I believe I, or anyone else for that matter, can do meet &quot;your objective&quot; standards 1. and 2. fairly easily (; you can help with clear points&#x2F;texts and without cryptic acronyms). I mean there can be literally a billion &#x27;fork&#x27; at will, which renders the whole thing meaningless.<p>I don&#x27;t claim to know much of mormonism; however the conflicts in such notions as &#x27;ultimate&#x27;, &#x27;objective&#x27; here are difficult to reconcile: mormonism conflicts with Vatican&#x2F;pope with respect to the core of any religious thoughts, namely, the identity of God; hence it is quite strange to insist on a notion of non-conflicting ideas, which is both logically impossible and non-existent. If mormonism was not correcting some ideas, which necessarily implies that there <i>are</i> conflicts, why Mr. Smith bothered to bring mormonism in the first place? Isn&#x27;t it redundant, as long as it is not claiming to fix something (=&gt;conflict)?<p>And if you concede the possibility of other valid new prophets and religious claims possible in the future following this Mr. Smith, how can you even choose to use the word &quot;ultimate&quot;? You see the logical contradiction there is too glaring to work out, no? 
Please make sure that the reasoning remains reasonably sound. Thanks and bye.