Good point. juliann has really laid claim to this particular Mopologetic gambit of clinging desperately to the notion of "continuing revelation," despite the fact that GBH has said things that indicate that very little---if any at all---"continuing revelation" is forthcoming. Another popular spin technique of hers is the "we don't know what's going to happen!" excuse, which she uses to smooth over qualms about polygamy in the CK.
The above garbled mass of mischacterizations and open deceptions is pure Scratch, shaken, not stirred. No point in even responding.
Gomer Pyle wrote:
Would you like to talk about what is or is not official doctrine, or Mitt Romney (given that Romney is not running for President of the Church but President of the United States)?
Romney has demonstrated pretty clearly that, from a political standpoint, he is embarrassed about many aspects of the Church. I was listening to an interview with him on NPR not too long ago, and poor Mitt blew his lid when the interviewer asked him if he believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis. And no: Romney never did answer the question.
1. How has he demonstrated that which you claim he has demonstrated?
2. Since the Church doesn't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis in the manner in which the NPR interviewer certainly meant it (a Protestant Fundamentalist literalism), I'm not sure why Mitt would have been agitated (assuming, which is a big if, that your characterization of the interview is not just another of your dreary little fabrications).
3. Who cares what Mitt thinks about Genesis? What does that have to do with his qualifications to govern?