I tend to agree with elf that the argument should be (it's not quite, the way Bartlet presents it) for people who don't keep the entirety of the law (which, as you say, is explicit Christian doctrine), "What makes Lev 18:22 the part you keep and not, oh, Lev 18:19? Who decides that?"
(My religion is actually kind of interesting on this point. Current prophet is, explicitly, who gets to decide. But current prophet can always be added to/corrected/overruled by future prophet. And there's a very important component of personal revelation in there, in that our doctrine is that every individual can ask for personal confirmation from the Holy Spirit. In practice -- though this is opening up a bit -- it is extremely, extremely discouraged to come up with personal revelation that contradicts current prophet. The joke is that Catholics say the pope is inerrant, but don't act like it. Mormons say that the prophet is NOT inerrant, but don't act like it.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2017-09-21 05:22 am (UTC)(My religion is actually kind of interesting on this point. Current prophet is, explicitly, who gets to decide. But current prophet can always be added to/corrected/overruled by future prophet. And there's a very important component of personal revelation in there, in that our doctrine is that every individual can ask for personal confirmation from the Holy Spirit. In practice -- though this is opening up a bit -- it is extremely, extremely discouraged to come up with personal revelation that contradicts current prophet. The joke is that Catholics say the pope is inerrant, but don't act like it. Mormons say that the prophet is NOT inerrant, but don't act like it.)