What counts as canonised revelation?

[_harmony]

If I remember right, there are no prophets at all in the New Testament. Apostles yes, prophet no.

You're lack of fundamental knowledge of the New Testament and of LDS doctrine is so glaring, Harmony, that further discussion is just not possible at this point. This is without excuse, especially given the vehement and aggressive pose you have taken up here as a valiant and knowledgeable maverick fighting to save the church from itself.

I'm out of this.

In other words, you're bailing. LOL... if you think this is vehement and aggressive, you've never seen me in full blown pissed off mode in the middle of a flame war.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

When I say that official doctrine is whatever the Prophets say it is, I do not mean that whatever they say is doctrine.

But this still creates a problem. If the prophets interpret what is doctrine, their interpretation might be wrong, since they are capable of making mistakes. This isn't a Mormon only problem, it's a problem with organized religion in general. If you're a spiritual person, and have a personal relationship with your God, wouldn't it make more sense to bypass the middle-men? It's the middle-men who add confusion to the plain and prescious experiences of personal spirituality by adding their own faulty interpretations of doctrine, false revelations, and pharisaic rules while skimming a little profit off the top. That's why they're called prophets.

[_Mercury]

When I say that official doctrine is whatever the Prophets say it is, I do not mean that whatever they say is doctrine.

Did weasels teach you how to speak?

[_Yoda]

In other words, you're bailing. LOL... if you think this is vehement and aggressive, you've never seen me in full blown pissed off mode in the middle of a flame war.

Beware of the mighty wrath of the Goddess which is Harmony! LOL

;)

Love ya, Harm!

[_Jason Bourne]

They are one standard. The other is what the Lord's servants say is official doctrine, whether or not its in the standard works (and there is much in the standard works that is not official doctrine, like most of the Law of Moses). The Holy Ghost is the teacher of truth to all who are worthy of his companionship, and it is he who ultimately sifts wheat from chaff. This chruch is built upon revelation Jason, not a closed canon of standard stattic reference works.

Yes I know about continueing revelation Loran. And the CANON, which according to two prophets quoted above, is THE measuring rod, can be updated by the procedure set in place. But according to JFS, and HBL if even the prophet teaches something that is not in the canon we are not baound by until it is canonized.

I'm sorry but it is you who are uninformed here.

Sorry old chap. Tell yourslef this long enough and you will believe it.

It was taught to a few selected individuals in toto. It was taught publically in highly fragmented form in bits and peices. It was indeed, for all intents and purposes, obscure. You are just flat footedly wrong here. I've read and/or have on disk every statement that was ever made by Young on the matter and it isn't that much text, except for his teachings in the St. George Temple, where he sets it out to a few others in much more detail. The other fact of the matter is that it was never put before the Saints for their approval as a settled doctrine of the church and Brigham Young apparantly, according to hsi own words, never intended to.

I have spent some time with this Loran. I used to argue the same thing. I can do so no longer. Why? Is is a lie. But believe whar you will. You are wrong dude, not me. Wish I were though.

You're trying so very hard to be an enlightened, freethinking "liberal" Mormon Jason, but all it makes you look like is intellectually squishy and spiritually evasive.

Well since you want to get personal, you try so hard to be Mr. Right and True to the Faith that it makes you look like a blathering narrow minded bigot that hides his head in the sand from what is really true. Continue on in your blighted delusionls self righteous perious piety. I am sure it makes you feel warm and fuzzy all over.

[_Jason Bourne]

When I say that official doctrine is whatever the Prophets say it is, I do not mean that whatever they say is doctrine. Those are words you put in my mouth. If they say that something is doctrine and it is to be accepted, than it is.

That is unless you do not like it. Back to Adam God, BY said that it was doctrine but you do not believe it nor accept it because it is odd, strange and weird. And you want to make believe he never said it was doctrine. But he did. You are more a cafeteria Mormon then you accuse many here of being.

[_Jason Bourne]

The thing is, and you would understand this if you were really a Mormon....

In other words Harmony, becasue you are not an ultra monolithic Mormon like Coggins you really are not Mormon.

But Coggins, did you not say recently that the Church is the Lord's and one can sup as much or as little as they like? Now poor Harmony is disputing you she is really not a Mormon. Man you do bounce around.

[_Jason Bourne]

You're lack of fundamental knowledge of the New Testament and of LDS doctrine is so glaring, Harmony, that further discussion is just not possible at this point.

Actually I thought she had the idea of LDS binding doctrine down pretty well.

This is without excuse, especially given the vehement and aggressive pose you have taken up here as a valiant and knowledgeable maverick fighting to save the church from itself.

BWaaaaaaahahahahahahhha!! This is laughable from you one of the meanest most strident posters here!

I'm out of this.

Tah tah!