As MRD says here, I suppose one could consider the ability to lead a multi-million member organization as proof of 'revelation.' Nevertheless, from a more critical point of view, there is a marked difference - for better or for worse - between LDS "prophecy" and "revelation" of 150 years ago.
For instance,
A Gospel Doctrine Sunday School lesson from the D&C manual emphasizes “Continuing Revelation to Latter-day Prophets.” It outlines a series of developments since the 1950s that demonstrate the Lord’s consistent guidance. All of these developments (correlation, Official Declaration #2, publication of LDS scriptures, and expanded quorums of the 70) seem to me to be geared toward management and administration of a large, world-wide organization and the formulation and enforcement of doctrinal orthodoxy rather than the development and dissemination of additional doctrine.
I recognize that the LDS church’s needs are much different today than they were 100 or 150 years ago. Nevertheless I cannot overlook the lack of continued doctrinal revelation at the church-wide level. Perhaps, as others have asserted, God is speaking and we’re not hearing, or perhaps the faithful LDS are not worthy of or ready for additional instruction. I'm hardly in a position to speculate on this.
Regardless of the reasons, I identify a prolonged drought in the development of Mormon doctrine and theology. Although the church regularly publishes the words and discourses of its leaders, why haven’t any additional “scriptures” been added to the canon since 1918, and only three D&C sections (135, 136, 138 – not including the
Official Declarations as scriptures
per se) since the death of Joseph Smith in 1844?
http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOr...ontentLocale=0
While there are certainly multiple explanations that avow continued revelation, the most convincing and logical (to me) is a
discontinuation of revelation (assuming, of course, that it existed with JS et al. in the first place).