By "common fundamental practice" i am referring to prayer to created beings, which for Caths is as much a "common fundamental practice" as prayer to God, and thus which would be exampled and exhorted in the life of the church, but in contrast, the Holy Spirit records approx. 200 prayers in Scripture, as befits a "common fundamental practice," but none of which are addressed to any created being in Heaven, except by pagans, and with only God being set forth therein and in instruction/exhortations as the proper and immediate object of prayer, and the only one shown privileged and able to hear and respond to the prayers of all flesh.
Thus at the least praying to created beings in Heaven has no more warrant as a doctrine than my examples, and is contrary in principle to what Scripture reveals, while sanctioning doctrine based on a absence of clear prohibition is slippery-slope cultism, not Scripture. But if you want to believe that inhabiting the plant Kolob is a warranted doctrine then Elsie could help you find friends.
then explain how your understanding differs from the keeping of "law."
You will have to be more coherent than that if you want a meaningful exchange. An atheist here once argued that father-daughter incest was allowed in the OT since it is nowhere clearly condemned, though it certainly is in principal (and under no near kin).
In other words, you're pulling the definition out of your hat to provide your Pharisaical attacks the patina of legitimacy.
And BTW, redoubling those attacks while repeating your casus belli for those attacks does not change the fact those attacks are rooted in Biblical silence.
I know you know the Catholic justification, but you have chosen to set that aside, ignore the fact that God did not choose to prohibit what you want prohibited, and declare your thesis authoritative in contravention of the Commandment against taking the Name of the Lord in vain.
Good luck with that.
...if you want to believe that inhabiting the plant Kolob is a warranted...
The Mormons came out of YOU, not us.
You will have to be more coherent than that if you want a meaningful exchange.
Let me refer you to your first two paragraphs from the post this one answers.