Nice cop-out. You know, I'd say a good chunk of God's revelations to prophets in OT times made it into God's Word, even if (& actually ESPECIALLY if) we've lost any books along the way. [IOW, at least the prophets were still faithful in recording those revelations; preservation was perhaps a matter beyond their stewardship]
Now compare that to Doctrine & Covenants. Exactly how many "fresh" post-Smith "prophets'" "revelations" are included in this LDS "Scripture?" [So few that it'd only take a one-second breeze to blow 'em away]
So, of course, the standard apologetic line you've been fed by the professional LDS apologists, "You are talking about a personal opinion of his, not a revelation" would then HAVE to apply to about 100% (rounded off) of what most LDS "prophets" have commmunicated. Why? Well, if these were important "revelations" from God (and frankly, I don't think what God has to say on matters is NOT important, do you?), why hold them back from worldwide present & future worldwide Mormons who might not have access to West-laden General Conference Web sites or subscriptions to Ensign Magazine?
So, tell me, then how DO you test any statement of an LDS "prophet"--given that most LDS "prophets" have NEVER couched what they've said as a "revelation" & of the few that have, only a sliver in 100 forests of what they've communicated would amount to that level of "OFFICIALDOM MORMONDOM?"
This is NOT simply a rhetorical question. It's vital. Because elsewise an LDS "prophet" could make 100 predictions about 2008...but never couch them as a "revelation" or "from the Lord"...and then your nice cop-out would apply to all 100 predictions.
Answered your own question there very nicely, didn't you?
It's called "PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY" a phrase popularized during the Clinton Administration, . When the goals of the GAs in Salt Lake City change, or political correctness becomes troublesome, the "non-revelations" can be changed in a twinkle of the eye.
And, because the LDS membership believes that "When the Leaders speak, the thinking has been done" WE are supposed to give credence to the same arguments by the apologists here.
Boggles the mind, doesn't it?
“Nice cop-out.”
Facts are not cop outs. There are times President Bush’s press secretary is speaking on behalf of the administration and times he is not. Likewise there are times a prophet speaks on behalf of God and time he doesn’t.
It is also up to God, not you and not the President of the Church, to decide what to reveal to the church and when to do so. It is not necessary to document and publish every instance of the Holy Spirit confirming one plan or not, every moment of pure inspiration as they direct the day to day affairs of the church. To restore the fullness of the gospel took several stages and a lot of revelation, but now that the restoration is done there is little need for the revelation of doctrine of prophecy. The need is for members to live by what has already been given.
When there is something new that God wants the church to receive as doctrine or prophecy it will be received by the prophet, given unanimous consent by the 12 and the 70, then formally presented to the church and added to our scripture. Our scriptures say that God will not permit the President of the Church to lead the Church astray from the gospel so we are not out there looking for an excuse to point accusatory fingers at him.