{"id":8521,"date":"2026-06-13T18:14:27","date_gmt":"2026-06-14T01:14:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/?p=8521"},"modified":"2026-06-13T18:20:46","modified_gmt":"2026-06-14T01:20:46","slug":"are-revelations-still-being-revealed-in-mormonism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/2026\/06\/13\/are-revelations-still-being-revealed-in-mormonism\/","title":{"rendered":"THE PROMISE THAT CANNOT KEEP ITS WORD: Are \u201cRevelations\u201d Still Being Revealed in Modern Mormonism?"},"content":{"rendered":"

A Theological and Historical Examination from a Traditional Christian Perspective<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2726 \u2726 \u2726<\/span><\/p>\n

INTRODUCTION<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

There may be no claim more central to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than the claim that the heavens, sealed shut for nearly two millennia after the death of the apostle John, were torn open again in upstate New York in the spring of 1820. From that moment forward, according to LDS doctrine, revelation flowed without interruption \u2014 first through Joseph Smith, then through Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and down through fifteen successive Presidents of the Church to Russell M. Nelson today. The ninth Article of Faith, drafted by Joseph Smith in 1842 and canonized as scripture, makes the promise explicit: God has revealed, He does now reveal, and He will yet reveal many great and important things about the Kingdom of God.<\/p>\n

It is a striking promise. It is also, by any honest reckoning, a promise that has not kept its word.<\/p>\n

The paradox of \u201ccontinuing revelation\u201d<\/strong><\/span> in modern Mormonism is that the church, which most loudly insists on the open heavens, is the church producing the least amount of new scripture, while simultaneously asking its members to accept that the absence of new scripture is itself part of the divine plan. The last revelation canonized into the Doctrine and Covenants was Official Declaration 2, and it was promulgated in 1978. Nothing has been added in the intervening forty-eight years. President Gordon B. Hinckley, in his 1997 interview with Australian journalist David Ransom, said with disarming candor what he could hardly have meant to admit:<\/p>\n

Now we don\u2019t need a lot of continuing revelation. We have a great, basic reservoir of revelation. But if a problem arises, as it does occasionally, a vexatious thing with which we have to deal, we go to the Lord in prayer. We discuss it as a First Presidency and as a Council of the Twelve Apostles. We pray about it and then comes the whisperings of a still small voice. And we know the direction we should take and we proceed accordingly.<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Gordon B. Hinckley, Compass Interview with David Ransom, ABC Australia, November 9, 1997<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That is a remarkable statement from the President of a church whose entire claim to restored authority rests on the principle that revelation must continue. And it is the central paradox we propose to examine.<\/p>\n

This essay does not argue that Latter-day Saints are insincere. Many are devout, prayerful, and morally serious people who genuinely believe that their leaders speak for God. The argument is rather that the LDS doctrine of continuing revelation, examined historically and theologically, has become something its founders did not intend and its members may not always recognize: a religious blank check that can be drawn against to retire embarrassing doctrines, adjust corporate policies, and accommodate cultural pressures, while preserving the rhetorical claim of a living oracle. We will compare the LDS model to the biblical pattern, look closely at what modern \u201crevelations\u201d<\/strong><\/span> actually consist of, examine why real LDS revelation has effectively stopped, address the problematic universalization of revelation to every member, and place the LDS view in conversation with other religions that have made similar claims \u2014 Bah\u00e1\u2019\u00ed, Quaker, Pentecostal, Sikh, Reform Judaism, and the Community of Christ.<\/p>\n

The case can be made, we believe, without rancor and without dismissing the sincere convictions of Latter-day Saints. It is a case that needs making \u2014 for the sake of the LDS members who find themselves caught between official rhetoric and observable reality, and for the sake of the broader Christian witness which holds that in these last days God has spoken to us by His Son.<\/p>\n

\u2726 \u2726 \u2726<\/span><\/p>\n

I. THE FOUNDATIONAL PROMISE OF AN OPEN CANON<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

To understand what continuing revelation means inside Mormonism, one must begin with the ninth Article of Faith:<\/p>\n

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Joseph Smith, Articles of Faith 1:9 (1842)<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The article carries a tense structure that bears notice: past, present, and future. God has<\/i> revealed; God does<\/i> now reveal; God will yet<\/i> reveal. The grammar itself is a promise, and the promise is open-ended.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Elder James E. Faust of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, preaching at the October 1989 General Conference, devoted an entire address to that article. He framed continuing revelation not as occasional or supplemental, but as constitutive of the Latter-day Saint identity:<\/p>\n

I wish to speak today of a special dimension of the gospel: the necessity for constant communication with God through the process known as divine revelation. This principle is basic to our belief.<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 James E. Faust, \u201cContinuous Revelation,\u201d General Conference, October 1989<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A few sentences later, Faust quoted Wilford Woodruff to define the principle even more sharply: \u201cWhenever the Lord had a people on the earth that He acknowledged as such, that people were led by revelation.\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>The corollary is unmistakable: a true church must produce ongoing prophetic revelation, and any church that does not is, by Mormon definition, not the true church.<\/p>\n

President George Q. Cannon, formerly of the First Presidency, pressed the claim further still, arguing that even the existing scriptures \u2014 Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants \u2014 would be insufficient without the constant production of new revelation:<\/p>\n

We have the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants; but all these books, without the living oracles and a constant stream of revelation from the Lord, would not lead any people into the Celestial Kingdom of God.<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, sel. Jerreld L. Newquist (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1987), p. 252<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is a startling theological claim. It asserts that even the canonized scriptures of the LDS Church \u2014 including their own uniquely Mormon scriptures \u2014 are not in themselves sufficient to save. Only the \u201cliving oracles\u201d<\/strong><\/span> can do that. The implication is that revelation must flow continuously, or the saving machinery breaks down.<\/p>\n

Joseph Smith himself grounded the claim in an even bolder principle. In his Teachings<\/i>, Joseph used the example of God\u2019s commands to Moses to argue that revelation must be adjusted to circumstance:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

God said, \u2018Thou shalt not kill\u2019 (Deuteronomy 5:17); at another time He said, \u2018Thou shalt utterly destroy\u2019 (Deuteronomy 7:2). This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted \u2014 by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed.<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City, 1976), pp. 256\u2013257<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is not a marginal passage. It is the philosophical foundation of the entire LDS theory of revelation. Whatever God requires is right; what God requires can change; and the church is led by a prophet who knows the change as it occurs.<\/p>\n

The system, viewed from inside, is internally coherent. The question is what it looks like from outside \u2014 and what happens when the promised stream of revelation thins to a trickle.<\/p>\n

\u2726 \u2726 \u2726<\/span><\/p>\n

II. THE TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN POSITION: A CLOSED CANON AND A SUFFICIENT CHRIST<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

Historic Christianity, in nearly all its branches \u2014 Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, and most evangelical traditions \u2014 holds that public, doctrinally binding revelation closed with the apostolic era. This is not a recent Protestant invention; it is the settled judgment of the early church. The Vatican II Council, speaking for Roman Catholicism, summarized the consensus this way: \u201cno new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord, Jesus Christ\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>(cited in Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura<\/i>, 2001, p. 161). The Catholic Church distinguishes between this closed public revelation and what it terms private revelation, which may be recognized by the church only insofar as it does not \u201cclaim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfilment\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 67).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The biblical case for a closed canon rests on several converging texts. The opening of the epistle to the Hebrews announces the climactic and final character of God\u2019s self-disclosure in Christ:<\/p>\n

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Hebrews 1:1\u20132 (KJV)<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The author\u2019s argument is structural. The variegated, partial, episodic revelations of the prophetic era \u2014 polumer\u014ds kai polutrop\u014ds<\/i> in the Greek, \u201cin many parts and many ways\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>\u2014 are contrasted with the singular, final, climactic revelation in the Son. The Son does not initiate a new and ongoing prophetic era; He is<\/i> the era. He is the final Word.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Jude, writing later still, urged believers to contend \u201cfor the faith which was once delivered unto the saints\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>(Jude 3). The Greek word translated \u201conce\u201d<\/strong><\/span> is hapax<\/i>, meaning once for all, definitively, with no expectation of repetition or supplement. The faith was delivered. It was still not being delivered.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The book of Revelation closes with what has often been taken as a literary signature for the entire canon:<\/p>\n

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life\u2026<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Revelation 22:18\u201319 (KJV)<\/span><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The most basic Christian charge against the LDS doctrine of continuing revelation is therefore not that it adds something extra \u2014 it is that it claims the right to add. The Latter-day Saint replies, correctly, that the warning in Revelation 22 was originally aimed at that book alone. The traditional Christian replies, also correctly, that the same warning appears in substance in Deuteronomy 4:2 and Proverbs 30:6 \u2014 the principle of canonical closure is older than the Apocalypse, and the New Testament merely seals it.<\/p>\n

The strongest text in the entire debate may be Paul\u2019s word to Timothy:<\/p>\n

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 2 Timothy 3:16\u201317 (KJV)<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Greek word artios<\/i> \u2014 \u201cperfect\u201d or \u201ccomplete\u201d<\/strong><\/span> \u2014 combined with ex\u0113rtismenos<\/i>, \u201cthoroughly equipped,\u201d<\/strong><\/span> makes Paul\u2019s point unmistakable. Scripture, rightly received, is sufficient. The man or woman of God is equipped unto all good works<\/i> by the Scripture that already exists. There is no equipping deficit waiting for the next \u201cliving oracle\u201d<\/strong><\/span> to fill.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The pastor and Bible expositor John MacArthur has stated the conservative Protestant position with characteristic clarity: when the apostolic era ended, the canon closed, and any subsequent claim to fresh public revelation must be tested against \u2014 and ultimately refused by \u2014 what God has already said. \u201cIt has a beginning, and it has an end,\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>MacArthur observes, \u201cand when the book of Revelation was completed, and the writings of John at the end of the first century, the canon was complete and God has not revealed His Word since that time\u201d <\/strong><\/em><\/span>(\u201cIs God Still Revealing Truth?\u201d<\/em> Grace to You sermon, 2013).<\/p>\n

What MacArthur insists, and what nearly the whole historic Christian tradition insists with him, is not that God has gone silent in every sense. The Holy Spirit still convicts, comforts, illumines Scripture, and leads believers personally. What has ceased is public<\/i> revelation \u2014 revelation binding on the whole church, adding to or correcting the deposit of faith already given. The Bible equips the church in any age to meet the issues of that age. It does not require updating.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This is, in fact, exactly what 2 Peter 1:3 teaches:<\/p>\n

His divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue.<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 2 Peter 1:3 (KJV)<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

All things<\/i>. Not most things, awaiting a Joseph Smith. Not the basics, awaiting a living prophet. All things<\/i>.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2726 \u2726 \u2726<\/span><\/p>\n

III. THE PATTERN OF MODERN LDS \u201cREVELATION\u201d: REVERSAL RATHER THAN ADDITION<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

When one examines what modern LDS \u201crevelations\u201d<\/strong> <\/span>actually consist of \u2014 not in the broad rhetoric of General Conference but in the concrete record of the last 150 years \u2014 a striking pattern emerges. The major declared revelations of the post-Joseph-Smith era have not added new doctrine. They have reversed prior doctrine.<\/p>\n

Consider the canonical examples.<\/p>\n

The 1890 Manifesto (Official Declaration 1)<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\n

For nearly half a century, the LDS Church had taught that plural marriage was a celestial principle, essential to the highest exaltation. Brigham Young in 1866 declared, \u201cThe only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>(Journal of Discourses<\/i> 11:269). Apostle Orson Pratt, John Taylor, and others taught the same. Then, under enormous federal pressure \u2014 the Edmunds-Tucker Act, the threatened seizure of Church property, the Reynolds and Late Corporation Supreme Court decisions \u2014 President Wilford Woodruff issued the 1890 Manifesto reversing the practice. A revelation that had been said to be eternal and indispensable for exaltation was suspended.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It should be noted that Sandra Tanner of Utah Lighthouse Ministry, who is alive and continues her decades-long work documenting LDS history, has long pointed out that the Manifesto did not, in fact, stop plural marriage immediately. New polygamous sealings continued under Church authority for over a decade until the 1904 Second Manifesto by Joseph F. Smith. The reversal of the reversal was, itself, an extended process.<\/p>\n

Official Declaration 2 (1978)<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\n

From the 1840s under Brigham Young until June 8, 1978, members of African descent were barred from the LDS priesthood and from the temple. The 1949 First Presidency statement defended the practice as a direct commandment from the Lord, calling it \u201ca matter of \u2026 direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> Then, by revelation announced through President Spencer W. Kimball in 1978, the ban was lifted, and the priesthood was extended to all worthy male members regardless of race.<\/p>\n

Latter-day Saints today universally celebrate the 1978 revelation, and rightly so. But the underlying theological problem cannot simply be celebrated away. For 130 years, the prior teaching was defended as revelation. For the half-century since 1978, the new teaching has been defended as a revelation. Both cannot be true at the level of binding divine command, and the more recent LDS Gospel Topics<\/i> essay on \u201cRace and the Priesthood\u201d<\/em> effectively concedes that the prior teachings stemmed from racial theories of the nineteenth century rather than divine revelation. The essay disavows the very theological justifications that past prophets had presented as the word of God.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The November 2015 Policy \/ 2019 Reversal<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\n

In November 2015, the Church quietly added to its non-public Handbook 1<\/i> a provision defining members in same-sex marriages as in a state of apostasy, and barring the children of such relationships from naming, blessing, baptism, confirmation, ordination, or missionary service until age 18. The policy provoked an immediate firestorm. Within days, the First Presidency issued a clarifying letter narrowing the provisions. Two months later, in January 2016, Elder Russell M. Nelson \u2014 then President of the Quorum of the Twelve \u2014 declared publicly that the policy had been received as \u201cthe mind and will of the Lord\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> through President Thomas S. Monson.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The LDS blog Times and Seasons<\/i> devoted an entire detailed analysis to whether the new addition to the Handbook was policy or revelation, noting:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

If those who view Elder Nelson\u2019s statements as a firm declaration that the New Policy is a big-R Revelation are correct, we ought to expect a document, an Official Declaration 3, to be published at some point. Revelations are not blank checks, after all \u2014 a big-R Revelation, at least in the Mormon view of revelation, entails that something specific is revealed.<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Dave Banack, \u201cPolicy or Revelation?\u201d Times and Seasons, January 14, 2016<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

No Official Declaration 3 was forthcoming. Instead, in April 2019, after Russell M. Nelson became Church President, the policy was quietly reversed. Children of same-sex couples could once again be baptized; members in same-sex marriages would no longer automatically face disciplinary councils for apostasy. What had been declared the will of the Lord in 2015 was undeclared in 2019.<\/p>\n

The pattern across these three examples is consistent. In each case, a doctrine or policy was declared as revelation, defended for years or decades, and ultimately reversed under combined social, legal, and demographic pressure. The reversal was itself then declared a revelation. Both the initial position and its opposite cannot have been the unchanging will of God. The most honest conclusion is that at least one of them \u2014 and quite possibly both \u2014 represented something other than what was claimed.<\/p>\n

\u2726 \u2726 \u2726<\/span><\/p>\n

IV. REAL LDS REVELATION HAS STOPPED<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

It is at this point that the central diagnostic claim of this essay must be stated plainly: real LDS revelation, in the sense Joseph Smith would have recognized, has effectively stopped<\/i>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This is not a polemical statement. It is a statistical and historical observation that thoughtful Latter-day Saints themselves have repeatedly made.<\/p>\n

Consider what Joseph Smith produced. In the twenty years between his first vision in 1820 and his death in 1844, Joseph Smith produced or claimed to produce: the Book of Mormon (some 270,000 words of new scripture), the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham, hundreds of additional canonized revelations now comprising the Doctrine and Covenants, the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, the Articles of Faith, and the King Follett Discourse. Elder James E. Faust himself observed in his 1989 address:<\/p>\n

The greatest revelator in our time has been Joseph Smith. In the difficult period between 1823 and 1843, just twenty years, 134 revelations were received, printed, and made public.<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 James E. Faust, \u201cContinuous Revelation,\u201d General Conference, October 1989<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Now consider what has been produced since Joseph Smith\u2019s death \u2014 and especially since the late nineteenth century. From 1844 to the present, just three substantive items have been added to the canonical Doctrine and Covenants beyond the original Joseph Smith material:<\/p>\n

\u2022 Section 136<\/b> \u2014 Brigham Young\u2019s 1847 revelation on the Camp of Israel (organizing the westward trek).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Section 138<\/b> \u2014 Joseph F. Smith\u2019s 1918 vision of the redemption of the dead.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Official Declarations 1 and 2<\/b> \u2014 the 1890 Manifesto and the 1978 priesthood revelation.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

That is essentially the entire canonical output of the LDS Church across 182 years. By contrast, the Community of Christ (formerly the Reorganized LDS Church) has canonized dozens of additional sections into its parallel Doctrine and Covenants over the same period, treating continuing revelation as something that actually generates ongoing canonical scripture.<\/p>\n

The blog Mormon Matters<\/i> posed the question in an article titled \u201cWhere Have All the Revelations Gone?\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> \u2014 a title that captures the felt absence in the LDS community itself. Elder John A. Widtsoe of the Quorum of the Twelve, when asked years ago how long it had been since the Church had received a revelation, gave a famously elastic answer: \u201cOh, probably since last Thursday\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> (cited in Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in Holy Places<\/i>, pp. 132\u2013133).<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The answer was meant to reassure. It cannot reassure. If the answer is \u201clast Thursday\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>but the canon has not grown in forty-eight years, then whatever was received last Thursday is not the kind of revelation Joseph Smith received. It is a private confirmation, an administrative impression, a sense of guidance \u2014 all of which the historic Christian also experiences through the indwelling Holy Spirit. It is not a new public scripture binding upon the church. The LDS Church has, in effect, redefined \u201crevelation\u201d<\/strong><\/span> downward, retaining the rhetoric of the open canon while operating, in practice, as if the canon is closed.<\/p>\n

This is not a hostile observation. It is the observation Elder Boyd K. Packer essentially made when he conceded, in his 1974 General Conference address, that the modifications and changes to Joseph Smith\u2019s revelations were:<\/p>\n

Basically minor refinements in grammar, expression, punctuation, clarification. Nothing fundamental has been altered.<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Boyd K. Packer, \u201cWe Believe All That God Has Revealed,\u201d Ensign, May 1974<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The fundamental revelations belong to the founding era. What follows is refinement.<\/p>\n

And so the curious situation: the church that most strenuously denies that the canon is closed has, in fact, behaved for nearly a century and a half as if it were closed. The doctrine of continuing revelation has, slowly and almost imperceptibly, become a doctrine of continuing administration.<\/p>\n

\u2726 \u2726 \u2726<\/span><\/p>\n

V. POLICY OR REVELATION? THE VANISHING DISTINCTION AND THE \u201cMOVING GOALPOSTS\u201d<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

Latter-day Saints have themselves felt the difficulty of the situation, and one of the most candid acknowledgments comes from within the apostolic ranks. Elder Dallin H. Oaks, writing in the Ensign<\/i> in March 1997, offered a distinction that has since become standard in LDS internal discourse:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Revelations from God \u2026 are not constant. We believe in continuing revelation, not continuous revelation. We are often left to work out problems without the dictation or specific direction of the Spirit.<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Dallin H. Oaks, \u201cTeaching and Learning by the Spirit,\u201d Ensign, March 1997<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is a careful and honest concession. It also opens a door that cannot easily be shut. If revelation is not constant<\/i>, if the brethren are often left to work out problems without the dictation or specific direction of the Spirit<\/i>, then the rhetoric of \u201cthe Lord\u2019s prophet declaring the mind and will of the Lord\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>must be applied with much greater caution than it generally is. The distinction between \u201ccontinuing\u201d and \u201ccontinuous\u201d<\/strong><\/span> is functioning, in practice, as a way of preserving the claim<\/i> of ongoing revelation while quietly admitting that most of what the leadership does is the same kind of considered judgment that any thoughtful religious leadership exercises.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The distinction between policy<\/i> and revelation<\/i> has become similarly fraught. The 2015 same-sex marriage Handbook<\/i> changes were first explained as policy by Elder D. Todd Christofferson, then re-described as revelation by Elder Nelson, then quietly reversed in 2019. The Word of Wisdom (D&C 89) was given as advice \u201cnot by commandment or constraint,\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>then progressively elevated to a binding standard with temple recommend implications. The minimum age for missionary service was lowered in October 2012 \u2014 was that a revelation or a policy? Members were not told explicitly. The temple ceremony itself was revised significantly in 1990, again in 2019, and again in 2021 \u2014 each revision presented as inspired but not as revelation in the formal sense.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

A 2014 piece archived in Times and Seasons<\/i>, examining the inner logic of the system, observed wryly:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Continuing revelation can make it difficult for scholars or critics to pin down fixed, unalterable doctrines, as almost any teaching can be recontextualized or set aside by subsequent leadership.<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Times and Seasons, \u201cSome Ironies of Continuing Revelation,\u201d March 2014<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is precisely the \u201cmoving goalposts\u201d<\/strong> <\/span>problem. The doctrine of continuing revelation creates the conditions under which no past doctrine can be regarded as fully fixed. The Latter-day Saint historian Grant Underwood, a BYU professor, framed the same point as a virtue at a 2008 Sperry Symposium: \u201cWell folks, let us celebrate the reality of ongoing revelation. It is manifest in the revisions. Let us try to savor and understand what was going on\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> (Deseret News<\/i> Mormon Times, October 29, 2008).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

But the celebration is precisely the worry. If revisions are the proof, then revelation has no shape. It is whatever the brethren say it is, when they say it. And what is said today can be unsaid tomorrow.<\/p>\n

\u2726 \u2726 \u2726<\/span><\/p>\n

VI. CONTINUING REVELATION AS THEOLOGICAL BLANK CHECK<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

This brings us to the heart of the critique. The doctrine of continuing revelation, as operative in modern Mormonism, functions as a theological blank check. When a past teaching becomes uncomfortable \u2014 racially, sexually, scientifically, politically \u2014 continuing revelation allows it to be quietly retired without admitting that the prior teaching was ever wrong. When a new pressure arises, continuing revelation provides cover for the leadership to respond as it judges best, with the implicit assurance that the response carries divine sanction.<\/p>\n

The candor of Apostle Orson F. Whitney in 1916 is striking in this regard:<\/p>\n

Divine revelation adapts itself to the circumstances and conditions of men, and change upon change ensues as God\u2019s progressive work goes on to its destiny. There is no book big enough or good enough to preside over this Church.<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Orson F. Whitney, Conference Reports, October 1916, p. 55<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cChange upon change ensues.\u201d<\/strong> <\/span>That is the principle. Whitney intended this as a triumph; what it sounds like to the outside observer is a structural license for unbounded doctrinal mutation. Other religions hold their doctrines fixed and adjust their practical applications. Mormonism, under the principle of continuing revelation, can adjust the doctrines themselves.<\/p>\n

The Mormon writer L Thomas, in a candid piece for the LDS blog Rational Faiths<\/i>, identified a related irony: continuing revelation in practice often prevents<\/i> doctrinal change rather than producing it, because each past teaching is held to be revealed and therefore difficult to revise. He cited the 1949 First Presidency statement on the priesthood ban as an example: \u201cNo scriptures were quoted in the letter. Past statements in talks by former leaders were enough to set the policy.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> The very weight of the prior \u201crevelations\u201d<\/strong> <\/span>made each new \u201crevelation\u201d<\/strong><\/span> harder to embrace.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

What the rhetoric of continuing revelation actually accomplishes in practice is therefore curiously contradictory. It permits changes that would otherwise be doctrinally impossible \u2014 but only when the leadership is finally ready to make them, and only at a pace that has consistently lagged behind the surrounding culture. The 1978 priesthood revelation came thirteen years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The 2019 reversal of the same-sex marriage policy came four years after Obergefell v. Hodges<\/i>. Changes arrive eventually, often labeled as revelation, but the timing typically follows social pressure rather than leading it.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The Latter-day Saint apologist Jeff Lindsay, in his honest essay on prophetic fallibility, has acknowledged this candidly:<\/p>\n

Continuing revelation is needed to correct past ignorance, overcome human errors, and provide new truth and knowledge when the Lord sees fit to give it. As long as there are mortal leaders in the Church, their knowledge and views will not all be based on revelation from God, meaning that they inevitably will have their own human views.<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Jeff Lindsay, \u201cFallible Mormon Prophets,\u201d jefflindsay.com<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is a substantial concession. If the prophets\u2019 knowledge and views will not all be based on revelation<\/i>, then the central claim that the Church is guided by revelation requires very careful qualification. In practice, the qualification rarely makes it to the pulpit. In the General Conference, the rhetoric is uniformly that \u201cthe Lord directs His Church through His prophet.\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>In private blogs and apologetic essays, the rhetoric softens to \u201cthe prophets are imperfect men doing their best.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The believer, therefore, lives in a kind of doctrinal double exposure. The same teaching that is \u201cthe Lord\u2019s direction\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> in conference is \u201cthe considered judgment of fallible men\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>when defending a past embarrassment. The doctrine of continuing revelation does not resolve the tension; it institutionalizes it.<\/p>\n

\u2726 \u2726 \u2726<\/span><\/p>\n

VII. THE PROBLEMATIC UNIVERSALIZATION OF PERSONAL REVELATION<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

A second and equally significant difficulty with the LDS doctrine concerns the claim, frequently repeated, that every<\/i> Latter-day Saint may receive revelation. Russell M. Nelson, then of the Quorum of the Twelve, said it pointedly in 2009: \u201cEvery Latter-day Saint may merit personal revelation\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> (Ensign<\/i>, November 2009, p. 83).<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The teaching is rooted in Joseph Smith himself: \u201cThe Holy Ghost is a revelator; no man can receive the Holy Ghost without receiving revelations.\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>Each member is encouraged to seek and receive personal revelation. Bishops receive revelation for their wards, stake presidents for their stakes, and parents for their families. The Church functions, in theory, as a vast pyramid of personal revelation in which everyone has access to direct divine communication within the limits of their stewardship.<\/p>\n

The problem is that this universalization, taken seriously, would produce religious anarchy \u2014 and the LDS Church has therefore had to hedge it heavily with hierarchical constraints. Joseph F. Smith stated the constraint with bluntness:<\/p>\n

It is not my business nor that of any other individual to rise up as a revelator, as a prophet, as a seer, as an inspired man, to give revelation for the guidance of the Church\u2026 It is the right of individuals to be inspired and to receive manifestations of the Holy Spirit for their personal guidance\u2026 but not further. The moment an individual rises up assuming the right to control and to dictate or to sit in judgment on his brethren, especially upon those who preside, he should be promptly checked, or discord, division and confusion would be the result.<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Joseph F. Smith, Journal of Discourses 24:189\u2013190 (June 21, 1883)<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is the structural tension at the heart of LDS revelation. Every member can receive revelation \u2014 but only revelation that confirms what the leadership has already said. Apostle Dallin H. Oaks underscored the same boundary in his teacher\u2019s manual: \u201cOnly the President of the Church receives revelation to guide the entire Church. \u2026 The person who receives revelation for the ward is the bishop. \u2026 Individuals can receive revelation to guide their own lives.\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>Cross those lines, and your \u201crevelation\u201d<\/strong><\/span> is by definition not of the Lord.<\/p>\n

What this produces is a curious epistemic situation. The Latter-day Saint is told that revelation is real, available, and personal \u2014 and is simultaneously told that no revelation contradicting the hierarchy is valid. The check on personal revelation is the hierarchy; the check on the hierarchy is, supposedly, the Holy Ghost confirming the hierarchy to the individual. The system is closed. There is no outside vantage point from which the system can be falsified \u2014 by design.<\/p>\n

Compare the biblical pattern. The Bereans of Acts 17:11 are praised because they \u201csearched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>Their test for Paul\u2019s teaching was the existing written canon, not the apostle\u2019s claim to authority. Paul himself wrote to the Galatians, \u201cThough we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>(Galatians 1:8). The test, for Paul, was the gospel already delivered, not the office of the messenger.<\/p>\n

The LDS system inverts this. The test of revelation is whether it harmonizes with the living hierarchy. Scripture is, in practice, subordinate to the living prophet. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie said it openly: \u201cWe could be saved without the Bible, but we cannot be saved without latter-day revelation\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> (\u201cThe Bible: A Sealed Book,\u201d BYU speech, August 1984). And BYU Professor Emeritus Robert L. Millet observed:<\/p>\n

Most Latter-day Saints would be prone to answer this by pointing out the value and significance of living oracles, or continuing revelation, or ongoing divine direction through modern apostles and prophets, and thus to conclude that living prophets take precedence over canonized scripture.<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Robert L. Millet, Claiming Christ, p. 31<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is the precise inversion the historic Christian must respectfully resist. In the biblical pattern, the prophet is judged by the Word. In the LDS pattern, the Word is judged by the living prophet. The two cannot coexist, and the difference matters at the level of how truth itself is identified.<\/p>\n

\u2726 \u2726 \u2726<\/span><\/p>\n

VIII. THE BIBLICAL EQUIPMENT OF THE SAINTS IN ANY AGE<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

A fair LDS rejoinder must now be heard. Members of the Church often press the question: Does modern culture, with its bewildering speed and moral complexity, not require<\/i> ongoing prophetic guidance? Was there ever an age more in need of a living oracle than the age of artificial intelligence, gender ideology, geopolitical chaos, and global moral confusion?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The question is sincere, and the answer is direct: Scripture, given by inspiration of God, was given precisely for an age like ours \u2014 and for every age before and after.<\/p>\n

Consider the bandwidth of the Bible. It addresses, by direct teaching or by principle:<\/p>\n

\u2022 The nature and proper use of human sexuality (Genesis 1\u20132; Matthew 19; Romans 1; 1 Corinthians 6\u20137).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 The dignity and equal value of every human person, regardless of race or status (Genesis 1:27; Acts 17:26; Galatians 3:28).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 The use and stewardship of wealth (Deuteronomy 8; Proverbs; Matthew 6; James 5; 1 Timothy 6).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 The relationship of believers to civil government (Romans 13; 1 Peter 2; Acts 5:29).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 The conduct of family life, marriage, parenting, and singleness (Ephesians 5\u20136; 1 Corinthians 7; Proverbs).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 The handling of suffering, grief, and persecution (Job; Psalms; Romans 8; 2 Corinthians; 1 Peter).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 The character and conduct of church leadership (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1; 1 Peter 5).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 The discernment of false teaching and false prophets (Deuteronomy 13; Matthew 7; 2 Peter 2; 1 John 4).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The claim of historic Christianity is not that Scripture answers every twenty-first-century question by name. It does not. There is no verse on cryptocurrency, gain-of-function research, or social media algorithms. The claim is that Scripture supplies the principles<\/i> by which every such question can be addressed wisely. The man or woman of God is, in Paul\u2019s language, thoroughly equipped unto all good works<\/i> (2 Timothy 3:17). The equipping is principled and sufficient, not exhaustive and exhausting.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

What modern culture requires is not more revelation. It is more application<\/i> of the revelation already given \u2014 and the courage to hold the line against the cultural pressures that the LDS Church has so often capitulated to under the cover of \u201cnew revelation.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2726 \u2726 \u2726<\/span><\/p>\n

IX. THE DIAGNOSTIC CLAIM RESTATED: WHY REAL LDS REVELATION HAS STOPPED<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

It is worth returning to the diagnostic claim with the evidence now in view. Real LDS revelation has stopped, in the following specific senses:<\/p>\n

1. <\/b>Nothing has been added to the canonical Doctrine and Covenants since 1978.<\/b> The standard works of the LDS Church have not grown in nearly half a century.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

2. <\/b>The \u201crevelations\u201d of recent decades have been operational, not doctrinal.<\/b> Changes to missionary age, the length of Sunday meetings, the consolidation of priesthood quorums, the dress code for Sister missionaries, the renovation of the temple ceremony \u2014 these are administrative refinements, not new theological content.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

3. <\/b>The President of the Church has, in practice, been functioning as Chief Executive Officer of a global corporation rather than as a Joseph Smith-style prophet.<\/b> The current First Presidency oversees a multi-hundred-billion-dollar portfolio, a worldwide missionary force, hundreds of temples, and an extensive bureaucracy. The \u201crevelations\u201d<\/strong><\/span> naturally tend toward the operational because the institution itself is operational.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

4. <\/b>What is claimed as revelation is increasingly defended based on process \u2014 fasting, praying, deliberating, councils \u2014 rather than based on received content.<\/b> Read carefully Russell M. Nelson\u2019s 2016 description of how the same-sex marriage policy was received: it describes a council of fifteen \u201cwrestling at length\u201d with \u201ccountless permutations and combinations\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>before President Monson made the call. That is the language of corporate deliberation with a divine overlay. It is not the language of \u201cThus saith the Lord.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

5. <\/b>The brethren themselves admit that revelation is \u201cnot constant\u201d and that they are \u201coften left to work out problems without the dictation or specific direction of the Spirit\u201d (Oaks, 1997).<\/b> This is a sober, honest admission. It is also the death of the founding claim, if the founding claim is to be taken at full strength.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The honest conclusion is that the LDS Church today operates on the rhetorical capital of an open canon while running, in practice, a closed one. The promise has outlived the production.<\/p>\n

\u2726 \u2726 \u2726<\/span><\/p>\n

X. CONTINUING REVELATION IN OTHER RELIGIONS \u2014 AND THE BIBLICAL ANSWER<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

Mormonism is not alone in claiming ongoing revelation. Several religious traditions, with very different theologies, share something like the open-canon position. A brief survey clarifies the LDS situation by placing it in a comparative context \u2014 and allows the biblical response to each to be stated.<\/p>\n

The Bah\u00e1\u2019\u00ed Faith<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\n

The Bah\u00e1\u2019\u00ed Faith, founded in nineteenth-century Persia by Bah\u00e1\u2019u\u2019ll\u00e1h, teaches progressive revelation<\/i> \u2014 the doctrine that God has revealed Himself successively through a series of \u201cManifestations\u201d<\/strong><\/span> including Abraham, Moses, Krishna, Zoroaster, the Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, the B\u00e1b, and Bah\u00e1\u2019u\u2019ll\u00e1h, with each manifestation adjusted to the spiritual capacity of the age. The Bah\u00e1\u2019\u00ed position is more sweeping than the LDS position: it absorbs all major world religions as stages of a single unfolding revelation.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Biblical response.<\/i><\/strong><\/span> The Bah\u00e1\u2019\u00ed view fails the test of Galatians 1:8. Paul\u2019s anathema applies even to an angel from heaven who preaches another gospel. Jesus Himself said, \u201cI am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/span> (John 14:6). A theology that flattens Jesus into one manifestation among many surrenders the very claim of His uniqueness that makes Christianity Christian.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\n

The Quakers teach the doctrine of the Inner Light<\/i><\/strong><\/span> \u2014 the presence of God within every person, providing direct illumination apart from any written Word. Quaker worship is famously silent, awaiting the Spirit\u2019s prompting. There is no priesthood, no fixed creed, and no closed canon in any meaningful sense.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Biblical response.<\/i><\/strong><\/span> The Quaker position has produced a long and often noble moral tradition, but it suffers the same anchorage problem as Mormonism: if the Inner Light becomes the test of Scripture rather than Scripture the test of the inner experience, the believer has no fixed point. The same Spirit who illumines the believer is the Spirit who inspired the written Word (2 Peter 1:21). The two cannot conflict. When they appear to, the Word stands.<\/span><\/p>\n

Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\n

The classical Pentecostal and modern Charismatic movements affirm that the gifts of the Spirit \u2014 including prophecy, words of knowledge, and tongues \u2014 continue today. Most Pentecostals affirm a closed scriptural canon while holding that contemporary prophetic utterances may bring fresh impressions, guidance, or encouragement to individual believers and local congregations.<\/p>\n

Biblical response.<\/i><\/span><\/strong> This is the most modest of the modern revelation positions, and the most defensible. The Pentecostal who clearly distinguishes contemporary impressions from canonical Scripture \u2014 and who tests every prophetic word against Scripture rather than over against it \u2014 is operating within the bounds of 1 Thessalonians 5:19\u201321: \u201cQuench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>The danger comes when contemporary prophecy is elevated to canon-equivalent status, as in the so-called New Apostolic Reformation, where it has historically led to abuse and doctrinal drift.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sikhism<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\n

Sikhism, founded by Guru Nanak in the fifteenth century, holds that the Guru Granth Sahib<\/i> is the eternal living Guru, a continuing source of divine wisdom and illumination. The scripture itself is treated as ongoing revelation.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Biblical response.<\/i><\/strong><\/span> The Sikh position is closer to the historic Christian position than is often appreciated \u2014 the text itself is the ongoing source. The difficulty for the historic Christian is, of course, the question of which<\/i> text. The Bible identifies Jesus Christ as the climactic Word (Hebrews 1:1\u20132; John 1:1\u201314), and any subsequent text claiming continuing revelation outside of Him must, by Paul\u2019s standard, be refused (Galatians 1:8).<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Reform Judaism<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\n

Reform Judaism, formalized in the 1937 Columbus Platform, teaches that \u201crevelation is a continuous process, confined to no one group and to no one age.\u201d<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>This functions less as a claim to new scripture than as a hermeneutical principle: each generation reinterprets the tradition in light of its own moral situation.<\/p>\n

Biblical response.<\/i><\/strong><\/span> The orthodox Jewish reply has been that the Torah given at Sinai is final, and Reform Judaism\u2019s hermeneutic in practice tends to dissolve revelation into ethics, with the ethics frequently reflecting the prevailing culture of the day. The historic Christian agrees: the test of revelation cannot be cultural resonance.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Community of Christ (formerly RLDS)<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\n

The Community of Christ is, in some ways, the strongest test case for the LDS doctrine of continuing revelation because it shares the Joseph Smith roots and the open Doctrine and Covenants \u2014 and it actually canonizes new sections regularly. Section 162 of the Community of Christ D&C was added in 2004. Sections 163 (2007), 164 (2010), and 165 (2016) have followed. The Community of Christ has also ordained women, accepted same-sex relationships, and dramatically liberalized its theology, all based on \u201congoing revelation.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The diagnostic value of the comparison<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

The Community of Christ shows what continuing revelation looks like when it is actually practiced. The LDS Church shows what continuing revelation looks like when the rhetoric is preserved, but the practice has effectively closed. Neither result vindicates the doctrine. The Community of Christ trajectory illustrates how easily continuing revelation slides into cultural accommodation; the LDS trajectory illustrates how easily it slides into rhetorical inflation around what is, in fact, ordinary corporate administration.<\/p>\n

In every case, the biblical answer is the same. Christianity does not deny that God can speak today. It denies that any such speaking adds to, subtracts from, or corrects the deposit of faith once delivered in the canonical Scriptures. The Holy Spirit illumines what is written; He does not write something new and binding.<\/p>\n

\u2726 \u2726 \u2726<\/span><\/p>\n

XI. CONCLUSION: THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE WORD ALREADY GIVEN<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

The thoughtful Latter-day Saint, hearing the case above, may reasonably ask: What then? If continuing revelation as currently practiced does not deliver what it promises, what remains?<\/p>\n

What remains is a Word that has not failed in two millennia. A Bible that has equipped martyrs to die for their faith, comforted millions through unspeakable grief, anchored civilizations during their rise and during their decline, and brought sinners to repentance in every century since the apostles laid down their pens. A Christ whose finished work on the cross required no supplement and admits no improvement. A Holy Spirit who, indwelling every believer in Christ, illumines the written Word and conforms the believer to the image of the Son. A church that does not require new revelations because it has not yet exhausted the implications of the revelations already given.<\/p>\n

The Christian faith does not lack for living guidance. It lacks living obedience. The deficit, in any age, is not the deficit of God\u2019s speaking but of our listening.<\/p>\n

When James E. Faust closed his 1989 address on continuous revelation, he quoted J. Reuben Clark: \u201cWe do not need more or different prophets. We need more people with \u2018a listening ear.\u2019\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> On that last sentence, though not on much else, the historic Christian and the thoughtful Latter-day Saint can stand together. The listening ear is the ear bent toward what God has said. And what God has said, He has said with finality in His Son.<\/p>\n

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.<\/i><\/p>\n

\u2014 Hebrews 1:1\u20132 (KJV)<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That speaking remains the speaking. The promise of continuing revelation is, in the end, the promise that cannot keep its word \u2014 because the Word has already been kept, in the person of Christ Himself.<\/p>\n

\u2726 \u2726 \u2726<\/span><\/p>\n

PRIMARY SOURCES CONSULTED<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\n

The following sources were consulted in the preparation of this essay. URL citations are provided for transparency and further research.<\/p>\n

\u2022 https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Revelation_in_Mormonism<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Continuous_revelation<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/List_of_non-canonical_revelations_in_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/rsc.byu.edu\/latter-day-saint-essentials\/revelation<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/www.churchofjesuschrist.org\/study\/general-conference\/1989\/10\/continuous-revelation?lang=eng<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/www.churchofjesuschrist.org\/study\/general-conference\/1986\/10\/the-gift-of-modern-revelation?lang=eng<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/mormonbeliefs.org\/temples-and-prophets\/living-prophets\/continuing-revelation\/<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/www.understandingmormonism.org\/modern_revelation<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/mrm.org\/revelation-modern-day<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/mrm.org\/continuing-revelation<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/askgramps.org\/modern-prophets-modern-revelation-predecessors\/<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/archive.timesandseasons.org\/2014\/03\/some-ironies-of-continuing-revelation\/index.html<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/archive.timesandseasons.org\/2016\/01\/policy-or-revelation\/index.html<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/rationalfaiths.com\/continuing-revelation-prevents-change-mormonism\/<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/www.fairlatterdaysaints.org\/blog\/2014\/08\/01\/we-believe-all-that-god-has-revealed<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/www.fairlatterdaysaints.org\/blog\/2021\/12\/11\/inspiration-intellect-and-rethinking-revelation<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/www.jefflindsay.com\/fallible.shtml<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/www.mormonmatters.org\/where-have-all-the-revelations-gone\/<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/www.mormondialogue.org\/topic\/76066-has-modern-revelation-stopped\/<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/osaywhatistruthorg.wordpress.com\/2019\/06\/14\/does-the-book-of-mormon-corroborate-lds-church-claims-of-divine-revelation-and-do-church-leaders-receive-more-of-it\/<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/medium.com\/@DonaMajicShow\/the-paradox-of-revelation-9218c9f2d98d<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/ddonblog2.wordpress.com\/category\/continuing-revelation\/<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/mormon\/comments\/sciepn\/why_does_continuous_revelation_make_the_church\/<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/exmormon\/comments\/1ri1idw\/russell_m_nelson_called_it_the_mind_of_the_lord\/<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/www.mormonstories.org\/how_does_revelation_happen_within_the_lds_church\/<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/speeches.byuh.edu\/devotionals\/receiving-and-recognizing-revelation<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/www.gty.org\/sermons\/90-53\/does-god-still-give-revelation<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/www.britannica.com\/topic\/revelation<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/christianity.stackexchange.com\/questions\/66641\/which-denominations-believe-in-modern-ongoing-revelation<\/u><\/a>
\n\u2022 https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/groups\/christvm\/posts\/25157387320602192\/<\/u><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

A Note on Research Methods and Accuracy<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

In recent years, some have voiced concern that artificial intelligence may distort facts or introduce inaccuracies into serious research. That criticism deserves acknowledgment. However, AI has now evolved into the most powerful research instrument available to any dedicated scholar\u2014capable of analyzing vast datasets, cross\u2011referencing historical records, and surfacing overlooked connections across sources. This work represents a collaboration between the author\u2019s investigative inquiry, verified primary documentation, and the advanced analytic capabilities of AI research tools. Here, AI was not used as a ghostwriter or a shortcut for scholarship, but as a disciplined research partner devoted to rigor, accuracy, and transparency.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Every factual claim in this work has been subjected to active verification. Where AI\u2011generated content was used as a starting point, it was tested against primary sources, peer\u2011reviewed scholarship, official institutional documentation, and established historical records. Where discrepancies were found\u2014and they were found\u2014corrections were made. The author has made every reasonable effort to ensure that quotations are accurately attributed, historical details are precisely rendered, and theological claims fairly represent the positions they describe or critique.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

That said, no work of this scope is immune to error, and the author has no interest in perpetuating inaccuracies in the service of an argument. If you are a reader\u2014whether sympathetic, skeptical, or hostile to the conclusions drawn here\u2014and you identify a factual error, a misattributed source, a misrepresented teaching, or a claim that cannot be substantiated, you are warmly and genuinely invited to say so. Reach out. The goal of this work is not to win a debate but to get the history right. Corrections offered in good faith will be received in the same spirit, and verified corrections will be incorporated into future editions without hesitation.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Truth, after all, has nothing to fear from scrutiny\u2014and neither does this work.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A Theological and Historical Examination from a Traditional Christian Perspective \u2726 \u2726 \u2726 INTRODUCTION There may be no claim more central to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than the claim that the heavens, sealed shut for nearly two millennia after the death of the apostle John, were torn open again in upstate…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":8522,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[44,45,57],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8521","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-latter-day-saints","category-mormonism","category-religion"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Continuing-revelation-header.png","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8521","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8521"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8521\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8527,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8521\/revisions\/8527"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8522"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8521"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8521"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8521"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}