On this blog, I have discussed the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura quite a bit, interacting with the key texts apologists have forwarded in favour of this doctrine. It is an important dividing line between Latter-day Saints and Protestants as it informs, in part, the rejection, often a priori, of Latter-day Saint claims by Protestants. Of course, let me state that disproving sola scriptura is not evidence in favour of Latter-day Saint claims (such would simply be question-begging if one were to claim such), but the fact that Protestant apologists ultimately have to rely on eisegesis and/or just accept uncritically the doctrine speaks volumes of its truthfulness (or lack thereof).
This has been exemplified in a recent exchange I am engaged in with a fundamentalist Baptist; in response to my comment that part of his rejection of the Book of Mormon was his a priori (and uncritical) acceptance of the formal sufficiency of the Bible, he wrote, "The doctrine of Sola-Scriptura is not even relevant to this issue" only then to claim (without any substantiation) " Christ and the Bible were sufficient before Joseph Smith and they continue to be sufficient now so follow HIM!." Translation: I don't have to provide evidence for Sola Scriptura! Accept my ipse dixit!!!!!
