Chad (Swedeboy) Spjut wrote:... (Source: L. John Nuttall Papers; BYU Special Collections, Mss 188, Letterpress copy book #4, p. 290.) ... The doctrine was taught, believed and followed by early Mormons. ... That's the problem with contradictions, they always get in the way of good testimony of the "truth."
One can fight against this with ultima ratio regum only.
I know of nothing poorer Under the sun, than you, you Gods! ... Should I honour you? Why?
"Continuing revelation does not demean nor discredit existing revelation."
Or is this Holland's personal opinion?
"Continuing revelation" is a slippery slope to me. Even worse, once a prophet is dead everything he ever taught or "revealed" can be jettisoned or changed at the whim of the living prophet. Little can ever be nailed down under this kind of a system, in my opinion.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Rollo Tomasi wrote: "Continuing revelation" is a slippery slope to me. Even worse, once a prophet is dead everything he ever taught or "revealed" can be jettisoned or changed at the whim of the living prophet. Little can ever be nailed down under this kind of a system, in my opinion.
Yes. "Continuing revelation" is the most obvious man-made concept in religion.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775