A few points. First, it’s important to remember that a revelation does not have to be canonized into scripture to be a revelation. However, since we’re talking about canonization here, we’ll stick with it.
You are correct that sections 137 and 138 were not added to the published Doctrine and Covenants until the 1981 edition. I actually did not know that.
What I am confused about is your insistence that a prophet initiate proceedings to canonize his own revelations. From the point of view of a prophet, revelation is a pretty regular thing; some have provided doctrinal exposition that has been deemed valuable, and such have been shared with the Church as such. Section 138, for example, was received on October 3, 1918, announced to the Church on the 4th, subsequently written in its entirety, and then presented to the Apostles and a few others and accepted unanimously. I do not know, but I would presume it then enjoyed widespread circulation to the members in Church publications.
I do not grasp why you see the fact that it failed to “make the cut” into the Doctrine and Covenants until later in the century as significant. The doctrine was still taught to the contemporary Church as revelation.
BEFORE it was 'scripture'?
IOW, you’ve haven’t reinforced what you said in #389, and you didn’t address my thoughts on that same wave length (from #617, which means you still need to address those]
Anyway, this is EXACTLY what happens either…
(a) …when one of us doesn’t keep track of our own posts on a long thread [and if this is what happened, I understand…it’s tough for me as well to keep my past posts straight]
(b) …or, I suppose if I wanted to castigate the worst possible motive, the only other possibility I could see if (a) above isn’t so, would be to accuse you of bait & switch tactics...where one post you're talking about revelation in a "narrow" sense and then when you know you can't defend Mormonism on that ground, you open it up to talk about revelation in the "broadest" possible sense.
Knowing of your general good will, I’ll assume that it was (a) above. My qualifier in this, tho, is that 1 or 2 LDS folks have done some similar bait & switch tactics on this exact same topic which has made me a bit leary.
Allow me to summarize what I mean, and then backtrack to document our exchange : You made this broad sweeping indictment of “Christendom” that it doesn’t “believe that God still speaks to His people.” When you said this, I thought, “Tantiboh couldn’t possibly be talking about the ‘bulk of Christendom’ because the bulk of Christendom indeed believes God still speaks to His people. (They believe this thru (a) answered prayer; (b) folks who prophesy via a spiritual gift as recorded in 1 Cor. 12; (c) thru His written Word; (d) thru His Living Word, Jesus Christ; e) thru other people...a good chunk of Christendom would even add (f) dreams, etc.)
Now I was in a hurry when I responded in 617 & didn’t include b, c, or d, e or f then…but even on (a) alone you know that what you said isn’t true. Therefore, I thought you couldn’t possibly be talking about “revelation” in the broadest possible view. You could only be talking about revelation in the “narrow” view—revelation that is imbedded in Scripture…for that’s the only type of revelation in which the “bulk of Christendom” has closed the door on. Since I couldn’t imagine you making a bald-face outrageous lie if you were indeed talking about “revelation” in the broadest sense, I answered back dealing with “revelation” in the narrow sense…I was essentially saying “OK hotshot. You want to slam ‘Christendom’ for how it treats God as ‘speaker’—let’s see what words the Mormon god as ‘speaker’ has been placed in LDS ‘Scriptures?’"
To refresh your memory, here’s what you said in post #389: We believe in an open canon. God continues to speak. If He gives new light and knowledge that the membership of the Church finds sufficiently precious to include in our scriptures, it will be included. The last time this happened was 1918 (some would argue 1978). Some think that the Proclamation to the World could appropriately be called “Section 139, pending.” Unlike the bulk of Christendom, we believe that God still speaks to His people, as He has always done. It’s a pity most people don’t choose to listen.
To sum up, you addressed (1) Open canon. (2) Revelations sufficiently precious to include in our scriptures. (3) That which was added to LDS Scriptures in declaration form. (4) Your slam against the Christian church: Unlike the bulk of Christendom, we believe that God still speaks to His people, as He has always done
Now compare your approach in 389 to those in 638/825: You go from talking about …
(a)…“open canons” in 389 to non-canonic revelations in 638 & 825…
(b)…revelations sufficiently precious to include in our scriptures in 389 to ongoing daily administrative type revelations in 638 ( Revelation is ongoing. It is operative continuously in the day-to-day direction of the Church. ) and 825 (Revelation is a pretty regular thing)
( c ) … a “Christendom” that doesn’t believe that God still speaks to His people in 389 –essentially critiquing us for not adding to the Bible—to defending the LDS Church for not adding to its own LDS “Scriptures” in 638 & 825. (IOW, precious few things have “made the cut” (post-Joseph Smith).
Talk about not staying within the confines of the direction you took the exchange! [And again, for someone less sincere than your track record, this would be classic bait & switch tactics]
So, allow me to repost #617. Please address it from the same angles you covered in #389 (open canon, revelations sufficiently precious to include in your Scriptures, that which was added in declaration form vs. revelational form, and your claim that Christendom denies that God still speaks to His people). Here it is:
Overextension. Ask most Christians if they believe, for example, if God answers prayers...they'll say "yes"...Mormons believe this too, calling this "personal revelation") On the other hand, care to tell us all exactly how many times since Smith has died that an LDS "prophet"... (a)...heard something from God... (b)...started the "canonization" process themselves... (c)...called it a "revelation" from God (and not some major social issues "declaration")? I think the "answer" is 0 times, is it not? (Wow! Some great importance it is to have that Amos 3:7 man @ the helm, eh?) [Post #617]