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


I’ll miss you, RebeccaJ. There are other forums. You can still post in those.


Yeah. The things I was told by some Mormons about what they do to members who want out was distressing. There is one Mormon, I won’t name him, who is trying to leave them now. He’s worried more for his family than for himself.


I tend to do the same. I mostly worry for my siblings and their families. I’m not so worried about myself. I’m seeking for the truth and I will find it. And by the process of elimination, I know without any reservation that the truth is NOT in the Mormon church.


Mormons generally won’t take the initiative to research things on their own. It falls into the gray area that they describe as apostasy. I can’t say that when I finally decided to honestly study the history of the church that I was surprised. I was mostly not really surprised, but rather shocked. What did surprise me, though, was that I did not need to look to any anti-Mormon sources to find juicy anti-Mormon stories. The church’s own libraries are full of sufficient information to make anyone with an honest mind question it.


I heard it was a 19th century pastiche of the King James Bible which stocked most Protestant homes in America at the time the Church was being formed (Brigham Young was the leader - what was his religious background - Methodist?). With all due respect, I think as far as Christianity is concerned, the Mormons are way out there - dangerous territory. Heresy. All other Christians agree on that point.


Dear CatBoy

I had a couple of questions for you. I hope that you will be able to help me with them.

Please review the following passages; I will have questions concerning them at the end:
From the Book of Mormon: (published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Salt Lake City, Utah 1986)
Jacob 1:15 And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old, desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon his son.
Jacob 2:24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
From the Doctrine and Covenants (published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Salt Lake City, Utah 1986)
132: 1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David, and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines –
132: 4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
132: 38 – 39 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not from me. David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

The questions that I have from the above passages are these:
First, there seems to be a direct contradiction between the two passages; In the book of Jacob, the wives and concubines are “abominable before me(The Lord)” while in the Doctrine and Covenant, David’s wives and concubines “were given unto him of me”(Again, the Lord). How does Mormon Church reconcile the two passages? Does it teach that the Lord gave an abomination to David?

Second, in the Doctrine and Covenants, there is a passage (132:4) that says that if the Mormon Church does not follow the “new and everlasting covenant” that it will be “damned”. The Mormon Church does not currently follow the statutes concerning wives and concubines as outlined in Chapter 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the chapter that contains the warning to follow the covenant or be “damned”. What is the Mormon Church’s teaching about why it does not follow the principle and doctrine concerning wives and concubines contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, Chapter 132?



The following sections from the Book of Mormon contain references to chariots: Alma 18: 9, 10, 12: 3 Nephi 3:22 and 21: 14. Chariots, by definition, have wheels. When the first European explorers came to the Americas after Columbus’ discovery, they remarked that the native population did not use wheels, except as ceremonial devices. I understand that the Book of Mormon tells of a massive battle and many people died. Even so, it seems strange to me that the remaining native populations would lose the knowledge of wheels, since they are so simple (as opposed to, say, the internal combustion engine) and so superior to the sledges that the European explorers noted that the native population were using. What does the Mormon Church and its archeologists say about the loss of this knowledge?

I’ve asked some of these questions to other Mormons, without a satisfactory reply.
Thank you for your time.


First of all “joint heirs to the gift of life” does not, by definition, mean that a husband and wife would be joined. Given context, like the passage I linked to, we can easily see that 1 Peter 3:7 is simple stating that both men and women are heirs to the gift of life.

Second, how do you explain the passage that I linked to in the tract?


Please don’t go. We need folks like you here who know the truth and state it eloquently.


I wanna know why if there was an apostasy they accept the New Testament Canon which wasn’t even settled until the late 4th century. What the Church Fathers just happened to be correct?


If that was true, all Mormons would be Catholic. :wink:

God does not deal in logical fallacies.


I had it explained to me by some Mormon missionaries that not everything had gone bad. There was still some good and that included the canon of Scripture. Except apparently the Mormon missionaries think the Church Fathers did not get it right as far at the Old Testament goes; it took the Reformers to get that right.


Also Joseph Smith probably had a 1611 KJV which did include the Deutercanonical Books. However by the time he wrote the book Bibles didn’t have them increasingly.

Here’s the proof.

-“We will assay to abridge in one volume… labouring to follow the rules of an abridgment… But to use brevity … is to be granted to him that will make an abridgement.” (2 Maccabees 2:25-31)

  • “I make an abridgement of the record … after I have abridged the record… I had made an abridgement from the plates of Nephi… I write a small abridgement.” (1 Nephi 1:17, Words of Mormon 3, 5:9)

-“They commanded that this writing should be put in tables of brass, and that they should be set … in a conspicuous place; Also that the copies thereof should be laid up in the treasury” (1 Maccabees 14:48-49)

  • “And I commanded him … that he should go with me into the treasury … I also spake unto him that I should carry the engravings, which were upon the plates of brass” (1 Nephi 4:20,24)

-“Then the king, in closing the place, made it holy … many men call it Nephi”. (2 Maccabees 1:34,36)

  • “And my people would that we should call the name of the place Nephi; wherefore we did call it Nephi”. (2 Nephi 5:8)

-“And it came to pass … I dreamed a dream by night” (2 Esdras 13:1)

  • “And it came to pass … Behold, I have dreamed a dream” (1 Nephi 8:2)


Mormon missionaries are not a good source. Most of them are clueless. They teach basic memorized lessons. You depart from that much and you get a potpourri of answers to gospel questions. I know from my own personal experience and from having three full-time missionary children of my own.


They make a lot of claims. JS taught in D&C that I need to have more than one wife if I’m to make it into the celestial kingdom. Blacks were not allowed to enter the Aaronic priesthood up until early 80’s late 70’s? When you go on the internet looking for info on LDS be assured their is much hate and even untruthful info available. Check their own material. It’s as bizarre as anything sensational floating around about their faith.



Well, they came to the door and talked about the Apostasy. During the course of the conversation I asked them about canon of Scripture. That was the response I got. I did not look beyond that.



They have also changed their mind on American Indians. In the preface to one version of The Book of Mormon, they say that the primary ancestors of American Indians are a group of Jewish people, I don’t remember what they’re called. And then in another one, they say that Jewish people are one of the ancestors of American Indians. It is possible to have both American Indian and Jewish ancestry, I have both, for instance. But I don’t have Jewish ancestry because I have American Indian ancestry. So which is it?


They are called “Lamanites” after the name of Nephi’s wicked elder brother, Laman. Funny thing is, the other wicked elder brother’s name was Lemuel. I chose that name because it was a Bible name that I knew would get the attention of Mormons here. I have a sick sense of humor.


June 1, 1978 is when God changed his mind and said that it was all just a bad joke.

One interesting thing about it, is that they say it was the result of a revelation. Revelations are generally recorded in the LDS canons. That’s what the D&C is most about. But where is the revelation where God changed his mind about Brigham Young’s “darkies”? I don’t think anyone has ever seen it.

It’s probably what they call “reverse” revelation. There was no actual revelation. The apostles all got together, under duress from the government threatening to take away the Church’s tax exempt status, and they told God, “Here’s how it is. Unless you say otherwise, we’re going to give these folks the priesthood.” And God didn’t say anything so it became revelation.


My understanding, is that it had to do with a temple being built in Brazil. Brazil, like many Latin American countries is a very ethnically and racially mixed country. There is not only a large black population there, but a good chunk of the pardo and “white” population have sub-Saharan African ancestry. Amazing, how that Revelation happened to coincide with that time period.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit