Religious Right Vilifies Romney

“I did read what you wrote. I have reread it. I still think you are in danger of according the constitution a sacredness it does not merit.”

Not at all. Sacred writings are defined as the word of G-D and immutable. They govern your “salvation” in the afterlife. The Constitution is the word of man and as such is completely mutable, by no greater authority than man. Indeed, while you cannot find in the Bible even suggestions of methods of minor editation, the Constitution was edited ten times as it was enacted and ever since.

My point is it is the job of religious texts to condition you for the best possible outcome in the afterlife. The Constitution describes only what the Federal procedures are for the mortal phase of our existence - limited but separate. What irritates me is when people use the Bible, or any other religious text, to tell me how to live or the government to govern.

The point is that opinions addressed in books, articles, etc. by LDS presidents and apostles are opinions. I would believe those opinions to be very close to the mark, but it is wrong to claim that they constitute LDS doctrine.

You state that it is LDS doctrine that God the Father was once a man. I state that it’s not LDS doctrine, as there is no direct scriptural authority on that.

However, many LDS leaders have taught that God was once a man, and became God the Father in the past (receiving exaltation). The scripture that once can point to in support of the theory is Christ’s statement that he has done nothing save which the Father has done. So if Christ redeemed mankind, then the Father must have done so as well (or Christ is lying).

But that of course is not the only interpretation of that scripture. (Obviously most Christians do not read it as such.)

We also have a direct question on the doctrine to the current LDS president (prophet). That man dismissed that this was LDS doctrine. He doesn’t have to address this in conference. He doesn’t have to write it in a book. It was a direct question.

And he is right. No amount of written text save from the scriptures will make it so. LDS scripture is our cannon, and we live by the words of the living prophets. Are you suggesting that we ignore President Hinckley in favor of what someone else has written?

She nails it.

Most all of the major mainline Christian denominations, including the Catholic Church, have said that the Mormon religion is a cult. So, they are all wrong and the Mormon church is right? And of course anyone who disagrees with your religion is a hate filled bigot no doubt.

I would like to see:

* references to the mainline Christian churches that have labeled the LDS Church as a cult, and

* the definition of cult as used by those churches.

Then we can know what they are talking about (whether cult as used in the dictionary by which all Christian churches are cults, or in the pejorative sense used to attack another person’s faith).

From religioustolerance.org on the pejorative use of the word "cult":

>This definition is related to heresy -- a concern of almost all large religions. These two groups often define as a cult any religious group that rejects some of the key historical Christian doctrines (e.g. the divinity of Jesus, virgin birth, the Trinity, salvation by faith, not works, etc.). Under this definition, the LDS church, Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches, Unification Church, Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Progressive Christianity, Quakers, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. would often be considered cults. Most people who identify themselves as Christians belong to one of these "cults." Outside of evangelical Christianity, these "cults" are simply Christian denominations.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ldscult.htm

CBN.com — http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/CBNTeachingSheets/FAQ_cult.aspx

Practically every cult has certain characteristics that can tell the careful observer that something is wrong.

For instance, what does a group think about Jesus? Jesus Christ is God, Lord of all, the only source of salvation. Invariably, a cult will put something else on an equal footing with Christ. It will have a ritual that is equal to Christ, or it will have a doctrine equal to Christ, or it will have a leader who is equal to Christ. In other words, even if it acknowledges Christ as Savior, it will say that you need something else before you can get into heaven. Cults teach that salvation comes through Christ, plus their little unique way. Some cults do not acknowledge Christ at all. They may make Him coequal with their religious teachers or with certain great men of history. The quickest way to recognize a cult is by its treatment of Jesus.

Second, cults frequently attempt to instill fear into their followers. The followers are taught constantly that salvation comes only through the cult. “If you leave us, you will lose your salvation,” they say.

The third area has to do with the exaltation of the leader of the cult. Cults often center around a man or woman who is trying to gain power, money, or influence from manipulating people. This appears to be the case in the Unification church with Sun Myung Moon. In the Children of God, Moses David Berg is an autocratic leader. In the People’s Temple, Jim Jones drew attention to himself and asked his followers to die with him. A true leader who serves Jesus Christ has one goal, and that is to exalt and manifest Jesus. When someone says he has unique insight into God or is the special one that God has anointed to reach the world, you are dealing with cultic behavior.

A final mark of a cult is the unwillingness of the leaders to let the people grow up. A true shepherd will do everything he can to bring Christian people to maturity as quickly as he can. He will not seek to avoid necessary teaching, nor will he try to keep people from maturity. Many cults perpetuate spiritual dependence so that their followers lose the ability to make independent, rational decisions. Often techniques of brainwashing are used to create robotlike behavior.

Although there are other marks of cultic behavior, these seem to be the ones that stand out.

WHAT DO MORMONS BELIEVE?

Mormons are some of the most exemplary human beings, especially in regard to their behavior patterns and their adherence to the fundamental values of our society. But their religious beliefs are, to put is simply, wrong. They believe that an angel named Moroni left some gold tablets in upstate New York and that these tablets were discovered by a man named Joseph Smith. From these tablets, Joseph Smith “translated” the Book of Mormon, which is the foundation upon which Mormonism is built. Mormons also consider two other books, Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price, to be divinely inspired.

Mormonism differs from biblical Christianity in several areas. Mormons do not believe, for example, that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ. Mormons must work their way to heaven. (B. R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City:1958), p. 191.)

Mormonism teaches that God is not the only deity and that we all have the potential of becoming gods. (Ibid., p. 576.) (Remember that Satan’s fall came about because he wanted to be like God.) God, according to Mormons, is not just Spirit but has “a body of flesh and bones as tangible as a man’s.” (Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22.) They teach, “As we are, he was. As he is, we shall become.” (Joseph Smith, “The King Follett Discourse,” p. 9.) There has been constant revision of Mormon doctrine over the years, as church leaders have changed their minds on a number of subjects including polygamy, which was once sanctioned by the church.

In summary, the Mormon church is a prosperous, growing organization that has produced many people of exemplary character. But when it comes to spiritual matters, the Mormons are far from the truth.

~To be continued...

You put forward a position and I asked you to back it up, to wit:

I would like to see:

* references to the mainline Christian churches that have labeled the LDS Church as a cult, and

* the definition of cult as used by those churches.

In reply, you are copy and pasting the work of others which is not responsive. If you do not want to converse, desiring to pontificate, I don’t have the time. If you want to converse, let’s.

But use your own words. Referencing source material is great. But copy and paste of the work of others? Unresponsive and really shows a lack of intellectual thought on your own part.

You state that it is LDS doctrine that God the Father was once a man. I state that it’s not LDS doctrine, as there is no direct scriptural authority on that.

As a lawyer you should know you've just engaged in a tactic called "misrepresentation." You've just reduced the above to a Poster "C" said, Poster "T" said offset. (That's not the dynamic I introduced). I quoted "expert testimony" from a BYU prof who would seemingly be on a higher rank than your grassroots opinion. (Or are you critiquing Professor Robinson's position?)

So quit dodging. Either take issue with Robinson's statement, or I'll quote it back to you post after post (I'm getting tired of LDS totally dodging what he says).

The point is that opinions addressed in books, articles, etc. by LDS presidents and apostles are opinions. I would believe those opinions to be very close to the mark, but it is wrong to claim that they constitute LDS doctrine.

Why do LDS always try to keep having it both ways? LDS missionaries & LDS are always touting Amos 3:7: "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets"...

I don’t think I’ve yet encountered an LDS missionary (of any lengthy convo, that is) who doesn’t get around to citing Amos 3:7 as a proof quote to underscore the “need” for an ongoing living revelator [The way they often apply this verse, I’m often thinking, What? Now we have prophet-weathermen because the Lord won’t let it rain & snow without telling an LDS prophet of his “plan?”]

My question to you is: What good is an ongoing living “seer & revelator” of God if he can’t properly ID who God is? (“He’s Adam.” “You’re kidding?” “Nope.” “Imagine that. Well, we’ll just have to name our most prominent university after you because of your amazing perception of who God is!”)

In our convo, it'd be more like: "He was once a man." "You're kidding?" "Yup.--Well, actually, I'm sure he was a man. But I'm sure they'll come a day when the Prophet in my place won't be so sure." "So, Lorenzo, why don't you add this to the D&C to clarify it for them?" "Oh, I DON'T KNOW. It's only a couplet."

Tell me, what good is an ongoing living “seer & revelator” of God (like Young, Smith or someone named Snow who's Snowed you over) if he inserts ourselves in place of the Savior’s blood a temporary doctrine of blood atonement? (How trustworthy then is to apply Amos 3:7 in any absolute way to an LDS prophet?) Or since Young inserted our blood for Jesus’ blood in that doctrine, what about a Joseph Fielding Smith who emphasizes the LDS church as saviors of the world due to the practice of baptizing dead folks? (And I thought we only had one Savior of the world)

Joseph Smith said (paraphrase version here) it was the "first principle of the gospel to know for certain the character of God." What good is an LDS "prophet" even he can't for certain identify the character of God as an exalted man (or not?)

What’s ironic here is that it’s LDS who cite Amos 3:7 & say God doesn’t do anything without revealing His plan & will to His prophet. So you expect to tell us that we can continually look to him for church-wide ongoing plan revelations and ongoing will revelations?--yet when we look at the LDS “prophetic” track record of canonless PUBLIC statements by LDS “prophets”—and then when we quote them back to LDS—we tend to get qualifier after qualifier after qualifier from Mormons. They essentially say, “Hey don’t be disappointed…99.99999999999% of what Prophet X or Prophet Y had to say publicly didn’t even qualify as core doctrinal level statements let alone be sustained as a new revelation. What gave you the idea that everything that comes out of the mouth or the pen of every living revelator, seer, prophet, God’s only authoritative rep on earth is the authoritative gospel? Why we just can’t understand how you would misconstrue our build-up of an Amos 3:7 prophet!!!”

Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that we buy what LDS criticize others for…Let’s say, “OK, heaven’s revelationally wide open…God still reveals Scripture…You’re telling us His mouthpiece is that old guy over there…Let’s take a look @ what he has to say since I guess we need to apply Amos 3:7 according to the way you’ve structured it…”

Two minutes later we say, “Wait a minute.” You say, “What?” “I thought you told me that the Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his prophet?” “And?” “Well, I just reviewed his general conference talk on the Lord’s will?” “And?” “Well, when’s this going to be added to the D&C as a new revelation?” “Uh, it probably won’t be.” “Why not?” (Silence)

LDS speak out of both sides of their mouth: On the one hand, they imply that LDS revelation from their "prophets" goes beyond what can be found in the D&C & BoM. The problem then becomes when plenty of other LDS folks around you are quite satisfied to lambast some deceased LDS prophets & apostles as dried-up, antiquated sources of irrelevant obscure directives from the Lord. [Example: Notice the cartwheels LDS grassroots jump through to not face squarely the sermonic words of a Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses]. I mean just look how LDS folks tend to distance themselves from the words of a Brigham Young or an apostle like Bruce R. McConkie (and LDS already say that apostles & prophets are essentially interchangeable) when these sources embarrass Mormons. And now you are backpedaling off of sermons made by Joseph Smith, teachings taught by Lorenzo Snow--teachings taught to Mormon children generation after generation after generation.

Yet, inevitably, we get zealous online Mormons like yourself, alongside LDS missionaries, who will elevate the current “prophet” to the highest post on earth when they want their PR ambassadors to be able to market, “See, we have God’s ONLY direct authoritative pipeline to earth.”

Bottom line: LDS, please stop putting “prophets” up on the New Scripture-producing pedestal. LDS folks can't keep saying out both sides of their mouth that this guy is the highest revelational post on earth--but whatever his predecessor said publicly was irrelevant, non-doctrinal, uncanonized, unofficial drivel. [You can't blame us for identifying a disconnect there, can you?)

However, many LDS leaders have taught that God was once a man, and became God the Father in the past (receiving exaltation). The scripture that once can point to in support of the theory is Christ’s statement that he has done nothing save which the Father has done. So if Christ redeemed mankind, then the Father must have done so as well (or Christ is lying).

Here's your problem with trying to use human logic to describe God. It's found in your statement, ...he has done nothing save which the Father has done. So if Christ redeemed mankind, then the Father must have done so as well (or Christ is lying).

Do you seriously know the difference between "doing" and "being?" "Doing" is a job. "Being" is alive. (Maybe you just sit back & listen to the Beatles, "Let it BE.") Just because you would emulate your father's actions doesn't mean you ARE him. Just because my dog follows me & emulates me and DOES some things I do...that doesn't make him human. Just because a pet can become an heir to a human fortune, doesn't make him human.

LDS scripture is our cannon, and we live by the words of the living prophets. Are you suggesting that we ignore President Hinckley in favor of what someone else has written?

You just got done telling me that if what an LDS "prophet" says is not canon, then it's not officially binding. So, yes. Because of this "out" that LDS apologists have established about the words of Young on blood atonement & Adam-God & "not letting any other man (besides himself) do it" re: impregnating Mary; etc; about the words of McConkie on not seeking a special relationship with Christ--on the fact LDS worship "3 gods"--on the "literal paternity" McConkie wrote re: Heavenly Father impregnating Mary; etc. then this "out" also applies to all uncanonized words tossed at you from any source. Every general conference talk...every Ensign mag article...every LDS curricula...Every LDS publishing house book. Any source which is not originating in canonized Scripture...it's NOT officially binding upon you or any Saint (by your own words). You can take it or leave it. You can toss it in the trash can. It doesn't matter. It's not official. It's not canonized.

First of all let’s begin with your comment to me:

“In reply, you are copy and pasting the work of others which is not responsive. If you do not want to converse, desiring to pontificate, I don’t have the time. If you want to converse, let’s.

But use your own words. Referencing source material is great. But copy and paste of the work of others? Unresponsive and really shows a lack of intellectual thought on your own part”

OK, let me get this straight. You tell me that copying and pasting the work of others shows a lack of intellectual thought on my part, but, isn’t that exactly what you did in post #126? Here’s what you copied and pasted:

“From religioustolerance.org on the pejorative use of the word “cult”:

>This definition is related to heresy — a concern of almost all large religions. These two groups often define as a cult any religious group that rejects some of the key historical Christian doctrines (e.g. the divinity of Jesus, virgin birth, the Trinity, salvation by faith, not works, etc.). Under this definition, the LDS church, Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches, Unification Church, Christian Scientists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Progressive Christianity, Quakers, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. would often be considered cults. Most people who identify themselves as Christians belong to one of these “cults.” Outside of evangelical Christianity, these “cults” are simply Christian denominations.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ldscult.htm";

See, this has been a typical tactic with you and your Mormon buddies. You tell us that what we say and do is wrong and unacceptable, but then you turn around and do the very same thing that you condemn us for doing. How do you spell hypocrite? T-O-R-T-D-O-G.

Let’s talk about this website where you got this ridiculous definition of ‘cult’. Did you even bother to look at that website to see what’s on there? It’s a site that promotes religious tolerance and their goal is to downplay all of the discrepancies between Christianity and false religion. Their theme is “can’t we all just get along?” I can’t believe that you would use this ultra-liberal website as your source to defend your position about the Mormon religion not being a cult. This website talks very negatively about Christian conservatives. That shows you clearly that they have their own biases. This website is a complete fraud, but I can understand how liberals or people who belong to false religions would want to use this as a resource. It’s clever of you to try to use a liberal site like this to defend your religion, but it also confirms what a lot of us have been saying about your religion. It’s full of lies, dishonesty and deception.

Here is a more honest definition of what a cult is:

Question: “What is the definition of a cult?”

Answer: Often in our minds we think of a cult as a group that worships Satan, sacrifices animals, and takes part in evil, bizarre, and pagan rituals. In reality, though, most cults appear much more innocent. The specific Christian definition of a cult is a religious group that denies one or more of the fundamentals of Biblical truth. Or, in more simple terms, a cult is a group that teaches something that will cause a person to not be saved if they believe it. In distinction from a religion, a cult is a group that claims to be Christian, yet denies an essential truth of Biblical Christianity.

The two most common teachings of cults are that Jesus was not God and that salvation is not by faith alone. A denial of the deity of Christ results in Jesus’ death not being a sufficient payment for our sins. A denial of salvation by faith alone results in salvation being achieved by our own works – something the Bible vehemently and consistently denies. The two most well-known examples of cults are the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. Both groups claim to be Christian, yet both deny the two key doctrines mentioned above. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons believe many things that are in agreement with and/or similar to what the Bible teaches. However, the fact that they deny the deity of Christ and salvation by faith alone qualifies them as a cult. Many Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and members of other cults are “good people” who are genuinely seeking God and genuinely believe they hold the truth. Our hope and prayer is that many people involved in the “Christian” cults will see through the lies and will be drawn to the truth of salvation through Jesus Christ.

http://www.gotquestions.org/cult-definition.html

Here are a list of a few mainline Christian denominations that say that the Mormon church is a false religion:

From the Lutheran Church website:
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2239

Q. Are Mormons generally regarded as Christians, and how do their beliefs differ from those of the Missouri Synod?

A. The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, together with the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States, does not regard the Mormon church as a Christian church. That is because the official writings of Mormonism deny fundamental teachings of orthodox Christianity. For example, the Nicene Creed confesses the clear biblical truth that Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, is “of one substance with the Father.” This central article of the Christian faith is expressly rejected by Mormon teaching — thus undermining the very heart of the scriptural Gospel itself. In a chapter titled “Jesus Christ, the Son of God: Are Mormons Christian?” the president of Brigham Young University (Rex Lee, What Do Mormons Believe? [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992] summarizes Mormon teaching by stating that the three persons of the Trinity are “not... one being” (21), but are “separate individuals.” In addition, the Father is regarded as having a body “of flesh and bone” (22). Such teaching is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, destructive to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and indicative of the fact that Mormon teaching is not Christian.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the Catholic Church:

RESPONSE TO A ‘DUBIUM’
on the validity of baptism conferred by
«The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints»,
called «Mormons»

Question: Whether the baptism conferred by the community «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», called «Mormons» in the vernacular, is valid.

Response: Negative.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the Methodist website:
http://www.irr.org/mit/Is-Mormonism-Christian.html

The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by self-definition,does not fit within the bounds of the historic, apostolic tradition of Christian faith. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the LDS Church itself, while calling itself Christian, explicitly professes a distinction and separateness from the ecumenical community and is intentional about clarifying significant differences in doctrine. As United Methodists we agree with their assessment that the LDS Church is not a part of the historic, apostolic tradition of the Christian faith.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the Southern Baptist website:

http://www.namb.net/atf/cf/{CDA250E8-8866-4236-9A0C-C646DE153446}/BB_Mormons.pdf

* There’s too much information to copy here so go look at it yourself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are many other denominations who classify the Mormon religion as a cult or false religion. I won’t copy and paste all of them lest you accuse me of being “intellectually dishonest” (for doing the same thing you did). Sheesh! Furthermore, you aren’t interested in facts about your religion. It’s too hard to defend. It’s a lot easier to just call me a Mormon hater and bigot, that way you don’t have to do your research. The truth is out there for you to find, all you have to do is google it. Seek and ye shall find. I really don’t think you want to find the truth—do you?

“My point is it is the job of religious texts to condition you for the best possible outcome in the afterlife.”

I would argue that, although that statement of yours is indeed true, it doesn’t nearly come close enough to describe what a “religious text” (specifically the Bible) is all about. Religion literally means “re-linking”, i.e. re-connecting yourself to the divine. The point of true religion is to prepare you for life in the here and now, not just (or even) in the life hereafter. By following the precepts of God, we make ourselves better people, and thereby we better the lives of others.

This is the crux of Christian opposition to Humanistic, Liberal Secularism. Those folk, for all their often very laudable intentions, attempt to change us by changing society, by means of laws, and rules, and regulations and propoganda. The Christian way is to concentrate on improving the individual, who THEN goes on to improve the common lot, for after all, what is “society” but the sum of all of our individual thoughts and actions?

Regarding copy/paste. I have no problem with quotes and citations to authority during a conversation. That is helpful. But you didn’t do that. You entire pages of the work of others which was unresponsive to the question. I am here to discuss. I am not here to engage in copy/paste.

That’s intellectually lazy, and certainly is not a discussion.

>See, this has been a typical tactic with you and your Mormon buddies.

Ignoring the credibility of your accusation, you opine that all Mormons act alike. What other groups do you share similar prejudice to?

>Let’s talk about this website where you got this ridiculous definition of ‘cult’.

You ignore the opinion presented and attack the messenger. That’s intellectually dishonest and flawed. Aren’t you better than that?

>This website is a complete fraud, but I can understand how liberals or people who belong to false religions would want to use this as a resource. It’s clever of you to try to use a liberal site like this to defend your religion, but it also confirms what a lot of us have been saying about your religion. It’s full of lies, dishonesty and deception.

You claim the web site is a complete fraud. How about showing me that the definitions presented by the web site are fraudulent. Maybe even showing me an issue from the web site that you claim to be fraudulent.

>Here is a more honest definition of what a cult is:

In whose eyes? Yours?

YOu supply this definition:

>Often in our minds we think of a cult as a group that worships Satan, sacrifices animals, and takes part in evil, bizarre, and pagan rituals. In reality, though, most cults appear much more innocent. The specific Christian definition of a cult is a religious group that denies one or more of the fundamentals of Biblical truth. Or, in more simple terms, a cult is a group that teaches something that will cause a person to not be saved if they believe it. In distinction from a religion, a cult is a group that claims to be Christian, yet denies an essential truth of Biblical Christianity.

You do realize that the site your criticize as a “fraud” also includes this definition, attributing it to evangelical Christians?

The definition you provided misrepresents the LDS doctrine on Christ. We believe that Christ is a member of the Godhead, that he has no beginnning or end, and that it is solely through him that man can be saved. We believe that no amount of works is sufficient to bring man to God absent Christ’s atonement.

So your definition does not deem the LDS Church as a cult. Or, if SOLELY grace is required, then the Catholic Church is also a cult.

You were going to give me cites to “mainstream” Christian churches that claim the LDS Church is a cult. You did not do that. You brought forward a list of churches that claim LDS doctrine is wrong.

That is hardly a shock. If the other churches agreed with LDS doctrine, they would be LDS. And if Baptists agreed with Catholic doctrine, it would be Catholic.

So IF you define as a cult any church that you claim to be false (sounds like it), then it sure sounds like you one of the definitions provided by religioustolerance.org (that fraudulent web site, you remember). In essence, it posits that certain members of religious faith believe anything is a cult that doesn’t teach what their own church teaches. Sounds like YOUR definition, and it sounds like religioustolerance.org has nailed you.

>I quoted “expert testimony” from a BYU prof who would seemingly be on a higher rank than your grassroots opinion. (Or are you critiquing Professor Robinson’s position?)

Yes. To the extent that Robinson claims that LDS doctrine is that God was once a man, Robinson would be in error. Your call to authority is trumped by both LDS scripture and the current president of the Church.

>Why do LDS always try to keep having it both ways? LDS missionaries & LDS are always touting Amos 3:7: “Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets”...

Correct. We live by the words of the living prophets (including our local priesthood leaders). That doesn’t mean that everything they state is LDS doctrine. There is a difference, and that’s where you make the error.

>My question to you is: What good is an ongoing living “seer & revelator” of God if he can’t properly ID who God is? (“He’s Adam.” “You’re kidding?” “Nope.” “Imagine that. Well, we’ll just have to name our most prominent university after you because of your amazing perception of who God is!”)

The Adam-God theory has been roundly criticized. It has never been LDS doctrine. It has never been taught in any published instructional manuals. It was a thoughtful opinion of a man who was President of the Church.

>”first principle of the gospel to know for certain the character of God.”

True. But we don’t need to know what brand of toothpaste he uses.

>LDS speak out of both sides of their mouth: On the one hand, they imply that LDS revelation from their “prophets” goes beyond what can be found in the D&C & BoM.

The problem is that you equate the words of the leaders of the Church to be equivalent to LDS canon. And it’s not.

We live by every word of our priesthood leaders because God has chosen them. It’s hardly unheard of for them to be wrong. But our command is to obey them and the Lord will bless us in that obedience.

It doesn’t matter whether Peter was correct in commanding the early saints to give everything to the church. What was MOST important is that he was the priesthood leader, the baptized members were to obey that priesthood leader, and failure to do so condemned them (with God striking them down).

THe principle is one of obedience, not whether it is right to sacrifice your only son on an altar.

>Yet, inevitably, we get zealous online Mormons like yourself, alongside LDS missionaries, who will elevate the current “prophet” to the highest post on earth when they want their PR ambassadors to be able to market, “See, we have God’s ONLY direct authoritative pipeline to earth.”

The living prophet can be asked questions, and provide answers. And when he does so, you attempt to sidline it calling it a “jounralistic interview.” You are playing the game. Probably because you don’t understand how everything interfaces, and when people attempt to provide you with honest answers, you shut them down.

>Do you seriously know the difference between “doing” and “being?” “Doing” is a job. “Being” is alive. (Maybe you just sit back & listen to the Beatles, “Let it BE.”) Just because you would emulate your father’s actions doesn’t mean you ARE him.

You are interpreting the words of scripture. How do we know that YOUR interpretation trumps the plain meaning of the written word?

>You just got done telling me that if what an LDS “prophet” says is not canon, then it’s not officially binding.

You are repeating your arguments. See my explanation above.