Does the Book of Mormon contain the fullness of the gospel?

[huck]

I think the question you should be asking is not whether their Gospel is full, but whether or not it’s even the same Gospel.

There are some doctrines that are very hard to reconcile with Catholic theology, besides

other things. Karlo Broussard outlined a few of these Mormon beliefs

God the Father had a body, instead of being pure spirit
Faithful believers of Mormonism become Gods
God was once a man, who became God
Baptism of the dead

Hello Catholicos,
The above examples are not in the BOM but are part of the doctrines of the LDS and perhaps a few other offshoots.
With regards to the BOM having the fullness of the gospel, this is located in 3 Nephi 27 where Jesus gives a sermon.
“3 Nephi 27:13”: 13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have
given unto you – that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.
“3 Nephi 27:14”: 14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I
had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men
even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether
they be good or whether they be evil –
“3 Nephi 27:15”: 15 And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the
Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.
“3 Nephi 27:16”: 16 And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall
be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day
when I shall stand to judge the world.
“3 Nephi 27:17”: 17 And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and
cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father.
“3 Nephi 27:18”: 18 And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this
cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.
“3 Nephi 27:19”: 19 And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into
his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the
repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.
“3 Nephi 27:20”: 20 Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto
me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye
may stand spotless before me at the last day.
“3 Nephi 27:21”: 21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye
must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye
have seen me do even that shall ye do;

 

[Catholicos]

Take no offence to what I ask, we’re here to learn and discuss faith. I’ll ask this as a non-Mormon, not just as a Catholic, but really any Christian would ask this.

Why would a Christian accept the Book of Mormon, and any of the references to the Gospel that’s written in it? Why wouldn’t you accept any of the Gnostic gospels as any non-Mormon would have to accept or believe the Book of Mormon?

 

[gazelam]

The link I posted earlier plainly states what LDS mean by “Fulness of the Gospel” in both paragraphs 1 & 5 of the article. How do those paragraphs not answer your question?

Because that was not my question. My question was, “would you care to explain the nature of God to me only using Book of Mormon references?”

Well, actually your question specifically was “If the Book of Mormon is the fullness of the gospel, would you care to explain the nature of God to me only using Book of Mormon references?” Your question seems to imply that “Fulness of the Gospel” means every single LDS doctrine. The paragraphs I cited earlier explains how that is not the case.

I think that’s a fair question, given that Mormons believe that living the precepts of the Book of Mormon will bring you closer to God than any other book. If that is the case, I think that understanding the nature of God is important in getting close to Him. Would you disagree?

I think it’s a fair question. I don’t believe that God is required to put every last obscure doctrine in a volume of scripture. After all, Catholics refer to both the Bible and Catholic Sacred Tradition for doctrinal understanding. The doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible, but in Catholic Sacred Tradition.

So I will respectfully ask again, will YOU explain to me the nature of God using only Book of Mormon references? If you can’t, I understand. I personally think it’s a tall order.

So I will respectfully refer you to the section on “God” in the LDS topical guide here:God
When you navigate to this link you’ll see some 30+ subtopic links about God. By navigating into each of these subtopic links you’ll see the verses from each of the LDS Standard Works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) that justify doctrinally that subtopic. So, whatever you believe the LDS belief is about God you can navigate to each of the subtopics and see what the Book of Mormon says about each one. Since you now have the tools to map LDS beliefs about God to Book of Mormon verses, why don’t you research those topics of interest and let us CAFers know what you find? I hope this helps…

 

[huck]

Take no offence to what I ask, we’re here to learn and discuss faith. I’ll ask this as a non-Mormon, not just as a Catholic, but really any Christian would ask this.

Why would a Christian accept the Book of Mormon, and any of the references to the Gospel that’s written in it? Why wouldn’t you accept any of the Gnostic gospels as any non-Mormon would have to accept or believe the Book of Mormon?

Hello Catholicos,
The reason I posted the verses from the BOM is because the topic is whether the BOM contained the full gospel. The verses I posted are of Jesus giving the Nephites the full gospel.
Most Christian sects including both Catholicism and Mormonism place a great deal of importance on being able to claim they have the truth. The sacred books you have are all “inspired”. I really have no desire for anyone to add another book to your collection of inspired literature.
I was raised as a Catholic, and as a young man I became involved in LDS activities and eventually listened to the missionaries and converted. At this time I was very naïve about the world of religion. For me the BOM is about the religious world and it provided certain insights which were helpful to me. I no longer believe in the historicity of the BOM but that isn’t a significant factor for me.

 

[Catholicos]

Oh ok, I see you remained a Mormon I take it. If you remained Mormon, what is it about the religion that is compelling enough truth for you to remain, and ignore something as important as the authenticity of the BOM?

 

[adamhovey1988]

Sooo…that explains the like six cups of coffee I had today.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Or the Koran. Or Ellen G. White’s writings. I don’t accept those as inspired, why should I accept the Book of Mormon?

 

[adamhovey1988]

So…since we have fellowship hour after Mass, and we have coffee…oh no, the anti-Catholics were right!

 

[po18guy]

Odd, but not too odd, that all religions founded since Christ have completely overturned the concept of Christ. Islam: He’s a prophet, but nothing more and not the last. LDS: He was a man, elevated to godhood. JWs: He’s a man, period.

Interesting is that all three were established on the word of a single person: Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell. No physical evidence for any of them. And, all shun those who fall away. We need not say more at that at this juncture…

 

[Catholicos]

Or the Koran. Or Ellen G. White’s writings. I don’t except those as inspired, why should I accept the Book of Mormon?

Because there are 32 Starbucks locations in Utah that’s why (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[adamhovey1988]

I really despise Starbucks, but that’s actually interesting.

 

[thephilosopher6]

This statement is incorrect. A correct statement would be that it was translated by one man thousands of years after the Bible.

One man who was an obvious fraud, as is evident to anyone with basic critical thinking skills.

What makes sense to me is 1 Corinthians 1:27

Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong
.
Not sure theological school fits as the “weak of the world”

“Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” (Colossians 4:6)

LDS Baptism is 100% valid. There are priesthood keys authorizing the ordinance, it’s performed by one having Priesthood authority, it’s done by full immersion, and it’s performed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. There you have it!

for more info see https://www.lds.org/topics/baptism?lang=eng

LDS baptism isn’t valid because you baptize in the name of foreign gods, foreign gods that having nothing to do with the Christian God. They have similar names, but in attributes and glory, the Christian God and the Mormon gods are far far far different. You have no priesthood, and you certainly have no authority from Christ, for that was given to the apostles (John 20:22) at the founding of the Catholic Church.

For more info, see: Why doesn't the Catholic Church accept Mormon baptism? | Catholic Answers

 

[Chris-Wa1]

I will. He put a seer stone into a hat, held the hat to his face, and read the words. Now Mormon art certainly doesn’t depict it this way, but that is the testimony of the actual witnesses who were in the room with Joseph. Recently the church has finally admitted that this was how the BoM was “translated” by Joseph after many decades of denial.

 

[Catholicos]

This statement is incorrect. A correct statement would be that it was translated by one man thousands of years after the Bible.

LDS Baptism is 100% valid. There are priesthood keys authorizing the ordinance, it’s performed by one having Priesthood authority, it’s done by full immersion, and it’s performed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. There you have it!

---

There are a few problems here, and the previous reply was correct. The Mormon understanding of God is far different than the God recognized in the Christian Trinity. If there are other Gods in Mormon teaching, then the Mormon baptism cannot be Trinitarian, and therefore not a valid baptism. Furthermore , God wasn’t a man who became a God.

The other problem is what the lds.org site states:

> The authority to baptize was restored by John the Baptist to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery on May 15, 1829

Nothing was restored. From the time John the Baptist first baptized the Lord, Baptisms were performed for 1800 years well before Smith or Cowdery even saw the light of day. This is very misleading, and deceptive.

When I spoke to the 2 missionaries on the bikes, they told me the early Church went apostate. And immediately I asked them , at what point did that happen? One answered that it started with the apostles as I stared at him flabbergasted

I really despise Starbucks, but that’s actually interesting.

We can do this the easy way, or you can make it harder on yourself. Shut up and drink it, stop questioning Mormonism, or else drink the koolaid.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I live in the American South, trust me I have relatively easy access to Kool-Aid

 

[Chris-Wa1]

That’s easy. It’s not so. Not even remotely so. The Book of Mormon is almost entirely fictional. I say “almost” because there are parts of the King James bible that are copied in it. Other than that, it is a complete and utter fraud, describing fictional civilizations in the New World. There is absolutely zero archeological or DNA evidence that any of those people or places ever existed. It is the product of Joseph Smith’s own mind and environment. He used multiple sources to write it, drawing from the King James Bible, the Protestant religious environment of his own place and time, and other sources. It is not an inspired work at all. It is not scripture. If you want a good source that’s easy to read, I highly recommend Mormon historian Grant Palmer’s book “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins.” It has a great chapter about where the BoM actually came from. He has also given talks on the subject you can find on YouTube. Here is a great one: Grant Palmer - "My Ah-Ha Moments While Researching Mormon History" - YouTube

 

[Lemuel]

I knew you wouldn’t be able to answer the question

 

[Lemuel]

Grant Palmer, R.I.P., was a great example of what happens to good Mormons who honestly study their church’s history.

 

[Catholicos]

What Joseph Smith did for Mormonism is analogous to anyone of us finding a police uniform and saying: "Ok there was a problem with a law. I’m going to put on this uniform. I’m going to give you my interpretation of the law as I understand it, and I will be the one who enforces what’s legal and not legal. What you can and cannot do. I’m going to send 2 innocent, unsuspecting , clean cut officers , with the manual on a bike to ride around all over the world to make this new revelation from God known so that they too can be subjugated to the authority we don’t have - Ok so this last part I sort of added for dramatic effect

Even if the Mormon knows, one police officer cannot possibly be judge, jury and enforcer in the real world, they’ve already decided through faith, without any evidence, what they believe is not only legal, but also true and binding to everyone .

If Mormons truly believe in Jesus’ words, then all we outside of the Mormon faith are saying to you is that you haven’t been set free. Certainly not until you open your minds, and not ignore the evidence against the authenticity and lack of historical pedigree of your faith. It doesnt matter whether you be Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Buddhist or Muslim, you should never fear challenging the claims made against your faith. If your religion is built on the truth, , then it will stand on the truth .

Now let me finish drinking my coffee this morning and leave me alone lol

 

[gazelam]

There are a few problems here, and the previous reply was correct. The Mormon understanding of God is far different than the God recognized in the Christian Trinity. If there are other Gods in Mormon teaching, then the Mormon baptism cannot be Trinitarian, and therefore not a valid baptism.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Bible nor believed by the earliest Christians. Here are some quotes regarding the doctrine of the Trinity.

The New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature. (William J. Hill, The Three-Personed God (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 27.)

There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 44

There is in them [the Apostolic Fathers], of course, no trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a trinitarian problem. (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, revised edition, (New York: Harper, 1978), 95.)

Maurice Wiles states, “The emergence of the full Trinitarian doctrine was not possible without significant modification of previously accepted ideas.” (Wiles, The Making of Christian Doctrine, 144)

“Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology.” (R. P. C. Hansen)

To say that a baptism must be “Trinitarian” in order to be valid means that all of the baptisms perform prior to acceptance of that doctrine must all be invalid.