If the Book of Mormon is true...

[_jon]

...and contains the fulness of the gospel, why is the doctrine pertaining to the necessity of Celestial Marriage as a requirement for exaltation not mentioned in it?

[_MCB]

Because they weren't finished with borrowing from Swedenborg yet.

http://www.exmormon.org/Mormon/mormon034.htm



http://books.google.com/books?id=EVZGAA ... &q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZvwTAA ... &q&f=false

[_Baker]

Because, unlike the word "insider" which can only have one meaning - that being the one preferred by apologists, the word "fulness" can have lots of meanings, one of which is "incomplete".

[_stemelbow]

...and contains the fulness of the gospel, why is the doctrine pertaining to the necessity of Celestial Marriage as a requirement for exaltation not mentioned in it?

It is interesting that if we say fullness of the gospel that must mean, to convenience anyone who wishes to decry us, it includes every teaching we find true and valuable. But as it is, it is meant to mean, at least for me, that Christ came and sacrificed for us, that He is God, or a God if you wish to quibble about it, was resurrected and with that He and the Father intend to save us. Now, that's not to say that brief sentence sums it up, but it provides the gist, which is expanded upon in the Book of Mormon, and in the Bible for that matter.

[_Buffalo]

Because, unlike the word "insider" which can only have one meaning - that being the one preferred by apologists, the word "fulness" can have lots of meanings, one of which is "incomplete".

Zing!

[_Buffalo]

...and contains the fulness of the gospel, why is the doctrine pertaining to the necessity of Celestial Marriage as a requirement for exaltation not mentioned in it?

It is interesting that if we say fullness of the gospel that must mean, to convenience anyone who wishes to decry us, it includes every teaching we find true and valuable. But as it is, it is meant to mean, at least for me, that Christ came and sacrificed for us, that He is God, or a God if you wish to quibble about it, was resurrected and with that He and the Father intend to save us. Now, that's not to say that brief sentence sums it up, but it provides the gist, which is expanded upon in the Book of Mormon, and in the Bible for that matter.

As Baker pointed out, apologists have already determined that any given word can have only one meaning.

[_jon]

...and contains the fulness of the gospel, why is the doctrine pertaining to the necessity of Celestial Marriage as a requirement for exaltation not mentioned in it?

It is interesting that if we say fullness of the gospel that must mean, to convenience anyone who wishes to decry us, it includes every teaching we find true and valuable. But as it is, it is meant to mean, at least for me, that Christ came and sacrificed for us, that He is God, or a God if you wish to quibble about it, was resurrected and with that He and the Father intend to save us. Now, that's not to say that brief sentence sums it up, but it provides the gist, which is expanded upon in the Book of Mormon, and in the Bible for that matter.

So...Celestial Marriage isn't part of the Gospel, did I read you correctly?

[_stemelbow]

As Baker pointed out, apologists have already determined that any given word can have only one meaning.

I've already went on record, Buffalo, saying that the "insider" issue in the title of the book is a terrible, ineffective critique of that work. I'mnot hear speaking for anyone but me.

[_stemelbow]

So...Celestial Marriage isn't part of the Gospel, did I read you correctly?

Allow me to clarify, if someone says the fullness of the gospel is found in the Book of Mormon or the Bible for that matter, and a particular teaching is not found in either of thsoe works, then its obvious that either: The person who says fullness of the gospel is found in those two works is lying, or the person in referencing the fullness of the gospel has something other than complete set of teachings in mind. When I attempted to clarify by saying the reference to fulness of the gospel as found in this particular saying is essentially atonement, I did not intend to suggest that teachings can't be part of the gospel. Its more along the lines of the fulness being the central, essential piece.

[_jon]

So...Celestial Marriage isn't part of the Gospel, did I read you correctly?

Allow me to clarify, if someone says the fullness of the gospel is found in the Book of Mormon or the Bible for that matter, and a particular teaching is not found in either of thsoe works, then its obvious that either: The person who says fullness of the gospel is found in those two works is lying, or the person in referencing the fullness of the gospel has something other than complete set of teachings in mind. When I attempted to clarify by saying the reference to fulness of the gospel as found in this particular saying is essentially atonement, I did not intend to suggest that teachings can't be part of the gospel. Its more along the lines of the fulness being the central, essential piece.

Thanks for clarifying stem, when you state that 'fulness of the Gospel' is essentially meaning the atonement, is this your own personal opinion or are you quoting an official source?