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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lemuel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I know. If he lived today he would have been institutionalized. Also there’s verses in the BOM that Allegedly are from like 300 BC but they are basically plagiarized forms of Paul’s letter. Plus they call them Christians like 100 years before Christ in the BOM. Historically that didn’t happen until around 55 AD in Antioch. Joseph Smith didn’t know history or science. Or how about the Book of Abraham. Turns out it was nothing more than a funeral rite. He probably didn’t realize Egyptologists would be able to read hieroglyphics in the future. I honestly would join the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster before Mormonism. At least the first you know it’s a joke. The latter the joke is on you .
 
gazelam said:
40.png
Gertabelle:
And regarding the Trinity not being in scripture, Fortman analyzes the scriptural references to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and argues that the Holy Trinity present as One God - Three Divine Persons in scripture.

Here’s an idea: Instead of just posting a few excerpts you got from some LDS pamphlet or book or website, seek out the source – Read Fortman’s book for yourself.
Click to expand...
I have the book and have read it. Please refer me to the pages where Fortman argues that the Holy Trinity present as One God - Three Divine Persons in scripture and I will take a look. BTW, “One God - Three Divine Persons” also fits LDS belief. It’s the manner of the Oneness that’s in dispute. LDS believe that the Three Divine Persons are One God in purpose along the lines of John 17:22 (And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one) This verse rules out any consubstantiality or same essence since the disciples for whom Jesus is praying will never become consubstantial with each other. I hope thus helps…
Click to expand...
Well, it helps me see that people get out of their reading or research what they want. Father Fortman is no longer with us to clarify his views for us directly. Suffice to say, I absolutely disagree with your take on his work.

And I simply cannot afford the time to go plowing through this book to defend my position on this - I’ve a child to wake up and a couple hundred more children to teach today.

Read the Church Fathers themselves. You can find their writings all over the internet, and they’re all collected on the website NewAdvent.org.

God bless you.
 
NOT TRUE which is why they wrote Their OWN gospel: the Book of Mormons

ABOUT the only thing we agree on is there Morality teachings:thinking:

Be very careful; they are very well indoctrinated and can be deceitful.

Pray very much and challenge anything they share with charity

God Bless you
Patrick
 
Thank you but I’m not being deceived. I figured them out a few years ago.
 
One of the things I have learned about them is that they typically address difficult questions one of three ways:
  1. They appeal to their scriptures and latter-day “prophets”. On occasion they will use their strange interpretations of the Bible.
  2. They bear you their testimony.
  3. They run. This is the most common response that I get.
 
Gertabelle said:
40.png
gazelam:
40.png
Gertabelle:
And regarding the Trinity not being in scripture, Fortman analyzes the scriptural references to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and argues that the Holy Trinity present as One God - Three Divine Persons in scripture.

Here’s an idea: Instead of just posting a few excerpts you got from some LDS pamphlet or book or website, seek out the source – Read Fortman’s book for yourself.
Click to expand...
I have the book and have read it. Please refer me to the pages where Fortman argues that the Holy Trinity present as One God - Three Divine Persons in scripture and I will take a look. BTW, “One God - Three Divine Persons” also fits LDS belief. It’s the manner of the Oneness that’s in dispute. LDS believe that the Three Divine Persons are One God in purpose along the lines of John 17:22 (And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one) This verse rules out any consubstantiality or same essence since the disciples for whom Jesus is praying will never become consubstantial with each other. I hope thus helps…
Click to expand...
Well, it helps me see that people get out of their reading or research what they want. Father Fortman is no longer with us to clarify his views for us directly. Suffice to say, I absolutely disagree with your take on his work.

And I simply cannot afford the time to go plowing through this book to defend my position on this - I’ve a child to wake up and a couple hundred more children to teach today.

Read the Church Fathers themselves. You can find their writings all over the internet, and they’re all collected on the website NewAdvent.org.

God bless you.
Click to expand...
I hope we can always disagree without being disagreeable. Take care and God bless you too!
 
gazelam said:
I hope we can always disagree without being disagreeable. Take care and God bless you too!
Click to expand...
Says the guy whose church teaches that the Catholic church is the church of the devil, the mother of abominations, and the whore of all the earth.
 
Last edited:
Lemuel said:
One of the things I have learned about them is that they typically address difficult questions one of three ways:
  1. They appeal to their scriptures and latter-day “prophets”. On occasion they will use their strange interpretations of the Bible.
  2. They bear you their testimony.
  3. They run. This is the most common response that I get.
Click to expand...
  1. Diversion. Including the tactic of answering a question that they think should have been asked, rather than answering the question that was actually asked.
 
Why do we talk about Mormons and the Gospel in the same breath?
Mormons are NOT Christians.
 
thistle said:
Why do we talk about Mormons and the Gospel in the same breath?

Mormons are NOT Christians.
Click to expand...
We are not the judge. Some Mormons probably are Christians. Some Catholics probably are not. But what I think is funny is this. Mormons want to be called Christians, but don’t want Mormon fundamentalists to be called Mormons. A little duplicitous, wouldn’t you say?
 
Lets ignore the Trinity for a moment. Instead, I’d like to focus on the very nature of who both faiths refer to as “Heavenly Father”.

Mormons believe that “Heavenly Father” (aka “Elohim”) was once a normal human, who had a god father and goddess mother. Elohim then ascended to godhood, becoming who they refer to as “Heavenly Father”.

You too can become a god or goddess. If I understand things correctly, if you perform certain ordinances, live in a certain , and have a temple sealed marriage, you can become god or goddess. Upon becoming a god (with the possibility of having multiple goddess wives), you too can rule over your own planet (or universe?), and have a plethora of spirit children. Those spirit children then begin to gain physical bodies themselves, and begin their journey to godhood. Which is why this moves beyond tritheism and into outright paganism.

If you’re wondering where the starting point for this progression is, there’s isn’t one. Mormons believe in infinite progression, not an unmoved mover or uncaused cause. Elohim does not exist beyond time. When approached about Aristotle or Aquinas, thus far no Mormon has been able to present an answer to me or my wife.

To quote my wife; “my goal for eternal life is to worship, not to be worshiped”. Which is the opposite of Mormonism; where the end goal is specifically designed for men to become gods, and to be worshiped themselves.

To be frank; the Mormon “Heavenly Father” is not the Christian God. Unless you can reconcile these extreme differences, I cannot see how Mormon baptisms are remotely Christian, nor can I see how Mormons can be identified as Christians in general.
 
Last edited:
Melchior_1 said:
Upon becoming a god (with the possibility of having multiple goddess wives), you too can rule over your own planet (or universe?)
Click to expand...
When Section 132 was originally taught, it was not an option. In order to be a God or Goddess, you were required to participate in polygamy. If you only had one wife in mortality, it would be like the parable of the talents, where the one who was only given one talent, and he hid it, his one talent was subsequently taken and given to another. Such will be the case with men who only marry one wife. She will be taken and given to another who had multiple wives. He can achieve the celestial kingdom, but only as a servant to those who obeyed this law. The same will be of women. To those who refused to be sister wives and share a husband, they will be servants in the celestial kingdom and their increase has an end. This is what Brigham Young clearly taught. LDS today teach that the New and Everlasting Covenant is about being sealed in the temple, not about polygamy. One of the many changing doctrines of their church. New day, new doctrine.

The whole subject of polygamy in the LDS church is riddled with lies and distortion. Most Mormons who defend it, have never studied their history. They will claim they have, but they have only looked at what Mormon apologists say about it and not the actual historical documents.
 
Last edited:
The more I learn about Brigham Young, the more ashamed I am of holding two degrees from a university that bears his name.
 
Well I mean, the biggest “tell” for this is if a country legalizes temporal polygamy, would the LDS church endorse it or be in favor?
 
UI’m sure it would. LDS Church policy is motivated by convenience. Joseph Smith “married” at least 34 wives, but none of them were legal because polygamy was illegal. A lot of what was done, was done in secret. Section 101:4 of the D&C stood until 1876 when God changed his mind about polygamy and revealed Section 132 which was back dated to 1834 (I think—my dates may be off). Then the Manifesto of 1890 came out and allegedly ended polygamy because of political pressure. There is reference to a revelation from God, but no revelation was ever found or published. D&C is a compilation of (mostly) revelations, so it’s not like they are too sacred to publish or anything. After the 1890 manifesto, hundreds of Mormons continued to practice polygamy in secret. Then, in 1904, another manifesto was issued, (this time we’re serious), and ended it "for good”. Then people like John Taylor became fugitives of the law until his death. The Mormon god is a schizophrenic god. He can’t make up his mind.

The blacks and the priesthood was similar. Two weeks before the “revelation” that nobody has seen, President Jimmy Carter had a conversation with LDS church leaders, basically telling them that unless they ended their ban against blacks, their tax-exempt status would end. Magically, a short time later, God revealed that he was just kidding all along about blacks not being able to hold the priesthood and it was all good now. Then Bruce McConkie basically said to just ignore everything that every leader in the past had said about blacks and the priesthood. Oops!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top