More scripture?

[marc]

Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon in 1830 and the first D&C in 1835 as a follow-up to the 1833 Book of Commandments. After Joseph died, the scriptures dried up. Shouldn't we have two or three volumes of the D&C by now, if not more? I guess what I'm saying is what would the D&C look like today with President Hinkley's or President Nelson's revelations in the same volume with Joseph's?

Considering we believe in continuing revelations, the Canon should be an open book which is updated annually and voted upon by common consent. I'm just thinking out loud here trying to visualize it.

[gkearney]

Take a look at the Community of Christ/RLDS edition of the D&C. They have continued to add sections over the years to theirs.

[marc]

Take a look at the Community of Christ/RLDS edition of the D&C. They have continued to add sections over the years to theirs.

Now that's interesting at least. Can you provide a link?

[HereWeGo]

The Doctrine part of D&C was the Lectures on Faith, which was removed in about 1921. The Commandments part of D&C was direct words of and conversation with the Lord. To add to the D&C, we would need exact wording from the Savior. I don't think there has been direct revelation (Thus sayeth the Lord) since the 1800s. This is why the D&C hasn't grown.

Wasn't it Hinkley who said we didn't need more revelation but we just need to follow what we already have?

[marc]

The Doctrine part of D&C was the Lectures on Faith, which was removed in about 1921. The Commandments part of D&C was direct words of and conversation with the Lord. To add to the D&C, we would need exact wording from the Savior. I don't think there has been direct revelation (Thus sayeth the Lord) since the 1800s. This is why the D&C hasn't grown.

Wasn't it Hinkley who said we didn't need more revelation but we just need to follow what we already have?

I know all too well the history and removal of the LoF, and those words you attribute to President Hinckley do sound familiar. But he's a dead prophet so they don't really count, especially since they're not canonized into scripture, right? Oh, the conundrum...

[InfoWarrior82]

More scripture?

Here's some low-hanging fruit for the brethren:

Complete the rest of the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible.


Easy peasy lemon squeezy? Or too hardy for these old farties?

[Niemand]

Wasn't it Hinkley who said we didn't need more revelation but we just need to follow what we already have?

I hate to say it but Hinckley was half-right. There is a lot of old revelation which members struggle to follow and should do.

General Conference and Ensign are treated as semi-scripture and that is the nearest thing

[marc]

It's ironic that the Jews killed the prophets, yet canonized their words along the way.

[Shawn Henry]

Here's some low-hanging fruit for the brethren:

Complete the rest of the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible.

Oh, I love this!!!!!!!

Yes, complete Joseph's unfinished task by the Lord. Not one of them has ever even tried.

[Shawn Henry]

The Lord has already told us in section 113 what we need to do to add more revelations to the D&C.

We are to understand that the scattered remnants are exhorted to return to the Lord from whence they have fallen; which if they do, the promise of the Lord is that he will speak to them, or give them revelation.

Which we can never do without first acknowledging we are a fallen people.

[innocentoldguy]

The Lord has already told us in section 113 what we need to do to add more revelations to the D&C.

We are to understand that the scattered remnants are exhorted to return to the Lord from whence they have fallen; which if they do, the promise of the Lord is that he will speak to them, or give them revelation.

Which we can never do without first acknowledging we are a fallen people.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. We acknowledge we are a fallen people at least once a week.

[gkearney]

Take a look at the Community of Christ/RLDS edition of the D&C. They have continued to add sections over the years to theirs.

Now that's interesting at least. Can you provide a link?

Here is a link to order print copies; https://www.heraldhouse.org/collections ... 3374111237

[Shawn Henry]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. We acknowledge we are a fallen people at least once a week.

You mean in all our Rameumptum prayers; we thank thee O God that we are the birthright tribe of Ephraim and that thou has selected us to be saved while all gentiles around must come to us for the saving ordinances or be damned.

The Lord has clearly stopped speaking to us (hint: safe and effective).

[innocentoldguy]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. We acknowledge we are a fallen people at least once a week.

You mean in all our Rameumptum prayers; we thank thee O God that we are the birthright tribe of Ephraim and that thou has selected us to be saved while all gentiles around must come to us for the saving ordinances or be damned.

The Lord has clearly stopped speaking to us (hint: safe and effective).

Literally never heard the first thing until you said it.

Regarding the second thing, l guess he does tend not to talk to you when you reject him due to thinking errors and cognitive distortions, e.g., "all or nothing" reasoning.

[JLHPROF]

Wasn't it Hinkley who said we didn't need more revelation but we just need to follow what we already have?

I hate to say it but Hinckley was half-right. There is a lot of old revelation which members struggle to follow and should do.

General Conference and Ensign are treated as semi-scripture and that is the nearest thing

I think we too often confuse the terms scripture and canon.

[innocentoldguy]

Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon in 1830 and the first D&C in 1835 as a follow-up to the 1833 Book of Commandments. After Joseph died, the scriptures dried up. Shouldn't we have two or three volumes of the D&C by now, if not more? I guess what I'm saying is what would the D&C look like today with President Hinkley's or President Nelson's revelations in the same volume with Joseph's?

Considering we believe in continuing revelations, the Canon should be an open book which is updated annually and voted upon by common consent. I'm just thinking out loud here trying to visualize it.

The D&C was added to in 1978.

[Niemand]

Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon in 1830 and the first D&C in 1835 as a follow-up to the 1833 Book of Commandments. After Joseph died, the scriptures dried up. Shouldn't we have two or three volumes of the D&C by now, if not more? I guess what I'm saying is what would the D&C look like today with President Hinkley's or President Nelson's revelations in the same volume with Joseph's?

Considering we believe in continuing revelations, the Canon should be an open book which is updated annually and voted upon by common consent. I'm just thinking out loud here trying to visualize it.

The D&C was added to in 1978.

The two.last parts are "Official Declarations" which puts them in a different category

[BuriedTartaria]

Thank you for making this thread!

This was something I recognized as a kid, that I buried, and it ended up largely being why I realized I believe in the Book of Mormon but I do not accept or believe in the truth claims of the LDS church as an adult.

I remember thumbing through the Doctrine and Covenants as a kid and reflecting on what I was taught in Sunday School and church in general on a regular basis (unending line of 15 prophets, seers and revelators, they're just like Joseph!") and I always wondered why after Joseph there were just a few entries of scripture and only from two (I think?) individuals. In the 90s, we must have had dozens and dozens and dozens of PSRs between that point and Joseph's death, and there were only two (maybe 3?) canonized Doctrine and Covenants sections after Joseph, aside from the declarations.

That always troubled me but I "put it on the shelf" and as I grew up, I developed a sincere testimony of the Book of Mormon (and admittedly, they did put out The Proclamation To The World in the (early?) 90s and as time went by, that looked at the very least, inspired). And if the Book of Mormon is true, what does that mean? It means the institutional foundation and truth claims of the LDS church are true! So I just accepted things as they were.

On one hand, I completely appreciate no efforts to "force" revelation if there is nothing to say. I deeply appreciate that and I want to applaud the LDS church for not doing that. But on the other hand, dozens and dozens and dozens of PSRs go by over a span of coming up on 200 years, and so little scripture is there to produce?

If you accept the revelations up to Woodruff, I respect that while not sharing the same view. If you accept the LDS church today and it's claims, I accept and respect that. I don't feel those ways, I feel Joseph was a prophet and that he produced revelation, at least initially.

I remember a few years ago, I was trying so hard to squint my eyes and make the LDS church's claims "work" with my changing view on the world (a view more pro-Book of Mormon, a more literal take on the words and statements it preaches, a Pro-Old Testament, like Daniel and Babylon's destiny stuff) and I was watching Elder Renlund speak to a group of youth. He was talking about that Restoration Proclamation done for some 200 year anniversary (I thought this was already an underwhelming statement upon it's initial release) and as he talked with the youth, he said "this IS revelation" and I just said to myself, "okay, see, they do revelate, this is revelation". I tried so hard. 15 prophets, seers and revelators and 10 paragraphs of reiterating basic Mormon doctrine is all you have to offer for publishable revelation to support your PSR claims? The doubt in the prophetic claims of leadership-post Joseph Smith that I felt in grade school but pushed away was the same doubt I faced again as an adult and it ended up being what made me decide to take a stand and stop supporting the LDS church. I just don't believe in their PSR claims.

Around this time I got deeper into David Whitmer (I don't necessarily agree with him on everything) and other early church figures and realized I wasn't the only person who believed in the Book of Mormon but rejected the LDS institution. And I learned a lot of other LDS or other Mormon church related members were feeling similar ways as I was. I think it's the hand of God freeing people from lies, exaggerations and failing institutions.

[Subcomandante]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. We acknowledge we are a fallen people at least once a week.

You mean in all our Rameumptum prayers; we thank thee O God that we are the birthright tribe of Ephraim and that thou has selected us to be saved while all gentiles around must come to us for the saving ordinances or be damned.

The Lord has clearly stopped speaking to us (hint: safe and effective).

I see more Rameumptum prayers here than I have ever seen in a fast and testimony meeting.

[Mindfields]

Wasn't it Hinkley who said we didn't need more revelation but we just need to follow what we already have?

I hate to say it but Hinckley was half-right. There is a lot of old revelation which members struggle to follow and should do.

General Conference and Ensign are treated as semi-scripture and that is the nearest thing

I guess you're referring to that nonsense spoken by the leadership and regurgitated later by the members. Do we really believe that repeating it will somehow make it more profound? Clearly the teachings of men mingled very lightly with scripture.

[Niemand]

Wasn't it Hinkley who said we didn't need more revelation but we just need to follow what we already have?

I hate to say it but Hinckley was half-right. There is a lot of old revelation which members struggle to follow and should do.

General Conference and Ensign are treated as semi-scripture and that is the nearest thing

I guess you're referring to that nonsense spoken by the leadership and regurgitated later by the members. Do we really believe that repeating it will somehow make it more profound? Clearly the teachings of men mingled very lightly with scripture.

Some people do. It's not quite got the status of Watchtower but we study it in EQ/RS, used to bring it along as a HT/VT message, and speak on these messages from the pulpit.

But a few years or decades down the line, it falls off the end of the conveyor belt... so does Watchtower I suppose for JWs.

[marc]

I see more Rameumptum prayers here than I have ever seen in a fast and testimony meeting.

In this thread? Or do you mean this forum in general?

[innocentoldguy]

Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon in 1830 and the first D&C in 1835 as a follow-up to the 1833 Book of Commandments. After Joseph died, the scriptures dried up. Shouldn't we have two or three volumes of the D&C by now, if not more? I guess what I'm saying is what would the D&C look like today with President Hinkley's or President Nelson's revelations in the same volume with Joseph's?

Considering we believe in continuing revelations, the Canon should be an open book which is updated annually and voted upon by common consent. I'm just thinking out loud here trying to visualize it.

The D&C was added to in 1978.

The two.last parts are "Official Declarations" which puts them in a different category

How are they a different category? The entire D&C is a collection of revelations, which is exactly what the two Official Declarations are as well. The only thing different about them is the format. Either way, they're still part of the D&C, so it has been added to, though not frequently.

[Niemand]

Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon in 1830 and the first D&C in 1835 as a follow-up to the 1833 Book of Commandments. After Joseph died, the scriptures dried up. Shouldn't we have two or three volumes of the D&C by now, if not more? I guess what I'm saying is what would the D&C look like today with President Hinkley's or President Nelson's revelations in the same volume with Joseph's?

Considering we believe in continuing revelations, the Canon should be an open book which is updated annually and voted upon by common consent. I'm just thinking out loud here trying to visualize it.

The D&C was added to in 1978.

The two.last parts are "Official Declarations" which puts them in a different category

How are they a different category? The entire D&C is a collection of revelations, which is exactly what the two Official Declarations are as well. The only thing different about them is the format. Either way, they're still part of the D&C, so it has been added to, though not frequently.

Because the name alone suggests that they are directed outside the church as much as inside. The style also.

[logonbump]

Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon in 1830 and the first D&C in 1835 as a follow-up to the 1833 Book of Commandments. After Joseph died, the scriptures dried up. Shouldn't we have two or three volumes of the D&C by now, if not more? I guess what I'm saying is what would the D&C look like today with President Hinkley's or President Nelson's revelations in the same volume with Joseph's?

Considering we believe in continuing revelations, the Canon should be an open book which is updated annually and voted upon by common consent. I'm just thinking out loud here trying to visualize it.

The D&C was added to in 1978.

The D&C was also taken away from in 1920.