I agree...from my perspective. But not from ours, as you well know. I have posted in my tstimony
on my site and here on FR, that we take what Christ said in Matthew literally, that when Christ said, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." that He meant it. And that when Paul stated in Romans that, "We are the chidlren of God and if children, then heirs, and joint heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer with hHim, that we might also be glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory that shall be revealed in us." I have plainly stated that LDS doctrine is that our Father in Heaven, as a loving Father who wants the best for His children, wants us to have all that He has, to become and do the things He does. That is the foundation for all the talk that Mormons believe that they can be "Gods." We simply believe our loving Father wants us to grow up (in the eternities to come) to be like Him. Also, as relates to the Trinity. We believe in all three, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But I have plainly stated that when Christ was baptised and He was in the water with John the Baptist, and the Holy Spirit descended seperately upon Him, and God the Father spoke seperately from Heaven, that it clearly shows that the three of them are three seperate distinct beings. The experience on the mount of transfiduration shows the same. And Christ's intercessory prayer, clearly shows the same when He says that He wants his disciples, "to be one, as we are one, Father, I in thee and Thee in me." We do not believe he meant for his twelve apostles to join into some kind of single entity physically...rather that they should be united and one in purpose as the Father and Son are. So, those are two things I have spoke openly about all the time which I know other Christians take great issue with...but I do not believe for an instant that they make me less a Christian because they are clearly stated in the New Testament. In fact, in my opinion, many of the other interpretations were worked out hundreds of years later in various "councils" like the Nicene (325 and 381 years later) when they came to the conclusion and defined them as "one substance", and others councils where the leaders involved were making both religious and political decisions at the time. We believe, based on the scriptures, that one substance interpretation dilutes and changes the nature of our Father and His Son and makes them and their purposes harder to understand...but that is ou interpretation. The key remains that Jesus Chrost, Son of the Father, atoned for our sins and saves us, and is the only path back to God. Which we believe is the essence of faith in Christ and slavation. Anyhow, have a great Sunday.
We believe, based on the scriptures, that one substance interpretation dilutes and changes the nature of our Father and His Son and makes them and their purposes harder to understand...but that is ou interpretation.Sounds logical; but the foundation upon which MORMONism stands is that the 'scriptures' (the KJV of the Bible) was not sufficient (refer to Articles of Faith #8).
Are you talking here about any ADDITIONAL 'scripture' that the LDS church has canonized to base your conclusion? (Refer to D&C's, PGP, various utterings of MORMON past leaders)
If so; please refer to them.
History has proven to us that Joseph Smith was 'directed by GOD' to revise, edit and correct the KJV of the bible; giving us the JST.
Yet, the SLC group of MORMONs do NOT consider it to be 'scripture'.
When we get all of THIS straightened out; perhaps the playing field will be a bit more level.