I was referring to the quote you cited from Doctrines of Salvation from Joseph Fielding Smtih.
You were talking about the quote concerning sources for scripture in the Gospel Principle Manual. We simply miscommunicated...there is no error to reflect on.
I have read what you quoted and pointed to in the Gospel Principles manual, and have no problem with it. As I said, when new scripture or revelations are decided upon (and the quorum to the twelve must prayerfully and through inspiration themselves agree unanimously upon them) it is them communicated to the whole church in the manner I indicated.
Not everything these men say or write is regarded as such. Only that which is recognized as inspired and moved upon by the Holy Ghost as mentioned.
Now, it goes without saying that there are members of the church who take everything they say as “scripture” because of their calling, and there is no doubt that they are thought highly of and listened to closely...but they are still human and have never indicated anything but that, and history and the doctrine itself that we as a church embrace, as pointed out by yourself in the manual, indicates that this is not the case.
Hope that helps.
And those were communicated in the past through the teachings of your apostles and prophets - as pointed out by your own teachings in gospel principles which clearly does NOT include all the hoops you've described above. Fact is Jeff, there are plenty other citations I could go to in D&C that show their teachings to be headed and true to doctrine. Yet from all your discourse - you suggest that they are a bunch of people who don't know what they are talking about most of the time. I have to wonder - where is the voice of the living prophet today Jeff? Monson has not contributed any new revelations nor hinkley before him. In fact the 1978 declaration was a negative revelation. You prophets have been silent except in the face of lawsuits and prision - then they get revelations.
Only that which is recognized as inspired and moved upon by the Holy Ghost as mentioned.
And past prophets, seers and revelators of the mormon church have declared the JoD to be such a collection of inspired messages - except when it impinges upon modern sensibility. Yet even that still goes against what you teach new mormons from Ch 10 of Gospel Principles. it states simply
In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith 1:9).
Jeff - this is taught as acceptable doctrine - show me where this is happening today. What great revelations have been presented through these sources lately Jeff? The inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us eh? Except for it needs to be sliced, diced and sautéed first. All I see from you Jeff is a rejection of this stated and taught doctrine.
...but they are still human and have never indicated anything but that, and history and the doctrine itself that we as a church embrace, as pointed out by yourself in the manual, indicates that this is not the case.
Jeff, brigham young is on record stating that he NEVER preached a sermon that should not be considered scripture. Clearly HE indicated otherwise - and he has a university named after him. Thus you statement is not supported by the abundance of historic teachings and writings of your apostles and prophets.
There are still at least 2 problems with the position that you have taken. First, even if you discount previous statements that your leaders said as NOT being scriptural, it still doesn't excuse the fact that they made the statements in the first place. Your position clearly attempts to diminish the prominence or authority of certain statements made by previous leaders. It's a convenient approach to hide embarrassing statements made by men that are highly regarded by mormons. However, it still begs the question, why did the leaders teach things that were false? Why did the leaders make the statements with no ambivalence; meaning they were convinced what they were saying was true? By admitting their statements are false, you are also questioning their character and judgment.
Also, statements by your leaders contradict the position that you have taken. For instance, Ezra Taft Benson stated, “The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.” Is that true? If so then mormon prophets can trump the standard works whenever they want. If not, then Benson made yet another false statement.
He also said, “The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.” Wow!! How are you supposed to know then when he is giving scripture? According to you,it must be “recognized as inspired”...meaning someone else needs to confirm the validity of the prophet's teaching first, before it can be declared scripture. What if a prophet said he spoke scripture, but others don't recognize it as inspired?
This whole notion of what is and what isn't scripture in mormonism is a farce. You pick and choose what you want to be “scripture” and discard statements that were clearly meant by the speaker to have scriptural authority. Your leaders have all made so many statements that were later discredited that none of them have any credibility.
The whole foundation of mormonism is a house of cards, built on the lies of men, who consider themselves to speak for God except when they don't. The contradiction of your leaders correcting one another is pathetic.