Once again your proffered "proof text" - which most every modern cult invokes just as Mormonism does - fails to show that prophets are the transcendent standard for Truth and obedience, since besides this text having to do with events and not teaching doctrine, which other inspired men could provide, that God reveals things to prophets simply does not make them autocratic authorities, but as with the apostles, all Truth claims are subject to testing by the established word of God, the Scriptures, as has been shown you!
The book of Revelation wasn't added to the collection until 400 years after Christ.
So how does this dethrone Scripture as being the supreme transcendent standard? How both writings and men of God become established as being so is one thing, but once again, as is abundantly evidenced, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme substantive standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
. And the method of deciding which book should be chosen was totally based on popular opinion. It was a popularity contest. Not revelation from God. God has never worked nor will He ever work from the popular opinion of men. That's laughable.
It is your rejection of Scripture as established by God which would be laughable if it were not so damnable, and which leaves even Mormonism without the foundation it attempts to build upon. Rather than self-proclaimed prophets being the standard, the NT church was based upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power manifesting Truth, and apostles and prophets were tested and either established or exposed as fraudulent by examination of their claims with Scripture.
By the time of Christ there was a body of inspired writings which were held as being so, as evidenced by the many invocations of statement from them by the Lord and early church, so that an Apollos could "mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18:28) Those who sat in the seat of Moses did not dispute that these writings were Scripture, they only disputed their meaning. Not only did the Lord and early church substantiate their Truth claims by Scripture Likewise it was s what real or purported prophets say that was subject to testing by the established word of God, and by which your "prophets" are manifest as being false, regardless of your avoidance of that painful but manifest fact.
As for the means of this establishment and "popularity contest," whether you or Rome like it or not, writings of God were discerned and established as being of God before there ever was a church which presumed that it was essential for this. Once writings were established as being of God and thus authoritative, any claims to be of God were subject to testing by them, and thus it was because NT writings were conflative and complementary to OT Scripture that they could become established as being of God.
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)
While there was no prophet or council that had decreed that all the writings which the Lord and NT church appealed to for substantiation were Scripture, church councils could only reflect a general consensus, yet the enduring establishment of writings as being the word of God is not due to counciliar decree, but is essentially due to their unique enduring heavenly qualities and attestation, and by which all claims of Divine revelation are subject to. .
Your problem is that of a "latter-day" man claiming to be a prophet who claims to be a Biblical prophet, yet by which you know what Scripture is, versus knowing whether he is a Biblical prophet by examination of his teachings by Scripture, by which he is exposed as a false prophet and teacher.
Was it the inerrant arbiter of truth before it had all the books added?
It was indeed, as while further Divine revelation could be added, they could only do so as conflative and complementary, not contradictory as Mormonic doctrine critically is.
Was it the final word of God before the book of Romans was added? Or Corinthians?
No, not final, as further conflative and complementary Divine revelation was to be added. Your problem is that of a contradictory purported revelation, which problem you seek to rectify by making your "prophet" and church the autocratic authority on what Scripture consists of and means, like as Rome. But your demonic "prophets" are even further critically deviant.
I'm not criticizing the Bible, it is what it is, I am,
Then are indeed criticizing the Bible by demeaning this enduring written word of God as the supreme authority, which "is what it is." From rebuking the devil to reproving leaders to substantiating His Messiahship and mission, the Lord invoked Scripture as the supreme substantive standard.
however, criticizing the way you view it. People like yourself have turned it into a modern day golden calf.
Then you must lay this charge at the feet of the Holy Spirit and NT church itself, which also treated Scripture as the supreme transcendent substantive authority, which all Truth claims had to conflate with and not contradict, as Mormonism manifestly does, and excludes its presumption of autocratic authority.
2. Your belief fails under this very simple scrutiny.
2. Your belief certainly does fail under this very simple scrutiny in the light of Scripture. As show, the written word is God's manifest means of preservation, and as written, Scripture became the supreme substantive standard for Truth and obedience, by which Mormonism is exposed as a demonic deception.
Amos' words are the eternal law. You can't get around it. You can't dismiss it. There is no wiggle room in Amos' words. If it didn't come from a prophet it didn't come from God....Amos 3:7 is a warning from God of how to know if something is truly from Him.
What? Every false prophet like Smith can invoke this to validate himself/herself, yet contrary to your isolation eisegesis, in context the only "eternal law" here is that God will not intervene (such as in sending judgment) without revealing His intent to His prophets, and which simply does not validate every Tom, Dick and Joseph who claims to be a prophet. Instead, prophets are to be tested, as apostles were, and the standard for that is Scripture. Even in your own religion those "prophets" who claim to be teaching the words of Smith will be tested by the established Mormonic "scriptures, no matter how often they invoke Amos 3:7 to justify themselves.
But it is Mormonic faith in your church which is the Golden Calf, which cannot claim to be that of the NT, but again, it is exposed as fallacious in the light of Scripture.
May God grant you repentance unto the acknowledging of the Truth. (2Tim. 2:25