There were a few comments earlier this week about revelations that should be/shouldn’t be canonized. It made me wonder what you all thought. Are there some sections you’d like added or removed from the D&C? Let’s see if you agree with some of these suggestions, and then see if you’d like some sections removed. Is there anything else you’d like to add/take away? Would you like to see more revelations canonized
[poll id=”579″]
[poll id=”580″]
[poll id=”581″]
[poll id=”582″]
[poll id=”583″]
[poll id=”584″]
[poll id=”585″]
[poll id=”586″]
[poll id=”587″]
[poll id=”588″]
[poll id=”591″]
[poll id=”589″]
[poll id=”590″]
Wheat & Tares 
Spencer Kimball had a revelation to replace OD-2??
The November 2015 policy is sort of like a reverse of the 1978 policy. The latter opens up the gospel to a group of previously denied people. The former closed the gospel to a previously allowed people. In that sense it seems like there is equal reason to argue for the November 205 policy to be included in the D&C. Pres Nelsons remarks post the policy lend strength to this position.
Don’t get me wrong…the policy is wrong on a thousand levels and I disagree with every part of it. However to me it meets the criteria for inclusion.
I voted no for most of these. For a few I voted no only because “Oh hell no!” was not an option. I do not approve of the November policy change, but I would prefer a revelation of this magnitude be submitted for common consent. At least then I could raise my hand in opposition to it.
I don’t think there’s much to read with the 1978 revelation because it was probably a non-verbal revelation.
Just curious why people are voting no on most of the visions?
I’ve heard from many apologists (like David Ridges) that 132 is two revelations stuck together- the first third or so verses are about “eternal marriage” and the rest of it is about “plural marriage”. If this is really the case then we should be able to jettison the dehumanizing practice of plural marriage from our scriptures and leave the valueable part intact.
I voted no on most of the new revelations. Why? For the most part I just went with my gut. But I did have some after-thoughts
I’m not actually familiar with any details of Lorenzo Snow’s vision, even though I know I should be.
As for Woodruff’s vision of the manifesto, I don’t know what would be canonized? Some description of the vision that I haven’t seen? The manifesto can be interpreted to justify eternal polygamy even though it ended certain practices, so I don’t even like it that much.
This is the first I remember hearing about the vision removing adoptive sealings.
I don’t what it means to replace OD2 with Kimball’s revelation. It sounds like it presupposes that there is a divinely worded revelation written down somewhere that is different in some way from OD2 itself. I don’t know if that is the case.
Perhaps one reason not to canonize these visions is that the people seeing the visions did not present them as canonical…
For some final introspection here, I think I have a general distrust of new revelation for several reasons. First, I don’t trust the common consent procedure right now. I don’t think people would feel comfortable voting in opposition to a proposal, which in my mind invalidates the common consent process. Second, I think the most likely candidate for canonization is the family proc, which in my opinion should not happen. Third, we seem to have a really hard time knowing what is timely vs. timeless. Canon in this church needs to be valid beyond its own time. As hard as it is to get something added to D&C, it seems a lot harder these days to have something removed. Yes it has happened before (once?) but for the most part once something is added it is not going to go away easily. I hate to imagine some of the things we could be stuck with of canonization was more often accomplished.
MH – I think that most people feel that unless a revelation fundamentally changes something significant like the black policy (and unlike the smaller temples idea) it really need not be included as a revelation. Visions of Christ, whilst nice don’t really make the cut.
I voted for many because I would like to see if there is an actual revelation. Surely no one would dare fake one? After Elder Nelson on exclusion? ?
I think that the OD1 revelation is included in the D&C. There is probably more than what President Kimball had included to the OD2 revelation, but the way it is presented allows the OD to be removed at some point without trashing a major revelation. The top revelations for inclusion are Woodruff’s adoptive sealing and Snow’s revelation to immediately organize the 1st presidency. Major changes to the church and in Snow’s case, clearly given in the voice of God.
No, NO, NO. Because “canonization” supports the powerful, but all too convenient, myth that our leaders actually are hearing from God in any coherent way. There have been an enormous string of policies, doctrines, inspirations, and “revelations” claimed by our prophets, seers, and revelators since Joseph Smith (and D&C 132 is at least one non-revelation he claimed), that have been reversed or modified. Can God not make up his mind about evolution, birth control, the length of missions, the age of missionaries, the source of being gay, the respect and acceptance of gays, the treatment of women, the “mark of Cain,” the treatment of the children of gays, and we “patty-cake, taffy pull” Mormons that think we have justifiable complaints about all the baloney we have been fed via the imprimatur of “the Lord’s anointed?”
@fbisti You must be receiving revelations from me. Could not have said it better.
Frankly, I doubt it would make a bit of difference either way. Despite all the effort at “correlation” this is the church of playing it by ear.
I would have to study more on what the submissions would include, but mostly voted “No” because I would be looking for revelations with gospel doctrines or teachings to be canonized, and most seemed like they were policy changes.
Some of my favorite scriptures in canonized text are the stories and experiences that have gospel teachings in them, like D&C 8, 9, 10 or Jacob 5. Parables and teachings to apply to my life.
Perhaps some General Conference talks like Neal A Maxwell “Murmor Not” or “Endure it Well” talks or ones by others that really clarify or expand our understanding of things could be added as canonized revelations before these policy changes that make up most of the list.
Once it is canonized…I don’t think it can be easily be changed, right? I sense this is why they are hesitant, they lack confidence to canonize specific modern revelations.
I also wonder, what does it benefit us by canonizing something? Perhaps growing up in the church I have just come to accept that it is not likely to happen to add more scripture. I’m not sure we need it, as opposed to fluid revelation.
Heber13, I like the idea of canonizing a few select conference talks, if the body of the church votes them in. It would send a message that not everything said over the GC pulpit is scripture.
Many of these choices reflect, in my opinion, the corporate policies of the Church rather than revelation. Missionary age, temple size, etc. vary with the demography of the Church. The policy to not allow children of gay couples to be baptized is, I would argue, also a policy that hopefully will be changed. When the brethren truly reflect upon how much Christ loved children, I would hope that they will have a change of heart.
I voted yes on some because I thought it might open up our eyes to what fools we are if we saw some of that in scriptures.
I voted no on the Pres Kimball revelation because, from what I’ve studied, it was mostly a “good feeling” and not a revelation at all. If it had been a revelation (the voice of God, possibly accompanied by His physical appearance), I would have voted resoundingly “yes.”
Rockwell, my new post on the Law of Adoption discusses Woodruff’s revelation. See https://wheatandtares.org/2016/09/26/hales-on-the-law-of-adoption/