[farmer18th]

Smith and Young sometimes said things that we would consider over the top. That is a far cry from saying things that are doctrinally incorrect.

The problem with that is that you're saying those two had ex cathedra voice, essentially, on everything, and that will make your position virtually impossible to defend. When David told his general to put Uriah out in the heat of the battle, so that he could have Bathsheba, you don't defend what is clearly a self-serving abuse of a prophetic office. We know that David's Psalms proved his prophetic role, but there were utterances that displayed his human frailty, and you don't make doctrine out of that.

[tantiboh]

~”...but there were utterances that displayed his human frailty, and you don’t make doctrine out of that.”~

That’s true, and that is precisely the point.

That is why we do not think salvation comes through Smith, even though some can misconstrue what he said to mean that. This is but one example of “doctrine” attributed to us by the anti-Mormon - despite the fact that such utterances were usually made in just the kinds of circumstances we’re discussing, and within the context of the body of the teachings of the Church and contemporary culture are much more comprehensible.

But the anti-Mormon doesn’t want to hear that. He wants to take the “over the top” and claim it as our doctrine, because then we’re scary. And when we explain to him just what you’ve said, he claims that we are denying what we believe, or don’t know our own doctrine, etc. As you’ve pointed out, this just doesn’t fly.