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


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.


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.


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!


There’s a big problem with that, too. The fundamentalist Mormons who currently practice polygamy would be in trouble. Since they can’t “legally” be married to more than one woman, the other sister wives live as single mothers as far as the laws of the land goes. So they qualify for public assistance to feed their families. If polygamy is legalized, then all these women and their children all become part of the same household and the poor dad has to fork out all the food money on his own. My guess is that they secretly hope that polygamy is never legalized. The poor Mormon god will have a fight on his hands.



Well, it’s more nuanced than this, but let’s go with this for the purposes of this discussion.

Catholic scholar Stephen H. Webb gets it right when he says:

“Two corrections of common misrepresentations of Smith’s theology need to be made at this point…[The] [s]econd [is that] even though Smith says that believers will become gods, he also says that they will be kings and priests to God, a phrase that qualifies his alleged polytheism. Clearly, the faithful are meant to share in the divine power and glory, and thus they too will have mastery over life and death, in the sense of being able to creatively participate in the creation, sustenance, and governance of life. Divine power seems to be the universal constant in this teaching, but it is not so diffuse that it has no source. God’s power will be shared, but it will still be God’s. Stephen H Webb, Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics of Matter (Oxford University Press, 2012)

More to follow…


What answer does Orthodox Christianity present regarding a divine infinite past? Orthodox Christianity also needs to address the issue of an infinite past.

Also, the notion that the “Unmoved Mover” or the “Uncaused Cause” is the God of the Bible is incorrect. As eminent Bible scholar David Noel Freedman says:

So in many was the Bible remains true to its “primitive” past [by accepting the strongly anthropomorphic understanding of God/Yahweh] and is less compatible with philosophical notions of an abstract being, or ultimate reality or ground of being. Just as there is an important and unbridgeable distance between Yahweh and the gods of Canaan, or those of Mesopotamia or Egypt or Greece or Rome, so there is at least an equal or greater distance from an Aristotelian unmoved mover, or even a Platonic Idea or Ideal. The biblical God is always and uncompromisingly personal: he is above all a person, neither more nor less (David Noel Freedman, “When God Repents,” in Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman, Volume One: History and Religion (William B. Eerdmans, 1997), 414)

Mormons who take the pursuit of Eternal Life seriously are not doing so in order to be worshipped some day, but rather are looking to supplement faith with virtue, then virtue with knowledge, then knowledge with self-control, then self-control with endurance, then endurance with devotion, then devotion with mutual affection, then mutual affection with love (2 Peter 1:5-7)

They want to become joint heirs with Christ. (Romans 8:17)

Since you believe that the end goal should not be for men to become gods, how do you reconcile this with CCC 460?

The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.

Better stated, the Mormon Heavenly Father is not the Orthodox Christian God.

More to follow…


Given the huge gulf between the “Unmoved Mover” and the God of the Bible, Orthodox Christian baptisms ought to be called into question also if Mormon baptisms are called into question.


Theirs is a different gospel (of course there is no other gospel). See Galatians 1.

The title of the OP is a Mormon phrase, which references their usage of the word gospel. And like all Christian words and phrases, Mormonism has applied different definitions.


Mormon sophistry. Maybe you should volunteer at FAIR.


It is a true statement. Mormons are NOT Christians.
A Christian is one who believes in the Holy Trinity as the one God and is baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.


Hey, it you can’t beat’em, join’em.


Latter-day Saints believe fully in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost and baptize in Their name. But what Latter-day Saints reject is the notion that these three Persons are of one substance or essence. It is well known that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not completely formed until the Fourth Century. Does that make all of those baptized before then not Christians also?

Note this from the New Catholic Encyclopedia Vol 14 page 295:

Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as others, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century

I hope this helps…


Actually they don’t want the news outlets to refer to the word “Mormon” for any other branch of Mormonism.
When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, the terms “Mormons,” “Mormon fundamentalist,” “Mormon dissidents,” etc. are incorrect. The Associated Press Stylebook notes: "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other … churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith’s death."


Exactly. It’s not okay for Christians to object to Mormons calling themselves Christian, but it is okay for Mormons to object to other split-off groups from calling themselves Mormons. Makes perfect sense to me.

I thought their official name was The Church of Joseph Smith of Latter-day Saints. Did I miss something? It is Joseph who they worship and sing praises to, is it not? It is Joseph who will guard the gates of Heaven and will decide whether or not you get a ticket there or not, isn’t it? It is Joseph who has done a greater Work than any man ever, including Jesus Christ, is it not?


I don’t think you can make a blanket statement like that. It would be fair to say that Mormonism is different from Christianity. But all that doesn’t really matter to me. It boils down to the simple fact that Mormons agree that their whole faith stands or falls on the testimony of Joseph Smith. If he was a true prophet, the Mormon Church is true. If not, then the whole thing is a huge fraud. The evidence is clearly out there for anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear. Joseph Smith, the con man, the sexual predator, the criminal, the liar, made up this entire hoax. I know with every fiber of my being, and the Spirit has witnessed to me as well, that the church established by Joseph Smith is a giant hoax. There are a lot of really, really good, honest Mormon people. But even the very elect will be deceived.


Likewise, it is also well known that Joseph Smith kept changing his views of the nature of God until the day he died.


Catholic Scholar Stephen Webb observes the following about Mormons:

In affirming the divinity of Jesus, Mormons are Christians who do not know where to stop. They answer the question of whether it is possible to say too much about Jesus with a resounding “No!”

Indeed, never has a religious movement combined so effortlessly the most extravagant assertions with the most level-headed and commonsensical tone. Mormon rhetoric is guided by the conviction that the only way to say enough about Christ is to say too much. As a result, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints puts Jesus Christ front and center in ways that would make many members of mainline Protestant denominations blush. Mormon theology is Christology unbound—extremism in defense of Christology that can appear eccentric only to those who think that understatement is a virtue. (Stephen Webb, Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics of Matter (Oxford University Press, 2012)

I hope this helps…


Not really. My post was about Joseph Smith. I made a silly joke about his name and then had three questions about LDS singing his praises, about him being a gatekeeper and handing out tickets to the celestial kingdom, and finally about him doing a greater Work than any man including Jesus Christ. Your reply had nothing to do with what I said. You may as well have thrown in a few BYU football statistics with it.

I don’t know anything about Stephen Webb but he’s obviously never sat through an LDS sacrament meeting!

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