If it is, I’m going to have a very hard time not rolling my eyes.

Whether or not someone is listening is not the issue, my only interest is the topic at hand, namely who is “the Lord’s Anointed” that we are not to speak evil of. If there is no question of your seeking to promote yourself, then why continue with the insults?

My rhetoric and tactics? You are casting aspersions and resorting to sophistry rather than engaging in a clean, honest discussion on the topic. It is difficult to see honesty in your motives when you engage in such behavior, as honest enquirers have no need for such things. Suggesting my “tactics” are on par with “high school debaters [you] knew” can hardly been seen as complimentary. If pointing out your methods are intrinsically flawed because they rely on insults and sophistry are the methods of high school debaters you once knew, then it seems likely you have consistently been engaging in this pattern for some time now, at least since your high school years.

Of course Smith holds a unique set of keys as a dispensation head, but aside from that unique set, the subsequent Presidents of the Church hold the most comprehensive set of any mortal on earth as heirs to Smith’s position as principal leader of the Church. Obviously, if the disbursed set of keys represents the Lord’s complete set of authority for the Kingdom on Earth, then there is clearly respect that comes with the commission. Whether that qualifies an individual as the “the Lord’s Anointed” I am inclined to say, “No, they are probably not hand-picked as was Smith, but they hold the effectively equivalent set of Priesthood keys, so they are due the equivalent respect as though they were by virtue of the keys and not the calling, because their commission is to act as Smith would in his capacity as Prophet.”

This is an example of an acontextual proof text. This, combined with your attempt at insult, persuasively suggests I did not misjudge your motives, as you assert in comment 70.

In comments #29, 50, 51, 65 and 69 I clearly state my position on who the “the Lord’s Anointed” are (i.e., the Lord’s hand-picked people: Kings of Israel like Saul and David, epochal Prophets like Moses and Isaiah, dispensation heads like Smith). I then added subsequent Presidents of the Church only by virtue of them holding the identical sets of keys Smith held. I then clearly stated in the last paragraph of comment 71 that the term “Anointed” had other utility outside of the context of the specific phrase this thread was originally intended to address. My statement in comment #75 is accurate, your reply in 76 is simply more sophistry designed to promote yourself at my expense, and not address the point at hand.

You have not simply been discussing different usages, you have been championing one in specific and actively attacking the opposing position. Big difference.

For what it’s worth, I’m not ignoring any of the important stuff you say I’m ignoring. I’m just claiming that the gospel consists of different concepts, and that it’s useful to keep separate what the scriptures keep separate. This strikes me as orthodox and faithful; evidently it strikes you as otherwise. I suppose we should walk away from this disagreement. Cheers.