Talk:Official Declaration—2

Revelation vs. Declaration
The article currently states that "Unlike much of the Doctrine and Covenants, "Official Declaration—2" is not presented as a revelation from God." The last paragraph of Official Declaration-2, however, states that "it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord". That sounds like it was presented as a revelation to me. That paragraph should be removed. Alanraywiki (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The revelation (unreleased as yet to the public, as far as I am aware) was accepted as the word and will of the Lord by this action, but only the declaration that the revelation was received was canonized as OD—2 and placed in the Doctrine and Covenants. The declaration consists of a letter from the First Presidency that was written on 8 June 1978. The declaration of the revelation and the revelation are two different things. This is an article about the declaration of the revelation, not the revelation itself. The distinction is fairly widely recognized among D&C scholars; I will dig up some citations for the distinction. Snocrates 03:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, the article already has a cite for that from the D&C CES manual. It is a declaration of the revelation, not a revelation itself. Snocrates 04:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * One other example of the distinction: "The statement of the First Presidency regarding the revelation extending the priesthood to ‘all worthy male members of the Church,’ released 9 June 1978, was also added [to the Doctrine and Covenants] as Official Declaration—2". From Robert J. Woodford, “The Story of the Doctrine and Covenants,” Ensign, Dec. 1984, 32. (Notice he said the "declaration of the revelation.) Snocrates 03:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not expand to include revelation?
What's up with deleting the revelation info? This article is very tiny, and the revelation and the "declaration" are intimately related. Are we trying to make Wikipedia as hard to use as possible? What about adding revelation info into this article, and renaming it to "1978 revelation" (probably the more commonly discussed item) and include the "declaration 2" as a major section within? Alternatively, create a whole new article on the "1978 revelation". Either way is fine with me. Noleander (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is about a piece of LDS Church scripture. See the above section. OD—2 is not the revelation. Connecting articles is what the "see also" and categories are for. The main article for this information is Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, IMO. There is no need to reproduce the information on the revelation in an article about a canonized document, so long as the reader is clearly pointed in the direction of the main article, which they are. I don't think the revelation itself warrants a separate article from "Blacks and TCOJCOLDS", whereas a canonized document does, but that's just my opinion. Snocrates 05:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. Im putting myself in the shoes of a typical wikipedia reader:  lets say the person is studying the relationship of blacks to the LDS church, and reads about the "1978 revelation".  That is a key topic, that has lots of mention in many books and articles.  The OD-2 is a somewhat obscure declaration associated with the 1978 revelation.  From an encyclopedia view point, should we have:
 * an article only on OD-2 (includes details about 1978 revelation)
 * an article only on OD-2 (excludes any details about 1978 revelation)
 * an article only on 1978 revelation (includes details about OD-2)
 * separate articles on both OD-2 and 1978 revelation.
 * (4) seems very awkward and wasteful, since the two articles would be small yet are _very_ closely related. (3) looks very rational and helpful for readers.  (2) doesnt seem to make much sense.  (1) is okay, and is similar to (3), and would be sensible, although of the two titles, (3) seems more helpful than (1).  Im not sure I understand your objection to (1) or (3), they seem very sensible. Noleander (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This article doesn't need to ignore the revelation, and it doesn't, but it also doesn't need extensive commentary about the lead-up and aftermath and opinions and feelings of those who were there when the revelation "happened". There is a main article that has that information. This is an article about a piece of LDS scripture, and I see little benefit in wholesale duplications of material. That's why there's a main article. Snocrates 23:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I must be missing something.  Im looking at the article on the 1890 Manifesto, and that revelation seems very, very comparable to the 1978 revelation, and the 1890 Manifesto has its own article.   Im not sure I understand your objections to a 1978 Revelation article.  Oh... I see you created this article and did all the edits ... is this an WP:OWNERSHIP thing?   How about this:  I'll create an article on the 1978 Revelation, then we can initiate a discussion on Request for Merge with this, and see what other editors think.  Noleander (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with ownership. The page is no longer even on my watchlist. I've expressed my opinion; if you're "missing something", that's your problem, not mine. I've made no comparison to 1890 Manifesto, so that seems to be a base for your opinions, not mine. You may create any article you wish, you don't need to ask here. Snocrates 01:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)