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


Exactly, Lemuel. Here are some of their beliefs which they deny.

Mormonism teaches:

There are many gods, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163);
There is a mother goddess, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443);
God used to be a man on another planet, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321);
After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354);
God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428).
The Trinity is three separate gods, (James Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 35);
God is increasing in knowledge, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 120);
God has the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3). God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, (Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22); God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, (Mormon Doctrine p. 516);
We were first begotten as spirit children in heaven and then born naturally on earth, (Journal of Discourse, Vol. 4, p. 218).

That is not Christian doctrine. Mormonism is not Christian. Neither the Book Of Mormon nor any of their books and other reading material have the fullness of the gospel.

I have more which I will share later.


Yeah, I think that was the São Paulo temple. The problem is that the policy back then was that if a person had even one drop of Negro blood in them they could not qualify to attend the temple. That was a big problem since a large part of that world has some Negro blood in them. They were about to open a temple that they wouldn’t even be able to use.

God works in mysterious ways.


The statements you made are all true but I don’t believe that most Mormons would deny them.

For example, one of my favorite hymns when I was LDS was about Kolob. They make no excuses for teaching that God lives near there. It commonly accepted within the church.


Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are both heresies. There Great Apostasy never happened.
Jesus and Lucifer are not brothers as Mormons claim.
Jesus is not Saint Micheal the Achangel as Jehovah’s Witnesses claim.
Both are non trinitarian and are totally non Christian no matter how much they claim they are.


And when did God change his mind about that? Surely, you know that Joseph had many polyandrous wives.


Sorry, but that’s simply not true. The Church continued to practice polygamy well into the 1900’s.


You’ll need to prove that, please.


These are not splinter groups. Your own church admits to it. And if you believe in obeying the laws then why did your president John Taylor live out the last couple of years of his life as a fugitive of the law?


Catholic priests don’t always wear black. There are different colors throughout the liturgical calendar. Priests were robes of all different colors - red, green, white. There probably is a black robe but I am actually not sure about that. Methodist preachers wear black, at least they did in the 19th century. I think now it is pretty much come as you will. Maybe Joseph made the right move. (sorry I confused Joseph Smith with Brigham Young above)


Trinity was defined in the same Council that defined the New Testament Canon. So you can trust the New Testament is correct but they were wrong about that? That’s a paradox.


You made the claim. Claims are made on proof. Get crackin’. :slight_smile: Inferred or explicitly, prove your case. If you wanna. Let’s see where marriage is eternal.


I didn’t say a thing about those who are currently practicing it. I was making reference to the hundreds of polygamous marriages that were sanctioned by the LDS church after the Manifesto.


And going back to your former assertion that your Church honors the laws of the land, then what does that say about all the polygamy that went on during Joseph Smith’s times when it was clearly illegal?

I also wonder if you’re avoiding my other question about Joseph Smith’s polyandrous marriages. If God allowed women to be married to more than one man back then, then why not now? When did that policy change?


Look up the data. There were more men than women in early Utah. That nonsense has been thoroughly debunked.

Exile? Do you just make this stuff up as you go? John Taylor remained in Utah until his death in Kaysville.


They are both the fruit of Joseph Smith. And you know what they say about knowing them by their fruits?

I imagine that Joseph Smith is on the sidelines cheering for Warren Jeffs about now.


Nothing there says that Paul and his fellow apostles practiced baptism for the dead. That is just your assumption.


The Book of Mormon does not contain the fullness of the Gospel.

Scripture was written by inspired men, who through the guidance of the Holy Ghost, dictated the life, ministry, Passion and Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is divinely inspired and without a word of error. It does not need mere men who, although they mean well, believe in a polytheistic facsimile of the Christian religion and add more of their idea of Sacred Scripture.

If the Book of Mormon is the fullness of the Gospel, then why was it only revealed in the 19th century by a man of English extraction in Nauvoo, Illinois?

And to add to that, the American Midwest in the 19th century? At the time of the writings of Joseph Smith, settling west of the Appalachian Mountains was a new concept - it was forbidden under the English and when this was written, the United States was barely 30 years old.

Wouldn’t something that purported to have the fullness of the Holy Gospel be discovered in the lands where Our Sacred Lord walked the Earth? The Holy Land in modern-day Israel? Jesus Christ is God - if He wanted to traverse to the North American continent sometime between AD 0 and AD 30, He could make it possible. But it seems very unlikely.

Third, why would a layman in the middle of an infant nation suddenly have the fullness of the Gospel of Christ? Would it not belong to His Apostles, the first Catholic hierarchy? Or an early saint?

I have nothing wrong, personally, with those of the Mormon religion. They are a big part of my field of study thanks to the work of Brigham Young University and its very refined choral studies program. I have a lot of qualms with Mormon theology.

Pax tecum.


I’m quite familiar with Alabama. Of course you don’t need to answer this but what ward are you referring to?


Read Matthew 22:30. The entire verse when read in proper context indicates that marriage will not last into heaven, any Mormon twisting of this passage could not suffice and wouldn’t even make sense based on the context of the verse; if you try to argue that they [the woman and her several husbands] were not “eternally sealed”, that fails because,

  1. Such a concept did not exist at the time, nor has it ever existed in Christian history, and I certainty can’t find any place where Jesus teaches the concept. Being “sealed” is entirely a Mormon invention.


  1. Why couldn’t Jesus have just introduced or began teaching about the doctrine of “sealing” right there in this passage? No, instead he answers that there will be no marriage in the resurrection.

Now, I encourage you to read 1 Corinthians 7. In 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, Paul tells widows and unmarried that it is better to remain so, even as he is. In fact, Paul seems to indicate in this passage that being unmarried is better than being married, but for those who cannot exercise proper “self control” that they should marry, because as he says, “it is better to marry than to burn with passion”, probably hoping to keep many out of adultery/lust; in fact, going back to verse 2 confirms that is Paul’s reasoning in order to keep people from sexual immorality.

Reading further down in 1 Corinthians 7, we see Paul speak of living as you are called and then of the benefits of remaining single, even telling the unmarried in verse 27 to “not seek a wife.” Though he does not say marriage is sinful, and even gives some precepts to the married. Interestingly in verse 29 Paul says, “But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none”", It’s possible St. Paul may have believed the Lord would return in his time, or shortly after, and he is clearly hinting at the dissolution of marriage here, which is further supported by the next verses 30-31. In verse 32, Paul tells us that he who is married cares for the things of the Lord, while in verse 33 he says that the married care for things of this world [their wife].

Now let me ask you this, is St. Paul not going to make it to the highest degree of glory because he remained unmarried and encouraged others to also remain unmarried? Because it seems to me that according to Mormon belief, St. Paul cannot be exalted, and thus he didn’t complete the fullness of salvation. Why would Paul not want to reach full exaltation, and why would he encourage others not to reach full exaltation as well?


I was always taught that Jesus was half Divine because of his father and half mortal because of his mother. Very similar to my understanding of Catholicism.

That’s not quite what Catholics believe. In Trinitarian Tradition (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, etc), Jesus is considered to be ALL divine as well as ALL human. Jesus is the son of God, but Jesus IS God as well.

This second part is important. It’s what separates Jesus from, say, Hercules (a Greek Mythological Figure who was considered the son of Zeus but was held as being distinct from him). Jesus is not a demigod.


Regarding Matthew 22:30, a non-LDS scholar has stated…

The case put forward by the Sadducees is particularly extreme. Not only had six brothers attempted and failed to impregnate the woman in question, but she had also outlived them all and was single when she died. It is perhaps this last fact which prompts the question: Whose spouse will she be in the resurrection?..Jesus stresses that in the age to come people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. The use of the terms “γαμουσιν” (gamousin) and “γαμιζονται” (gamizontai) is important, for these terms refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married. The men, being the initiators of the process in such a strongly patriarchal culture, “marry,” while the women are “given in marriage” by their father or another older family member. Thus Mark has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological [resurrection] state. This is surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state.” (Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, p. 328, italics added)

The Jews seem to have believed in eternal marriage from at least second-temple times, since they posed the question about the woman with seven successive husbands, asking which of them would be her husband “in the resurrection” (Matthew 22:28; Mark 12:23; Luke 20:33). The concept of eternal marriage is well-attested among Jews in the medieval period and is frequently mentioned in the Zohar, which also notes that God has a wife, the Matrona (“mother”), and is known in the Talmud. In the Falasha (the black Jews of Ethiopia’s text) 5 Baruch, it has Jeremiah’s scribe, Baruch, being shown various parts of the heavenly Jerusalem, with different gates for different heirs. The text then says, “I asked the angel who conducted me and said to him: ‘Who enters through this gate?’ He who guided me answered and said to me: ‘Blessed are those who enter through this gate. [Here] the husband remains with his wife and the wife remains with her husband’” (Wolf Leslau, Falasha Antholog (New Haven: Yale, 1951, 1971), 65.)

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