Your assertion that the canon has been " changed so many times" is simply untrue.
You're wrong about that.
In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.
Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.
The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
Other books that are mentioned by name in today's Bibles cannot be found there at all. One example is Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans. Why was it less authoritative than his other epistles? It's mentioned in
Colossians 4:16. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. What reason is there to believe it was so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon? Or maybe it was just lost.
If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many
prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all?
How people can pretend that "the Bible" as we know it today (and I'm not even talking about the hundreds of different translations, but the books that constitute the canon) was somehow signed, sealed and delivered to us exactly as God wanted it to be is beyond me. Of course, this doesn't mean that we should toss the Bible out in its entirety. We just simply recognize it for what it is, and stop worshiping it instead of its author.
Interesting you have never met anyone who believes the doctrine, Millions and millions of Evangelicals do.
You misunderstood my point. Of course I've met people who claim to believe the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. But at the same time, they believe doctrines not explicitly taught in the Bible. They believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, which was not part of Christianity until 325 A.D. I don't know which denomination specifically, you affiliate with, but most Protestants accept the Westminster Confession of faith which dates from as recently as 1646. Protestant theology was not the theology of the ancient Church.
I understand why you would be opposed to it if you are a Mormon, the same reason as our Catholic friend. You denomination has golden plates dug up by a "prophet" that he read with magic glasses, and the Catholics have a series of big daddies that when speaking ex cathedra speaks for and as God. Both denominations have allowed these men to create religions that share little similarity to the Apostolic Church found in the Bible. Of course you would be against sola scriptura, because the Bible because many of your doctrines aren't found there. You cannot create prophets and big daddies that warp the simple doctrines in the Bible into churches that believe in strange doctrines invented by your prophet and big daddies, and respect the Bible as the word of God at the same time. Before you think it, I am not condemning anyone's relationship with God, or your denominations relationship with God. I am simply saying that many of your doctrines are the result of sinful men, and you have purposely strayed from the church described in the Bible.
Wow. Looks like PopeADope and I struck a nerve there. I'm just going to pretend I didn't read that last little bit of sarcasm. It's something that Christians ought not to lower themselves to do to make a point.
but it accomplished some good things and put the Catholic Church in check (which needed to be done) 
