelation in the press release ,no?

[phaedrus ut]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Which is to say the same thing in any case.  A distinction without a difference.  Scriptural examples were given to you in which there was talk about a revelation, but not a presentation of the formal revelation itself.  At which point you insisted that we can only consider modern revelation.  My argument that we should judge the definition of a revelation in broader context was simply ignored by you in all such instances. Why?  Is it really so absurd that the definition of "revelation" might be broader than you allow?  Again, it seems to me that the official declaration does the job, and it does so with one of the most significant revelations ever rec'd by the LDS faith.

I think there is a difference.  The difference here being I haven't called your opinion on what is revelation "untrue", "false" or suggested it wasn't the "more professional approach".  My definition was literally the orthodox definition as taught by the church in manuals and yet I managed to refrain from using insulting language.  

That is a distinction that has an important difference to me. 

 

Phaedrus 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said:

I think there is a difference.  The difference here being I haven't called your opinion on what is revelation "untrue", "false" or suggested it wasn't the "more professional approach".  My definition was literally the orthodox definition as taught by the church in manuals and yet I managed to refrain from using insulting language.  

That is a distinction that has an important difference to me. 

Phaedrus 

Sorry to have insulted you, but my reference to professionalism has only to do with the work of trained theologians and biblical scholars.  Their estimation of revelation is somewhat different from LDS or Methodist church manuals, just as a lawyer's estimation of a legal case is bound to be somewhat different from that of his client.  The question of reality thus enters in and cannot be avoided -- unless one is very determined to ignore all other considerations.  Are you sure that your frame of reference is valid?

Edited October 5, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Avatar4321]

On 10/3/2018 at 11:11 PM, strappinglad said:

I wonder if there is a file somewhere that contains all the revelations received after 138. A D&C part 2 if you will. If we include all the mission calls, like some of the D&C sections are, the file might need its own room in the granite mountain vaults.

Maybe we will find out tomorrow 

[JLHPROF]

On 10/3/2018 at 10:11 PM, strappinglad said:

I wonder if there is a file somewhere that contains all the revelations received after 138. A D&C part 2 if you will. If we include all the mission calls, like some of the D&C sections are, the file might need its own room in the granite mountain vaults.

There are literally dozens of revelations given to the head of the Church, accepted and acted upon by the general authorities but not in scripture.

And the reason the revelations being used to direct the Church without canonization under God's law of common consent remains a mystery.