NOM

What is the purpose of the D&C today?
It was meant as a place for revelations in the early days, but has not been updated with “revelations” in years.
Why is this? Why hasn’t the D&C been kept updated?
Case in point: the WoW. The WoW doctrine is so inconsistent and so scattered across the place that nobody really knows what it means today?
Is there going to be a new age repository of revelations?

This is where the CoC guys jump in and brag about how they keep pumping new sections into their version of the D&C.

I would speculate that the brethren have become risk averse to canonizing anything as that then becomes binding, whereas mere "policies" can change anytime they find themselves in sticky legal spots. Just another sign the brown rock never worked as advertised and doesn't today.

The purpose of the D&C is to be a pit from which they can mine phrases out of context and reapply them as The Word of God to whatever current application needs a tone of authority to make it seem legitimate.

They should just call it the C, because they took the D out when they amputated the Lectures on Faith.

2bizE wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:25 pm

What is the purpose of the D&C today?
It was meant as a place for revelations in the early days, but has not been updated with “revelations” in years.
Why is this? Why hasn’t the D&C been kept updated?
Case in point: the WoW. The WoW doctrine is so inconsistent and so scattered across the place that nobody really knows what it means today?
Is there going to be a new age repository of revelations?

It's questions like this that make me smack my forehead and say "Why didn't I think of this 20 years ago?" My final attempt at reconciling all of this mess with God was to teach church history/D&C as a seminary teacher. By D&C 10 I had confirmed that God authorizes seer stones, divining rods and scriptural white-washing, plus the fin little story of the parchment of John. The D&C is so full of Joseph's nonsense. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if a total re-work of D&C with a fresh canonization at GC is in the works as Russ' biggest and most exciting change. At least it would fall into the category of prophetic stuff that Mormons might expect from their prophet.

Joseph had no problem coming up with a new revelation to address any dissent in the ranks, or bolster his own status. I am somewhat surprise modern leaders are so reluctant to do the same.

They have so much sway over members the could add sections no problem to solidify their position

Maybe it is to their credit they don’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just imagine the overwhelming celebration you would see among church membership if Pres. Nelson produced a new section of the D&C that says, "thus saith the Lord." Instead they have to pretend that meeting time changes are the same thing.

I think a lot of it has to do with answering the question of, "What does it take to get people to believe?"

BoM: Presented as an ancient record written by prophets that was translated. Members believe because of the ancient origins.
D&C: Modern revelations by a modern prophet. Members believe because it's canonized scripture from someone that's seen as a modern prophet.
BoA: I feel like this one is an anomaly because the catalyst was, "We found this ancient record. I know a guy that can translate it." Joseph was put on the spot to produce something.

The church quickly arrived at where it is today. A church leader says something and members believe/accept it at face value. Today there's no upside to canonization. Canonization only paints the church into a corner. Why bother with any of that when members are primed to accept policy change and general conference talks as binding revelation?

(unless it's about wearing a mask and you're an AA or below on the totem pole)