Comments made by prophets or General Authorities cannot be used as evidence against the church because they are not considered official revelation unless uttered by the prophet, sustained unanimously by the 12 and also by the church as a whole.

The church has established the precedent for canonizing new revelation and saving ordinances by including them its Latter Day scriptures. The scriptures have officially been accepted as revelation.
The ordinances of baptism, confirmation and the sacrament are included in the canonized scriptures and so are by definition revelation.

The church considers temple ordinances so necessary that without them one cannot go to the Celestial Kingdom.
As far as I am aware, the ordinances of the temple, washing and anointing, baptism for the dead, ordaining to the priesthood, the endowment and sealing, have not gone through any approved process of canonization which would certify them as revelation. It thus follows that these ordinances can not then be considered official revelation; they cannot be considered inspired, infallible or binding.

At present, these highest ordinances of the gospel could contain many errors. If someone is to make such solemn covenants as the temple requires, in order to secure the highest possible blessings God has to offer to his children, it follows these ordinances should be held to the highest possible standard. The members should be absolutely certain they are official revelation. These ordinances must go through the church mandated process:
1. Presented to the body of the church by the prophet in a session of General Conference
2. Sustained unanimously by the Quorum of the Twelve
3. Sustained by the general membership of the church
4. Included (the full and complete text of all these ordinances) as additions to the Doctrine and Covenants.

In the absence of these actions I say it is pointless to perform these ordinances for either the living or dead.

Your move, LDS church...

Except, what you say is just as much folk doctrine as anything else. Nobody has a clue what actual constitutes an official revelation beyond what's convenient.

I really like this, EBfP.

I've heard this process mentioned before, having a solid reference for it would really make it bulletproof. Do we know where it originated?

Well, as an example:
If someone attacks Brigham Young's Adam God theory, apologists AND the church say it is not official doctrine.
And then if in reply it is argued that he taught this doctrine at conference, then the shrill response is "it was still never sustained by the 12 and the general membership in conference, so it is not official revelation."

The declaration to give the priesthood to "all worthy males" was presented by Kimball, sustained by the 12 and then by the membership in conference.

I love that argument! Membership doesn't really vote, there is just a simultaneous raising of the right hand to confirm that they are on board. During Brighams day, Adam-God was an important and integral part of the lecture at the veil. How much more doctrinal can it get than to have it as a part of the Endowment?

Of course, not everyone agreed with the AdamGod heresy. Orson Pratt was very much against it, and was called to repentance for it, but once Brigham died the church dropped it. According to Spencer Kimball, it was a false teaching. Therefore Brignam was a false prophet and Spencers chain of Authority is broken. Or, Brigham was right and Spencer was a false prophet and his successors' link is broken. Where does this leave Heber, Howard, Gordon and Tom?

There is no doctrinal basis for doctrine. I think the members realize this at some level and just believe that everything's doctrine until it stops working for them.

In his infamous talk, Benson claimed that prophetic mutterances from the brethren were more important than the Standard Works.

In the letter by BKP, Brigham did teach false doctrines, but he also was a prophet who taught true doctrine and is thus in the CK. But those who believe those false teachings like Adam-God will be damned.

Everything is supposed to be verified by the Standard Works.
A prophets words trump the SW.

The temple ceremonies were lifted from the Masonic Rites spoken against in the Book of Mormon, and originated during the polygamy years as a rite of passage into that illegal practice. And even IF those ceremonies were sacred and binding, what will become of the mass majority of Mormons who made different covenants than the founders of the temple worshipping church?

Which is so silly because that is what Satan does. He mixes truths with lies. Cog dis anyone?

This is why Mormons are always told to listen to the words of todays prophet today. Never mind that it is inconsistent or that previous prophets have warned about churchmen who will change, invent or dismiss the words of the Lord. The only doctrine that remains pure and undefiled is, "follow the brethren...and keep your doubts to yourself".

of course when speaking about the prophets, always keep this photo in mind.

http://www.utlm.org/images/newsletters/115/115cover_hofmannchurchleaders.gif

And one should ask, should the prophet(s) of god, with the powers of discernment, and ability to trump scripture, need a magnifying glass?

But if everyone knew about the temple ceremony beforehand, they would miss out on the surprise factor/ emotional hijacking moment that I enjoyed so much back in the throat slitting days.

I went to the temple for the first time in 1997. A lady from my ward told me how freaked out she was when she went for the first time. When I went I just thought it was kind of weird but not freak out worthy. I had no idea that when she went it was way weirder

I was just thinking along these lines yesterday: If crap that past prophets spouted that could have "led you astray" was only them "speaking as a man", then why should anyone follow the present prophet, when there is a solid chance that once he has assumed room temprature, whatever eternal truths he advocated were only him "speaking as a man"....

I guess there's a good reason mormons love Jell-O so much--it's squishy and wobbly even though it appears solid.