More scripture?

[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.

We should remember the Lectures on Faith, that it was the portion removed, without common consent, that contained the "doctrine" of the Doctrine and Covenants.

[marc]

We should remember the Lectures on Faith, that it was the portion removed, without common consent, that contained the "doctrine" of the Doctrine and Covenants.

I wrote this back in 2013. It was my initial dive into the subject:

viewtopic.php?t=30902

[JLHPROF]

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.

We should remember the Lectures on Faith, that it was the portion removed, without common consent, that contained the "doctrine" of the Doctrine and Covenants.

The Lectures on Faith while mostly inspired contains a few false doctrines. And it causes confusion for those not capable of discerning which are which.
To leave them canonized would give added authority to the few errors contained in them.
But they absolutely should be taught and studied.

[logonbump]

The D&C was added to in 1978.

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

We should remember the Lectures on Faith, that it was the portion removed, without common consent, that contained the "doctrine" of the Doctrine and Covenants.

The Lectures on Faith while mostly inspired contains a few false doctrines. And it causes confusion for those not capable of discerning which are which.
To leave them canonized would give added authority to the few errors contained in them.
But they absolutely should be taught and studied.

The Lectures was THE doctrine that the Elders memorized or were taught in the School of the Prophets before error crept in as a consequences of the removal of the Doctrine part of our scriptures.

And you're afraid to call Nelson's declarations false doctrine... but Joseph Smith is fair game...

Eye Testify on YT presents the forbidden truth about LoF...
https://youtu.be/qIcgQIJYXE8

[JLHPROF]

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

We should remember the Lectures on Faith, that it was the portion removed, without common consent, that contained the "doctrine" of the Doctrine and Covenants.

The Lectures on Faith while mostly inspired contains a few false doctrines. And it causes confusion for those not capable of discerning which are which.
To leave them canonized would give added authority to the few errors contained in them.
But they absolutely should be taught and studied.

The Lectures was THE doctrine that the Elders memorized or were taught in the School of the Prophets before error crept in as a consequences of the removal of the Doctrine part of our scriptures.

And you're afraid to call Nelson's declarations false doctrine... but Joseph Smith is fair game...

Eye Testify on YT presents the forbidden truth about LoF...
https://youtu.be/qIcgQIJYXE8

I know it was the Doctrine part of D&C.
I said nothing about President Nelson or any declarations.
I stand by the fact that the LoF has some incorrect doctrine in it, supplanted by truth revealed to Joseph.

[marc]

The Lectures on Faith while mostly inspired contains a few false doctrines. And it causes confusion for those not capable of discerning which are which.
To leave them canonized would give added authority to the few errors contained in them.
But they absolutely should be taught and studied.

I respectfully disagree. Absolutely disagree. I spent years studying them in order to understand them. I prayed and prayed to understand them and the Lord opened my understanding of them. They got it right because the elders who wrote it saw both Father and Son, including Joseph Smith who made the final edits/revisions of the Lectures. I share my testimony about them with clarification concerning some things that a committee once considered wrong.

https://latterdaylamanite.files.wordpre ... itness.pdf

[JLHPROF]

The Lectures on Faith while mostly inspired contains a few false doctrines. And it causes confusion for those not capable of discerning which are which.
To leave them canonized would give added authority to the few errors contained in them.
But they absolutely should be taught and studied.

I respectfully disagree. Absolutely disagree. I spent years studying them in order to understand them. I prayed and prayed to understand them and the Lord opened my understanding of them. They got it right because the elders who wrote it saw both Father and Son, including Joseph Smith who made the final edits/revisions of the Lectures. I share my testimony about them with clarification concerning some things that a committee once considered wrong.

https://latterdaylamanite.files.wordpre ... itness.pdf

Don't misunderstand. They are probably 95% correct and Joseph was involved in their publication, although the educated Sidney probably formulated the wording.
I have a testimony that there are many inspired teachings in them, especially Lecture 6.
But Joseph clearly changed his theology after more revelation was received, revelation that provided different understanding of God than the Lectures.

[marc]

But Joseph clearly changed his theology after more revelation was received, revelation that provided different understanding of God than the Lectures.

Will you please indicate what specific changes he made to what? Because I believe I made my case in the link I provided. Whenever I make a claim, I am always ready and willing to show how and why. I've learned that if I cannot show it, I don't say it. Therefore, please show me what you say what you said.

[logonbump]

The Lectures on Faith while mostly inspired contains a few false doctrines. And it causes confusion for those not capable of discerning which are which.
To leave them canonized would give added authority to the few errors contained in them.
But they absolutely should be taught and studied.

I respectfully disagree. Absolutely disagree. I spent years studying them in order to understand them. I prayed and prayed to understand them and the Lord opened my understanding of them. They got it right because the elders who wrote it saw both Father and Son, including Joseph Smith who made the final edits/revisions of the Lectures. I share my testimony about them with clarification concerning some things that a committee once considered wrong.

https://latterdaylamanite.files.wordpre ... itness.pdf

Don't misunderstand. They are probably 95% correct and Joseph was involved in their publication, although the educated Sidney probably formulated the wording.
I have a testimony that there are many inspired teachings in them, especially Lecture 6.
But Joseph clearly changed his theology after more revelation was received, revelation that provided different understanding of God than the Lectures.

Multiple literary authorship analyses have shown that Joseph Smith did write the lectures. I linked a video above describing original text of D&C and the testimonies of the four presiding leaders of the truthfulness and correctness of the texts at the time of its publication.

What did Joseph change? How did his later teachings differ from the doctrine taught in early canon?

[FrankOne]

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.

I can't recall the text name, but decades ago, some Indians took a sacred text to the church authorities to interprete. The language was unknown at the time. The 15 basically said "This is an unknown language, we aren't experts in linguistics". The Indians left with their sacred text understanding that the power of revelation had fled the church.

The 15 are not gifted, nor do they have any divine abilities.

Continuing revelation? There isn't any from church leadership. They are men walking in the dark.

[JLHPROF]

Will you please indicate what specific changes he made to what? Because I believe I made my case in the link I provided. Whenever I make a claim, I am always ready and willing to show how and why. I've learned that if I cannot show it, I don't say it. Therefore, please show me what you say what you said.

Multiple literary authorship analyses have shown that Joseph Smith did write the lectures. I linked a video above describing original text of D&C and the testimonies of the four presiding leaders of the truthfulness and correctness of the texts at the time of its publication.

What did Joseph change? How did his later teachings differ from the doctrine taught in early canon?

Lecture 5 (selections)
We shall, in this lecture speak of the Godhead: we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all thing —They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being
in the form and likeness of man, — possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one.
Question 3: How many personages are there in the Godhead?
Two: the Father and the Son.

D&C 130:22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us

Everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the
organization of this earth, and relates to their dispensation of things to men on
the earth; these personages, according to Abraham’s record, are called God
the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the
witness or Testator. (TPJS 190) May 1841.

So is the Father a personage of spirit or tabernacle?
Is the Holy Ghost an individual personage or the mind of the Father and Son?
Are there two or three members of the Godhead?

[marc]

Will you please indicate what specific changes he made to what? Because I believe I made my case in the link I provided. Whenever I make a claim, I am always ready and willing to show how and why. I've learned that if I cannot show it, I don't say it. Therefore, please show me what you say what you said.

Multiple literary authorship analyses have shown that Joseph Smith did write the lectures. I linked a video above describing original text of D&C and the testimonies of the four presiding leaders of the truthfulness and correctness of the texts at the time of its publication.

What did Joseph change? How did his later teachings differ from the doctrine taught in early canon?

Lecture 5 (selections)
We shall, in this lecture speak of the Godhead: we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all thing —They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being
in the form and likeness of man, — possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one.
Question 3: How many personages are there in the Godhead?
Two: the Father and the Son.

D&C 130:22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us

Everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the
organization of this earth, and relates to their dispensation of things to men on
the earth; these personages, according to Abraham’s record, are called God
the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the
witness or Testator. (TPJS 190) May 1841.

So is the Father a personage of spirit or tabernacle?
Is the Holy Ghost an individual personage or the mind of the Father and Son?
Are there two or three members of the Godhead?

Thank you for sharing that information. This was part of my conundrum for years. After praying and studying a lot, I wrote my essay and testimony addressing those very points. I'll share the link again:

https://latterdaylamanite.files.wordpre ... itness.pdf

I would be more than happy to discuss this further if you decide to read it and ask for clarification. I am always seeking further light and knowledge and to share what I learn so that others might also do the same.

[p8riot]

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?

"We don’t need more revelation at this time. We just need to follow more closely the revelation we’ve already received and we’ll be all right."

Gordon B. Hinkley - The Lord Is at the Helm - March 6, 1994

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/gordon-b ... lord-helm/

[InfoWarrior82]

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.

I can't recall the text name, but decades ago, some Indians took a sacred text to the church authorities to interprete. The language was unknown at the time. The 15 basically said "This is an unknown language, we aren't experts in linguistics". The Indians left with their sacred text understanding that the power of revelation had fled the church.

The 15 are not gifted, nor do they have any divine abilities.

Continuing revelation? There isn't any from church leadership. They are men walking in the dark.

If they are walking in the dark, how can they fulfill their mission on Earth?

[InfoWarrior82]

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?

"We don’t need more revelation at this time. We just need to follow more closely the revelation we’ve already received and we’ll be all right."

Gordon B. Hinkley - The Lord Is at the Helm - March 6, 1994

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/gordon-b ... lord-helm/

That sounds like something a used car salesman would think of to say. (No offense to used car salespeople ).

[madvin]

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?

"We don’t need more revelation at this time. We just need to follow more closely the revelation we’ve already received and we’ll be all right."

Gordon B. Hinkley - The Lord Is at the Helm - March 6, 1994

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/gordon-b ... lord-helm/

That sounds like something a used car salesman would think of to say. (No offense to used car salespeople ).

Also sounds somewhat like we as a people are responsible for that remark for not studying fully what we already have. Just an observation. I know for me I have been lax in that realm.

[InfoWarrior82]

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?

"We don’t need more revelation at this time. We just need to follow more closely the revelation we’ve already received and we’ll be all right."

Gordon B. Hinkley - The Lord Is at the Helm - March 6, 1994

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/gordon-b ... lord-helm/

That sounds like something a used car salesman would think of to say. (No offense to used car salespeople ).

Also sounds somewhat like we as a people are responsible for that remark for not studying fully what we already have. Just an observation. I know for me I have been lax in that realm.

Dude... since 1889? You'd think there would be maybe at least one peep from Christ?

[InfoWarrior82]

1 And now behold, I say unto you that when the Lord shall see fit, in his wisdom, that these sayings shall come unto the Gentiles according to his word, then ye may know that the covenant which the Father hath made with the children of Israel, concerning their restoration to the lands of their inheritance, is already beginning to be fulfilled.

2 And ye may know that the words of the Lord, which have been spoken by the holy prophets, shall all be fulfilled; and ye need not say that the Lord delays his coming unto the children of Israel.

3 And ye need not imagine in your hearts that the words which have been spoken are vain, for behold, the Lord will remember his covenant which he hath made unto his people of the house of Israel.

4 And when ye shall see these sayings coming forth among you, then ye need not any longer spurn at the doings of the Lord, for the sword of his justice is in his right hand; and behold, at that day, if ye shall spurn at his doings he will cause that it shall soon overtake you.

5 Wo unto him that spurneth at the doings of the Lord; yea, wo unto him that shall deny the Christ and his works!

6 Yea, wo unto him that shall deny the revelations of the Lord, and that shall say the Lord no longer worketh by revelation, or by prophecy, or by gifts, or by tongues, or by healings, or by the power of the Holy Ghost!

7 Yea, and wo unto him that shall say at that day, to get again, that there can be no miracle wrought by Jesus Christ; for he that doeth this shall become like unto the son of perdition, for whom there was no mercy, according to the word of Christ!



Jesus mad.

[InfoWarrior82]

2 Behold, will ye believe in the day of your visitation—behold, when the Lord shall come, yea, even that great day when the earth shall be rolled together as a scroll, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, yea, in that great day when ye shall be brought to stand before the Lamb of God—then will ye say that there is no God?

3 Then will ye longer deny the Christ, or can ye behold the Lamb of God? Do ye suppose that ye shall dwell with him under a consciousness of your guilt? Do ye suppose that ye could be happy to dwell with that holy Being, when your souls are racked with a consciousness of guilt that ye have ever abused his laws?

4 Behold, I say unto you that ye would be more miserable to dwell with a holy and just God, under a consciousness of your filthiness before him, than ye would to dwell with the damned souls in hell.

5 For behold, when ye shall be brought to see your nakedness before God, and also the glory of God, and the holiness of Jesus Christ, it will kindle a flame of unquenchable fire upon you.

6 O then ye unbelieving, turn ye unto the Lord; cry mightily unto the Father in the name of Jesus, that perhaps ye may be found spotless, pure, fair, and white, having been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb, at that great and last day.

7 And again I speak unto you who deny the revelations of God, and say that they are done away, that there are no revelations, nor prophecies, nor gifts, nor healing, nor speaking with tongues, and the interpretation of tongues;

8 Behold I say unto you, he that denieth these things knoweth not the gospel of Christ; yea, he has not read the scriptures; if so, he does not understand them.

9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?

10 And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles.

[InfoWarrior82]

24 Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!

25 Wo be unto him that crieth: All is well!

26 Yea, wo be unto him that hearkeneth unto the precepts of men, and denieth the power of God, and the gift of the Holy Ghost!

27 Yea, wo be unto him that saith: We have received, and we need no more!

28 And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon the rock receiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he shall fall.

29 Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!

30 For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.

31 Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.

[briznian]

I found the section 152 addition to the Community of Christ (RLDS at the time) D&C very interesting.

...I [President W. Wallace Smith] have given serious and sustained consideration over a long period of time to the question of "who shall be my successor in office." Consequently, I have taken this matter to God in prayer repeatedly, petitioning for light so I might know the will of my heavenly Father, and knowing it have the wisdom and strength to do it.

...[Sec 152:1a] In order that my church shall continue to be led by my spirit through the heritage of its founder, my servant Elder Wallace Bunnell Smith is called into the service of the church as an assistant to his father and to the Quorum of the Presidency, with the title, prophet and president designate.

[Sec 152:1b] He will serve in this capacity during a period of spiritual preparation and study approximating two years, after which time, if he remain faithful, through the process of common consent of the body of my church, he is to be chosen as president to succeed his father.

[Sec 152:1c] At that time, if his life is extended, W. Wallace Smith, my servant who will have served as the leader of my church for a period of twenty years, shall retire and be given the title of president emeritus....

Not only does it provide a successor for all the church to see, but it instructs him to prepare for that time. It also enables emeritus status of both the president and members of the 12.

[Niemand]

My HT back in the nineties said he thought The Family: A Proclamation to the World would be canonised. I'm surprised it never was myself. It was printed up on parchment and distributed, and pinned to walls, yet never included in the scriptures themselves.

It managed to get a higher status than GC and the Ensign... but that ship has now sailed. I can't see it ever getting in now. President Hinckley blinked on that one.

[Generic User]

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.

I can't recall the text name, but decades ago, some Indians took a sacred text to the church authorities to interprete. The language was unknown at the time. The 15 basically said "This is an unknown language, we aren't experts in linguistics". The Indians left with their sacred text understanding that the power of revelation had fled the church.

The 15 are not gifted, nor do they have any divine abilities.

Continuing revelation? There isn't any from church leadership. They are men walking in the dark.

Do you have any other info so I can find this?
Did a Google search and came up empty. This is very interesting to me.

[Shawn Henry]

Will you please indicate what specific changes he made to what? Because I believe I made my case in the link I provided. Whenever I make a claim, I am always ready and willing to show how and why. I've learned that if I cannot show it, I don't say it. Therefore, please show me what you say what you said.

Multiple literary authorship analyses have shown that Joseph Smith did write the lectures. I linked a video above describing original text of D&C and the testimonies of the four presiding leaders of the truthfulness and correctness of the texts at the time of its publication.

What did Joseph change? How did his later teachings differ from the doctrine taught in early canon?

Lecture 5 (selections)
We shall, in this lecture speak of the Godhead: we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all thing —They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being
in the form and likeness of man, — possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one.
Question 3: How many personages are there in the Godhead?
Two: the Father and the Son.

D&C 130:22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us

Everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the
organization of this earth, and relates to their dispensation of things to men on
the earth; these personages, according to Abraham’s record, are called God
the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the
witness or Testator. (TPJS 190) May 1841.

So is the Father a personage of spirit or tabernacle?
Is the Holy Ghost an individual personage or the mind of the Father and Son?
Are there two or three members of the Godhead?

You are just like the church, you know beforehand that you are omitting some pertinent facts, but you do it anyway, in an intellectually dishonest attempt to sway people to your side. Let's list the things you deceitfully omitted.

1. The Bible teaches God is a spirit. The BoM teaches God is a spirit. The Lectures on Faith teach God is a spirit. 3 testaments all in perfect harmony.
2. Lectures on Faith: Attested to as correct doctrine by 4 Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.
3. Section 130: Not attested to by any PSR's, evidenced by Joseph never claiming the teaching and purposefully omitting it in the 1844 edition.
4. Lectures on Faith did make the 1844 cut and remained as canon.
5. Two scribes claiming JS taught something is not the canonization process.
6. The words of these prophets are the very foundation we have for detecting false teachings. The LoF are the broom that sweeps section 130 into the trash.
7. BY did not meet the requirement of the Lord in D&C 43:1-7 to add revelation to the church.

Next time all you have to say is: The Lectures on Faith were indeed canon throughout Joseph's ministry and though he didn't canonize Section 130, I believe it anyway.

[Jamescm]

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.

NO.

The purpose of scriptural canon is to be an anchor against such a thing. Look at what is being taught from the authorities and spread by members! "Trust the Gadiantons", "Seek the services of frauds before turning to healing or wholeness through faith", "Perpetuating fraud via mask mandates or using preferred pronouns is Christ-like". Or the part where the only President to bring peace instead of war for decades was called out without name as dangerous, or the slip up in donating to obviously wicked candidates. Never. It would almost be like Mormon trying to keep canon "up to date" by asking his army to vote on it.

Besides, as said, The Family: A Proclamation to the World was never canonized, and certainly can't be in today's environment unless those in the position to do it start some serious spiritual deadlifting.