~”You are saying, and have said, accepting the FULL gospel (as you proffered) would REQUIRE accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet.”~
That is true, that is what I’m saying. We’re finally making progress.
~”This takes away not only from the perfection of Christ and His work, but adds onto the Gospel of Christ, which contradicts the admonitions of Scripture.”~
Here’s the disconnect from which we’re suffering: We are discussing LDS theology here. And according to that theology, Joseph Smith, by virtue of the work he did, is part and parcel TO the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He preached it, he taught it.
Accepting the fullness of the Gospel, according to LDS doctrine (the subject we’re discussing) requires acceptance of its teacher as genuine.
It amazes me that people here are having such a difficult time linking the two concepts. You don’t have to accept it to see where we’re coming from. Instead, you try to make up for the fact that you can’t seem to get it by claiming that we’re trying to “add” to the Gospel.
Excuse me. I thought we were discussing the SCRIPTURES here, Christ's Word, not Joseph Smith's words, ratherr, the Bible and what IT says is true.