However, if I never grow any crops, I routinely destroy arable land and render it unusable for food production and abolish the practice of animal husbandry, would all farmers have to answer the charges leveled against me, simply because of a linguistic choice I myself made?
Errrm, so you HAVE heard of the European Union's "Common Agricultural Policy" then, Don? (Sorry, totally off topic, but I couldn't resist the opportunity.)

More seriously, what criterion other than self-description can we use, especially when dealing with issues of the "correct" interpretation of revealed mystical texts? The inherent problem with these texts is that they offer pretexts for claiming the "moral high ground" and an arsenal of irrational defence against any nay-sayers that might challenge that. I don't see any sound grounds for rejecting the Book of Mormon that can't also be levelled at the New Testamant, the Old Testament, the Quran or the Upanishads for that matter - except of course, partisan adherence to one of the competing texts.