What did we think gentlemen? Does this belong in the Penguin Classics canon?

i gotta get a little further in to really give an opinion, but so far it reads as exactly what it is: an illiterate farmer who knew the Bible really well and sort of aped (in some cases just copied word for word) the Bible. It’s also kookier and a lot of fun to read

Mormons believe that through Christ you can be cleansed of vice and become increasingly more virtuous as you dedicate your life to following Jesus’ example. I don’t know why it’s so fucking hard for people to understand that. Maybe there is something to them being “good people”. Sure the mechanics of God and our purpose to become like God seems scary to retard Christian’s but all of those beliefs can be backed up by the Bible without even referencing Mormon canon. The Book of Mormon contains better treatises on many principles of the gospel than the Bible does as well including Faith in Alma 32 that is far more cohesive and beautiful than Hebrews 11.

Interesting, I think I might check out the Book of Mormon when I find the time.
Thanks anons.

As much as I don’t care for the Penguin Classics editions of most things, it does present it in more of a novel form than religious text. Not sure if that makes it better or worse for you, but something to think about if purchasing a copy

It's worth reading once I guess but it's kinda boring and not even useful for understanding Mormon theology. Even early Mormons were more obsessed with the idea that the Book of Mormon's existence meant Joseph was a prophet more than the actual contents of the book.

>And they shall be punished for their iniquities and whoredoms
Favorite phrase in the whole book, perhaps uninspired to use it so much but made me chuckle

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joseph_Smith's_wives
The kino man

Well in order for it to come to pass that it belongs in the canon, it should come to pass that there would be enough literary interest to come to pass by its value and affect the general public opinion that comes to pass, and then it would need to come to pass to get the right edition and research together until the selection finally comes to pass, and then it will finally come to pass that the edition comes to pass and then it will come to pass I will come to pass by it in the bookstore and be like "nah, I'll pass"

>Church Fathers
How the fuck could a Mormon read the Church Fathers and not feel an intense unease around both the historicity and the theology (Christian concepts like the Christian afterlife, Trinity, Sacraments, Saints and Angelology/Demonology/Mariology are all 100% incongruous with Mormonism)?

I've never had it in me to read it, but maybe someday I'll actually give it a go. On the surface, it sounds like there's no way it could be good, but one of my atheist friends nearly converted after reading it, and only didn't do so because his wife threatened divorce.

That says a lot about its power, regardless of the personal character of Smith himself.

Because they dig deeper than the surface you Trinitarians read and find that the ante-Nicene Fathers in particular say a bunch of things you guys now consider heretical but are exactly what we are taught is true Christianity from revelation. It doesn't give us unease, the contrary, it makes us far more convinced that Joseph Smith restored ancient Christianity, and more convinced that the apostasy really did happen as he said.

I think you have to have a religious side, speaking psychologically or phenomenologically, to get the most of it. Obviously from the Mormon perspective its power is because God is there ready to convert you if you read it with an open heart. But from a secular perspective, religious feelings are also to be taken seriously, regardless of whether there is really a God, etc. William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience is a good book about this stuff. If you read the Book of Mormon as an aesthetic critic who actually hates religious feeling you'll probably not feel anything, and maybe dislike it. If you want to test how good your religious feeling is, maybe ask yourself: Do you feel gratitude to the universe when things go really good for you? Does your heart get emotionally thankful in the most powerful of those situations? Do you, in times of dire need, feel a yearning for pleading to the universe? When you confront the world around you, natural and even artificial, do you feel some kind of kinship with its existence and enchantment? Does the idea of things beyond what you can fully grasp (experience of the sublime) appeal to you and enlarge your imagination and give you a positive feeling? Have you ever felt a transformative even if temporary experience that makes you more morally tuned, more willing to be virtuous (i.e. humble, charitable, etc), and fills you with a kind of tranquility? Those sorts of feelings are religious, speaking psychologically or phenomenologically. God doesn't need to exist for those feelings to exist. People like William James value them, but a lot of secular people think if God isn't real, then religious feeling is useless or bad. You can take a different view and just see it as another aesthetic kind of angle. Anyway, from that perspective, there's beauty in content that stirs up your soul that way so to speak.

Attached: Mormons Visit a Country Carpenter.jpg (912x607, 106.69K)

Should unironically be burned.

>Check out Harold Bloom's views of Mormonism in his book The American Religion (he views it very positively). Remember this is the guy behind The Western Canon.
Bloom was Jewish.

of course. Joseph's Myth is a bona fide classic

Dude. You're delusional.

>Check out Harold Bloom's views of Mormonism in his book The American Religion (he views it very positively). Remember this is the guy behind The Western Canon.
IIRC he wrote LDS church will be the biggest religious body in western america by the year 2010/2015.
It's 2022 and the LDS is waning everywhere.

You think they would have made huge gains in Worst Korea over the past few decades but they fucked that up.

Cool argument apostate
It's more or less because of changes David O. McKay made that turned Mormonism into a more muted, less exciting version of itself. Stockholm syndrome from the American Protestants.

>the mormon heretic reveals itself
kek

>unironically part of Babylon the Great

It belongs to the amerimut canon, so in different words: to the trashbin

all of this fighting over a group of jews infatuated with a jewishguru

goyims really deserve to be treated as cattle

Your cult is retarded, mate. No cap.
Okay, Dingus. Go worship a tree and shut up, will you?

Attached: 1610408218055.jpg (510x494, 50.82K)

fake middle english but highly recommend picrel

Attached: book.jpg (773x1198, 218.75K)

The "Christian" began slinging insults first in a way that would surely not please his Lord, and now you're caught in his crossfires too as shown from

youtube.com/watch?v=46PXaJxzuDE

Attached: Cappuccino-and-Sugar-at-Nord-Coast-Coffee-Roastery-in-Hamburg-Germany.jpg (1000x667, 65.89K)

Mormons are some of the worst heretics in the world, even worse than the prosperity gospel preachers that con poor Americans of their government assistance. Them niggas should not be able to call themselves christians when they reject the basis of christianity, the trinity

>but they fucked that up.
what happened?

They are also predisposed to being glowies. I heard the alphabet boys recruit heavily from BYU.

Not sure. Weird that they haven't capitalized on the Protty wave in Korea and Brazil. They should have sent more blonde cuties on their missions instead of nerdy dudes.

>Suddenly, the Church Fathers before Nicea become non-Christians
Trinitarians are insane

None of of the Ante-Nicene fathers taught that the Father and the Son were distinct, contingent, corporeal beings, literal men sat in clouds, and neither did they teach any Heavenly Mother nor was their theosis anywhear near to the doctrine that the faithful may become gods in the most literal sense of being their own little Jehovas and creating their own worlds to repeat the process.

So basically Mormonism is the ultimate westernized enlightenment version of Christianity, just like Catholicism was the Roman version of Christianity and Protestantism its Germanic version.

Extremely low-IQ take.

>None of of the Ante-Nicene fathers taught that the Father and the Son were distinct, contingent, corporeal beings
Tertullian taught they were corporeal. Justin Martyr taught they were distinct Jehovahs quite literally. I'm not syaing this maps completely to Mormonism but at least don't embarrass yourself about your ignorance of the early Christians. Neither Tertullian's "spirits are corporeal" emanationist view nor Justin's "Jesus is a second god and a second Jehovah entirely distinct from the Father" view would classify as orthodox trinitarian today.

>the doctrine that the faithful may become gods in the most literal sense of being their own little Jehovas
Revelation 3:21

It’s bullshit but interesting to read if you didn’t grow up LDS. Read the CES letter if you are LDS or feeling convinced by the church, the whole religion falls apart under scrutiny.

Protestantism is hardly Germanic.
Wow you sure got me, bud!
>I'm not saying this maps completely to Mormonism [but none of this] would classify as orthodox trinitarian today
I am well aware which is why I didn't they were Trinitarian. You're wildly reading things into what I said in an uncharitable fashion. But, to be sure, I could have clarified some things for those without knowledge about Mormonism. Tertullian believed in the corporeality of of God in the Stoic sense. What Mormons believe is that God the Father is a man clothed in flesh, he has a literal, human body, like the incarnated Christ. As a side note, the view of spirit (but not God for the majority) as material (but of a more refined sort) was the general view in Antiquity, which Joseph Smith also said, interestingly enough: "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes."
I digress. Tertullian taught that the Father and the Son shared substance. Regarding Justin Martyr, he also says so. In LDS teaching, Father and Son are totally distinct in the sense that you and I are distinct, there is no sharing there. Lastly, what I meant by becoming your own little Jehova, is that the Mormon doctrine of exaltation states that God was once a man, like you and I, and was exalted by following His god before Him. One day, if we do the required Mormon stuff, we will literally become seperate gods, and go out and create our own worlds to lord over like Jehove did before us. Father and Son are not seperate Jehovas. The Son obeys the will of the Father. He is subordinate, in the Ante-Nicene view. There aren't two Jehovas in the old testament. These are two divinities acting in unison. You, however, will quite literally become your own version of Jehova and create your own Old Testament, and you will have your own Son, too. You also skipped over the part with the Heavenly Mother. Mormonism views Godhood as essentially familial, so there is a Father, a Son, but also a Mother, wife of the Father and mother of human spirits.

>Wow you sure got me, bud!
???
The point is that the doctrine that we can ascend to God's divine station is literally described in the New Testament, as that verse shows. There's no very meaningful sense to Jesus giving us God's throne seat other than for it to mean he's giving us his divine status. You Nicenes attempt to read it as a mere "honor" without any deeper significance, for God to have human beings sit on his throne as a reward for overcoming and becoming saved and glorified. That to me just seems like not taking the passage at face value and like coping.
>You're wildly reading things into what I said in an uncharitable fashion.
I'm not trying to be uncharitable. I was called delusional earlier in this thread for saying that reading the ante-Nicene Fathers boosts the faith of Mormons who read them. Maybe you're not the same person as the other user, but I couldn't tell.
>As a side note, the view of spirit (but not God for the majority) as material (but of a more refined sort) was the general view in Antiquity, which Joseph Smith also said, interestingly enough: "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes."
I'm glad you agree about this, since I would have wanted to point it out if you hadn't. You're right about Tertullian's Stoic view of matter. I can add to what you said, for your sake, since you've done the other thing for mine, and say that he was also an emanationist, so his trinity isn't just three corporeal spirits, but three physically connected sections of one corporeal divine essence. Which makes his trinitarianism perhaps even more heterodox still, but to your point it also makes his view yet more distinct from Mormon views of God too.
>Regarding Justin Martyr, he also says so
This I would strongly dispute. Compare Against Praxeas chapter 8 (by Tertullian) with Dialogue with Trypho chapter 128 (by Justin Martyr). You can easily find these online. Tertullian uses an analogy of the sun and the ray of light to communicate his emanationist theology. This is how he understands the Father and the Son to be of one substance. But Justin, writing earlier, mentions the same analogy, attributes it to different Christians, and rejects it wholeheartedly himself. Instead he says the Son gets his glory like a torch from a flame (the Father). And he's super comfortable calling the Son a "second god." How is Justin more like the trinitarians than us Mormons then? Of all the ante-Nicene theologians of the time, he's the earliest, but he's also the closest to Mormon theology out of all.
>Father and Son are not seperate Jehovas
Justin literally disagrees. He uses Genesis 19:24 and Psalm 110:1-5 to argue that there are literally two Lords (to use the Greek), which in the Hebrew (pre-Masoretic in the psalm's case) would be two Jehovahs. The second Jehovah in that psalm is even identified as Jesus in the New Testament.

As a Mormon I agree. Every other sliver of doctrine that I read from other faiths is Nonsensical babble. I was a missionary in PA and talked with a lot of different pastors and church leaders from other faiths. None of them know what the fuck they are talking about.

What are the Church Fathers??

It's funny too how often Trinitarians talk about the Trinity being the litmus test for counting as Christian, because most Christians, ordinary members and pastors, theologians, or apologists (even hardcore Trinitarian defenders) mess up and when explaining the Trinity end up teaching heresy by their own lights. This is true even of their most highly regarded theologians. The Cappadocian Fathers, Augustine, and certainly Athanasius himself are good examples of Trinitarian theologians who in the end commit heresy by their own lights. And that's because it's practically impossible to be a Trinitarian: the more you try to make sense of it, the likelier you are to commit heresy because you're trying to be logical. The Trinity is fundamentally illogical by contrast.

The trinity makes ZERO fucking sense biblically. Who the fuck was god talking to in genesis when he said “let’s US create them”

Who was Christ talking to in his intercessory prayer in John 17? oneness doesn’t have to =same form. He was pleading with the Fatehr to allow his disciples to be one with him as he is one with the Father. Christ is a separate being from the Father but one in spirit. Same with the Holy Ghost. The trinity only came about because of the great apostasy when the gospel became confused. It’s a result of mankind picking up scraps and fitting them together. God is light and light is discernible. It’s not confusing or vague. The trinity is false.

>the past 1500 years of Christianity have been invalid until some guy found some magic artifacts that revealed the true Christianity to him
>Also nicaea was invalid because reasons
At this point I'm convinced you're trolling.

It literally doesn’t fall apart. You don’t use divine energy to create something brand new the Bible was already available to Joseph so he drew heavily from it. The truth of the gospel is conveyed spiritually and what the Book of Mormon conveys is perfectly in line with the Bible. It even expands and clarifies things that it’s missing such as the knowledge that infant baptism is unnecessary and an abomination.

Christians believe a guy rose from the dead, prophets made miracles all throughout scripture but GOD FORBID a man translate plates and clarify nonsensical doctrines right? Mormons pity you people for being so blind and ignorant.

The final prophet is Muhammad pbuh you are all blind verily

The fact you keep trying to gaslight is really annoying. Your religion worships a logically incoherent consubstantial trinity, you're not one to talk about trolling. Can't you just argue with people in good faith, or walk away if that's too much to handle?
>Nicea
It's invalid because the theology developed there contradicts logic, and contradicts older church traditions (read the ante-Nicene Fathers), and was also convened by a church that had already made schism with what was probably the truer church when the whole debacle in Carthage with the Donatists happened. The Catholics frame it as the Donatists seceding but the Donatists frame it as the secession being the other way around. If you research into it, the Donatist case is actually better. The Donatists taught views about rebaptism and priesthood worthiness that Mormons accept from revelation, but the Donatists get it from Cyprian fifty years before, and Cyprian in letters and councils illustrated that the view was both Biblical, and traditionally held in Africa among all the bishops since the beginning. But instead you get your doctrines from Rome, even though Cyprian, and Tertullian and Hippolytus before him, all constantly argued that all kinds of corrupt influences were messing up the Bishopric of Rome even in the 200s.
>the past 1500 years of Christianity have been invalid
It's foretold in Revelation 12-13, and hinted at in 2 Thessalonians 2 as well.

>Augustine commits heresy
Jesus Christ, I'm done.

He does though. Nearly all of you do, by your own measures. Want to prove you don't? Say how the Trinity works beyond "one essence three persons." The moment you really try, you'll probably commit heresy. Aquinas is the only one that I know who tried and didn't commit heresy in the process, but at the cost of recognizing that what goes on in God is basically counter to the logic of the created world.

Read the CES letter. If what you believe is the truth, it will withstand any scrutiny.

I'm not the other user, but I hate that we're in an age where people are so young or so behind the times that they think the CES letter is saying stuff that hasn't been said before or better for DECADES before. Which my little Mormon ears have heard for years already, and become used to. What you need to do, is do your own research beyond that one letter. Yes, read more anti-Mormon stuff, but read all the pro-Mormon stuff too. And read stuff that is relevant, like the ancient Church Fathers, dig deep into Bible studies, etc. Read the Bible itself deeply and closely. Read about Mormon miracles and other things extensively. If you really do that, you will be a Mormon. The only people who do that are all Mormons. The anti-Mormons never read the Bible, Bible studies literature, the Church Fathers, Mormon miracle literature, etc nearly as much, which is not surprising. Some of the anti-Mormons are Christians who don't even know Christianity that well, it really is embarrassing.