Regarding the transmutation of revelation into the “living word,” I disagree that witnesses are needed. What’s truth is truth and the Holy Ghost can bear record of it to an individual regardless of who they are.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑August 11th, 2022, 4:08 pmIt's important to note that the 'living word' becomes living when that word is established in the mouth of two or three witnesses.Baurak Ale wrote: ↑August 11th, 2022, 3:31 pm the iron rod is the living word of God to those who have the Holy Ghost.
This happens in two ways. The first can be, as you said, when the Holy Spirit confirms. This however is personal and not binding upon the church. We can't make the case that the king Follet discourse is binding upon the church. The second way is when a word does become binding upon the whole church by the originator of the revelation testifying that it is an actual revelation and by putting it forth as the word of God for the whole church and it is confirmed by witnesses who were actually called by God to be witnesses as were Oliver and Sydney.
One thing we have for sure failed at as a church is in Joseph's teaching that we recognize a false revelation by its contradicting a former revelation. Our new standard has become, 'If Joseph teaches it, S-can the previous revelation'.
I do agree that for scripture to be binding on the church it needs to go through an obvious process. But that does not confine truth to those things written. What if there was a lesser portion of God’s fuller laws codified in such a way? The fuller law would be forever out of reach because the church said so? Out of reach of the church, sure, until they repent and allow for the greater word.
Contradicting a former revelation only goes so far as commands from angels are concerned. The specific “teaching” you refer to has to do with detecting false spirits, not defining false doctrine.