The statement by Pres Joseph F. Smith while under oath to the Senate that I wrote about a few weeks ago (here)got me to thinking, what is revelation, and what do the current Q15 think it is? Just to refresh your memory, JFS said when asked about revelation: “”I have never pretended to nor do I profess to have received revelations” (1). Later he said there had been no revelation excepting the “manifesto” for at least 20 years, going back to 1882 when John Taylor received revelation on two new apostles.
It appears by these statements, that JFS believed “revelation” was something that came directly from God, and carried a “Thus saith the Lord” type of verbiage. Do the current Q15 believe this? Or do they have a more nuanced view of what constitutes revelation?
Joseph Smith would add revelations at the drop of a hat for every item that needed attention in the early church. The D&C if full of them; sending people on missions, building temples, etc.
So my question is why doesn’t the current Prophet add revelation to the D&C? Why couldn’t Pres. Hinckley have added a D&C section that said something to the effect of:
“I the Lord desire that the Holy ordinances of My House be available to all members of My church. It is meet that small temples be built to cover the earth. They need not be large grand buildings like have heretofore been constructed in this dispensation. “
What about deleting sections that are no longer applicable (section 132) , or have been changed by “modern revelation”? The Word of Wisdom in section 89 could be entirely re-written, with words like
“A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the entire church, to be used as a commandment and constraint, for entering my Holy House. Given for a principle with promise, for all saints who desire entry there in. “
In 1930, under the direction of Pres Grant, James Talmage (then Senior Apostle) removed 95 sections of the D&C, and parts of 21 others. The church authorized its printing as Latter-day Revelations: Selections from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day. Section 132 (Plural Marriage) was omitted in its entirety , which so enraged the fundamentalist, that they accused the church of changing the scriptures. In response, Grant, ordered the work immediately withdrawn from sale and the remaining copies shredded to avoid further conflict with the fundamentalists (2).
So why do you think we don’t update the D&C like was done in the early church? Do we have different criteria for what is consider worthy to put in the book? Have we changed the definition of Revelation as understood by Joseph Smith up to and including Joseph F. Smith? Are we afraid of enraging the fundamentalist and give further ammunition to the Snufferites and other such groups? What changes do you think need made?
(1) Page 99 of the Congressional record, Vol 24, 1906
(2) Newell G. Bringhurst, “Section 132: Contents and Legacy” in The Persistence of Polygamy, (Independence: John Whitmer Books: 2010), 83-84.
Wheat & Tares 
So why do you think we don’t update the D&C like was done in the early church? I have no idea. It makes no sense to me.
I think there are degrees of revelation, from simple spiritual nudges to open visions to “Thus saith the Lord” declarations, and all of them are filtered through the lens of the recipient. My impression of Joseph was that he experienced the full spectrum of revelation and didn’t always distinguish between them, meaning that in later life he felt free to say “Thus saith the Lord” when all he’d gotten was a nudge, and that in earlier life he would simply say “I know for myself Methodism is wrong” when he’d had a revelation too big for him to process. With few exceptions, I don’t think our current presidents/apostles have received many open revelations, which is what JSF was probably saying to the senate, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t receiving many lesser revelations. I also think that learning to interpret revelation is a significant part of our growth here on earth, as I think those nudges we get are vitally important, but not always completely clear. Humility and meekness are key, and they’re not usually something western culture associates with great leaders.
From my perspective, there is ample evidence of inspiration within human kind …Revelation – not so much. (Even when it is self declared as such.).
Interesting, isn’t it, how from “Jebel El Lawz” came the voice
of OUR HEAVENLY FATHER who in Exodus 19:5 -24:11 wrote to us of Covenant Commandments. Genesis 12 & 15, as well as OUR/the central Identity of Jacob/Joseph. = Genesis 28:3, it’s who we ARE. One cannot add to an already “blood ratified Covenant”. As Ephraim and Manasseh, the MALKI-TZEDEK, the one new man Jer 31:31, it is quite obvious that the church has wandered FAR FAR away from the Feasts of Israel, the Sabbath, and dietary laws in order to embrace a synchronistic cultural religion. Wasn’t that Israel’s problem throughout their whole history ?Moreover, is the same reason today why both houses of Israel were divorced from YHWH Elohim
You can’t ADD to an already blood ratified Covenant. Many have tried and many have died in their ” dead works” trying to add, all the while, the sheep get picked off, one by one. Not me. Isaiah 4:5.
D+C 132 cited today in Sunday School. Painful. I’d love to move on. Or out. Meh.
One of the big points of difference the missionaries rely on heavily is having living prophets to guide us with present problems. But it requires a lot of energy, and a desire to know the Lords will, and we have not had Prophets young enough to have those qualities for decades, and will not in the foreseeable future, unless the succession changes.
The problem with the inspiration type nudges, is they are filtered through the recipients preconceptions, as opposed to face to face with God, you can’t imagine a Prophet would dare filter that in his report, if he didn’t fully agree.
In our ss class someone asked why modern day prophets didn’t move mountains etc. The teacher said those keys had not been restored, but has since admitted his reference did not say that. That would get the worlds attention, like it did back then, so why not now?
We just had a special conference from SLC for Aus and NZ. The only appearent purpose seemed to be selling how good Pres Monson was (greatest men on plannet) and how fit and capable Pres Neilson is, but nothing about eithers ability to seek or recieve revelation.
I confess I don’t know anywhere near enough about JFS, but I do wonder if playing to an audience played into his statements. Claiming to speak to Jesus on a daily basis doesn’t help get your senator seated. It reminds me of something Richard Bushman brought up in RSR. When Joseph was in front of judges or politicians asking about his prophethood he’d give answers like anyone with the testimony of Jesus is a prophet or I just teach them correct principles and they govern themselves. His statements to true believers were different. Now again, don’t know much about JFS, so maybe that one statement does completely encompass his view on revelation. With regards to remaking the D&C every few years my guess there is as we started attempting to extend our global reach we developed other concerns. I’m sure I’ve shown this bias before but both in US Constitutional law and revelations I actually think writing every innovation down is more of a hinders progress more than it helps.
Isn’t the answer obvious. They don’t get them . Even the prirsthood tevelation was not a “thus Sai th the Lord “ revelation It was a group of men who had a problem . They discussed a solution and then prayed about it . When no voice from heaven said No they did what they had decided to do anyway. Before anyone cries heresy read LeGrand Richards interviews about that it event . After all he was there and discover the truth.
Because as far as we can tell there haven’t been any doctrinal revelations since JFS’s DC138.
Just administrative revelations… policies, etc. similar to how a bishop leads a ward, etc.
I’d love to be wrong but I haven’t seen any new teachings or even anything professing to be a revelation since JS and his contemporaries died off.
Please someone prove me wrong or answer Hugh B. Brown’s burning question about a revelator:
“Such a man would speak in the name of the Lord, saying, “Thus saith the Lord,” as did Moses.”
“He will boldly claim that God [has] spoken to him.”
“There was never was a time in the history of the world when the voice of God was needed as it is needed now. Perhaps you can tell me why He doesn’t speak.”
https://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/06/the-profile-of-a-prophet?lang=eng
“Are we afraid of enraging the fundamentalist and give further ammunition to the Snufferites and other such groups?”
I don’t think the Snufferites would have a problem with the removal of Section 132.
https://religionnews.com/2016/02/09/did-joseph-smith-practice-polygamy-denver-snuffer-says-no/
During a conference in Sweden, GBH came and said “members are always asking me why aren’t they given more revelation? The answer is they don’t follow the current revelation given “
At the time I thought it was powerful. Now I wonder if it’s just a way to say it’s the member’s fault and therefore avoid the awkwardness that comes with no revelation that is actually given currently
Not all revelations are included in the Doctrine and Covenants, and not everything in the D&C are revelations. Someone has to propose that an item be included (or removed) and that proposal receives a vote (usually at Conference).
Items designated as Revelations are perceived are more authoritative and binding. In the RLDS, both Joseph Smith 3rd and his successor, Fredrick M. Smith, had ideas that failed to get quorum/conference support; but when they presented the same ideas as a “Revelation”, it was immediately passed.
A more recent example was the ordination of women in the RLDS. Several resolutions to their conferences were submitted over the decades but never passed. Finally, they voted to wait on prophetic guidance and at the next conference the revelation was received and passed.
Where do we get a copy of Elder Talmage’s revision of the D&C