If the Book of Mormon is true...

[_Buffalo]

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.

Appreciated, Stem.

[Guest]

-

[_Fence Sitter]

Remind me please where the "fullness of gospel" quote is from?

[_jon]

Remind me please where the "fullness of gospel" quote is from?

 The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel.
(Introduction page published in the front of the Book of Mormon)

[_Daniel Peterson]

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

It scarcely needs saying that, in fact, they haven't.

This is a caricature and a lie.

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.

And, of course, although certain critics here have pretended that the falsity of Signature/Palmer's claim that he is an "insider" on Mormon historical issues was and is the principal objection, or even effectively the sole objection, raised against Palmer's book, that, too, is flatly false.

It's characteristic of the less intellectually serious critics that they consistently attack straw men of their own devising rather than the actual positions of their targets. This is one of the factors that render attempted conversation with them effectively futile.

For any who might be interested in actually engaging the actual position of a serious Mormon scholar on this topic: Noel Reynolds has written extensively on the matter of how and whether the Book of Mormon contains "the fulness of the gospel." A brief discussion, accompanied by references for further reading, is easily accessible here.

[_stemelbow]

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?

Hey Jon, this is all far too legalistic for me. Saying the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel isn't some legally binding saying. I don't see the point in carrying this through so drastically and taking it so seriously. But I will answer your question: my opinion.

[_jon]

This quote is used from the Book of Mormon in the link provided by Mr Peterson to show what is meant by the term 'fulness of the Gospel'.

And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.

So it would seem that Celestial marriage (according to the Book of Mormon) is not an integral part of the Gospel and you can stand before God 'guiltless' without one. Who knew...

[_stemelbow]

Emphasis added.

Hi Stemelbow,

The Book of Mormon makes the complaint that a lot of passages in the Bible are missing elements which that book restores. It discusses the main issues of contention within the Campellite movement, but does not include the fundamental differences in Mormonism from Christianity. I think you are being sincere however there is a huge problem with even that definition of "fullness".

Just curious what you have in mind when you say, "The Book of Mormon makes the complaint...which that book restores". Any quotes for consideration?

If the Book of Mormon could have even got the Mormon concept of Godhead right then I could probably see your point, but it didn't even differentiate between "Jesus and his Father" but instead stated Jesus is the Eternal Father and then sought to explain how Jesus is the Father.

Here it seems clear you are alluding to Mosiah 15. I think in many places the Book of Mormon and the Bible for that matter differentiate between Jesus and His Father, so I think your characterization is a bit off (to put it nicely but clearly).

If knowing God is life eternal, then for the Book of Mormon to go beyond the Bible in explaining the fact that Jesus is the "Eternal Father" only to then backtrack then it not only failed, but it also shows a monumental failure to be the "fullness" in any sense of the word.

Thanks,
Hasa Diga Eebowai

I don't see the failure, but I'm open to hearing you out if you wish to expand on this.

[_jon]

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?

Hey Jon, this is all far too legalistic for me. Saying the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel isn't some legally binding saying. I don't see the point in carrying this through so drastically and taking it so seriously. But I will answer your question: my opinion.

Thanks stem, not legally binding but your Eternal salvation does depend on you understanding what the Gospel is and what it isn't, doesn't it?

[_stemelbow]

And, of course, although certain critics here have pretended that the falsity of Signature/Palmer's claim that he is an "insider" on Mormon historical issues was and is the principal objection, or even effectively the sole objection, raised against Palmer's book, that, too, is flatly false.

It's characteristic of the less intellectually serious critics that they consistently attack straw men of their own devising rather than the actual positions of their targets. This is one of the factors that render attempted conversation with them effectively futile.

For any who might be interested in actually engaging the actual position of a serious Mormon scholar on this topic: Noel Reynolds has written extensively on the matter of how and whether the Book of Mormon contains "the fulness of the gospel." A brief discussion, accompanied by references for further reading, is easily accessible here.

Thnaks for the link, first off.

To be fair I think it was nicely argued that the critique of having the word "insider" in the title is misleading is a poor critique. At least one point was, in my estimation, knocked down. And its a rather minor point anyway, so whatever.