There's only been a single "revelation" in the last one hundred and twenty-five years. Joseph Smith, Jnr used the revelation process to get what he wanted (sex, money and power) or to save his skin. The Church™ will face a crisis in the next twenty years and will need to change if it is going to survive.
Do any of the current prophets-in-waiting have what it takes to pull off a revelation? I don't think so. Corporate "yes" men aren't known for initiative and daring.
Mormons might believe Jeff Rabies Holland. Since he works himself into a self righteousness frenzy, of course he would be rewarded for defending the faith with a tap dancing Jesus-in the temple.
Yeah, I think that Holland could possibly be believed. If he works himself into a frenzy and maybe drops to the floor and writhes and twists. Especially if he is putting someone else down at the same time.
Oaks could get away with a very stern, hellfire-and-damnation-type revelation. He often seems to be positioning himself to be The One True Authority Who Must Never Be Contradicted.
Bednar --- oh, ick, the mere thought of him spouting a revelation is just scary. Makes me feel sick.
What could they possibly reveal? Everything about doctrine is already out there. Revelations are about doctrine. Any other changes are organizational stuff, policy changes, or rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. No revelation necessary, just these are new manuals, or youth initiatives in SS, or family history projects online, etc. What has come over the pulpit has been a defense of past revelations that they were legitimate. We all know how that's going. Members are tripping over themselves at the exit door.
I never heard the proclamation on the family referred to as a revelation until this year. TBM's just started claiming it was prophetic now that gay marriage is legal..."who, but the prophet, could have seen this coming!...the world should have listened!...god's judgements are upon us!"
Granted, that's a speculative question! But, there needs to be a concrete definition that suffices for an official Mormon sanctioned word: "revelation." As I see it, the Q15 (and TBMs) kick that one around so many times so as to either support or disavow a point they're trying to make. The term has been evolving.
It used to be that church leaders quoted from D&C 1:38 that when God's servants spoke it was the same as if God had spoken. Then a revelation was when the living prophet, the President of the Corporation spoke; then it was the First Presidency; and then the Q12 had to get in. Now it is the entire Q15 - they must all agree and the statement must be unanimous.
****** History lesson: This is what happened in general conference October 2010. Boyd Packer (now dead) said:
. . . "Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. IT QUALIFIES ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION AS A REVELATION and would do well that members of the church to read and follow it." (emphasis added)
When the official church publication, The Ensign, published the sermon the following month it read as follows:
. . . "Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. IT IS A GUIDE that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow." (emphasis added)
Obviously Packer had to change his spoken remarks. He must have received a thrashing from the others in the Q15 to edit out the term: “revelation.”
You wrote: "there needs to be a concrete definition that suffices for an official Mormon sanctioned word: 'revelation'"
Lol, good luck on that one. There are basically 2 core official Mormon doctrines anymore.
1. Follow the Latter-day Profits for LDS, inc. - duh it's a corporation and it aims to grow profits and increase the dominion of its oligarchs.
2. Everything else is "Jello" doctrine where it's easier to nail Jello to a wall than it is to nail down the Mormons on any particular beliefs. That's because it's now their core teaching that they can tap dance their way around anything. Today the Church President could say "thus saith the Lord" about something in General Conference and everyone will say "amen". Then after the choir sings he can get up and say the direct opposite and the TBM's will all just say "amen" again & thank the Lord for a living prophet without doing any serious questioning.
Well that last sentence I wrote isn't quite how it would happen because it would be bad for their #1 core principle of growing those profits. But it is the general idea on the type of control they exert over their TBMs. The key to breaking Mormonism is to keep their numbers small/dwindling and to keep exposing them for the FRAUD they are in this world of ours.