The Lord has never commanded that polygamy be lived. Change my mind.

[Redpilled Mormon]

I don't believe Joseph ordained himself king of America.................. It was king of the entire earth.... Committee of 50 transcended just one nation... But your point is well taken, Joseph seemed to be doing to many things for a man commanded to translate and teach the gospel only.

I also see some things Joseph did that seem either wrong or certainly not the best. However, I find his greatest teaching (which he held to near his death, secretly and mostly with subtle lies and simplifications of teachings) of exaltation and mans relationship to god at the KFD as his greatest and final sermon. Funny it wasn't to be his last GC talk. His original talk was to call down those trying to kill him, and then he was to talk the next day (Sunday), but came down horse from yelling into the wind and never gave a public sermon again. So, on, off, on again, off again, on again?????? (like me I suppose)

I think it was somewhere in the D&C that Joseph was commanded to do nothing more than translate and teach the gospel only, I'm trying to find the exact reference and wording because I remember reading this and it made my eyebrows go up, since we know from history Joseph instead did lots of worldly stuff (general, mayor, running for prez, etc). Anybody got an exact reference on this?

[Gadianton Slayer]

I don't believe Joseph ordained himself king of America.................. It was king of the entire earth.... Committee of 50 transcended just one nation... But your point is well taken, Joseph seemed to be doing to many things for a man commanded to translate and teach the gospel only.

I also see some things Joseph did that seem either wrong or certainly not the best. However, I find his greatest teaching (which he held to near his death, secretly and mostly with subtle lies and simplifications of teachings) of exaltation and mans relationship to god at the KFD as his greatest and final sermon. Funny it wasn't to be his last GC talk. His original talk was to call down those trying to kill him, and then he was to talk the next day (Sunday), but came down horse from yelling into the wind and never gave a public sermon again. So, on, off, on again, off again, on again?????? (like me I suppose)

I think it was somewhere in the D&C that Joseph was commanded to do nothing more than translate and teach the gospel only, I'm trying to find the exact reference and wording because I remember reading this and it made my eyebrows go up, since we know from history Joseph instead did lots of worldly stuff (general, mayor, running for prez, etc). Anybody got an exact reference on this?

I think that translating the BoM was the extent of Joseph’s work.

[Luke]

I don't believe Joseph ordained himself king of America.................. It was king of the entire earth.... Committee of 50 transcended just one nation... But your point is well taken, Joseph seemed to be doing to many things for a man commanded to translate and teach the gospel only.

I also see some things Joseph did that seem either wrong or certainly not the best. However, I find his greatest teaching (which he held to near his death, secretly and mostly with subtle lies and simplifications of teachings) of exaltation and mans relationship to god at the KFD as his greatest and final sermon. Funny it wasn't to be his last GC talk. His original talk was to call down those trying to kill him, and then he was to talk the next day (Sunday), but came down horse from yelling into the wind and never gave a public sermon again. So, on, off, on again, off again, on again?????? (like me I suppose)

I think it was somewhere in the D&C that Joseph was commanded to do nothing more than translate and teach the gospel only, I'm trying to find the exact reference and wording because I remember reading this and it made my eyebrows go up, since we know from history Joseph instead did lots of worldly stuff (general, mayor, running for prez, etc). Anybody got an exact reference on this?

It’s in David Whitmer’s book “An Address to All Believers in Christ”.

Someone did a thread on it:

viewtopic.php?t=64670

[TheDuke]

It was in Book of Commandments early D&C version, it was later updated. And as stated above David Whitmer quoted it.

[LDS Watchman]

I don't believe Joseph ordained himself king of America.................. It was king of the entire earth.... Committee of 50 transcended just one nation... But your point is well taken, Joseph seemed to be doing to many things for a man commanded to translate and teach the gospel only.

I also see some things Joseph did that seem either wrong or certainly not the best. However, I find his greatest teaching (which he held to near his death, secretly and mostly with subtle lies and simplifications of teachings) of exaltation and mans relationship to god at the KFD as his greatest and final sermon. Funny it wasn't to be his last GC talk. His original talk was to call down those trying to kill him, and then he was to talk the next day (Sunday), but came down horse from yelling into the wind and never gave a public sermon again. So, on, off, on again, off again, on again?????? (like me I suppose)

I think it was somewhere in the D&C that Joseph was commanded to do nothing more than translate and teach the gospel only, I'm trying to find the exact reference and wording because I remember reading this and it made my eyebrows go up, since we know from history Joseph instead did lots of worldly stuff (general, mayor, running for prez, etc). Anybody got an exact reference on this?

I think that translating the BoM was the extent of Joseph’s work.

So does this mean you officially reject the entire D&C as scripture?

[Gadianton Slayer]

I think that translating the BoM was the extent of Joseph’s work.

So does this mean you officially reject the entire D&C as scripture?

I think there are parts of D&C that do not constitute scripture, and by itself it is a completely meaningless book.

It seems to fit into this category mentioned in 1 Nephi 13:

40… These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first…

The “first” being the BoM.

Would I make a blanket statement about the D&C being scripture or not? No, because it’s not a yes or no question. It has been altered, and Joseph was an imperfect man. I trust the sections that are in harmony with the teachings in the BoM.

[LDS Watchman]

I think that translating the BoM was the extent of Joseph’s work.

So does this mean you officially reject the entire D&C as scripture?

I think there are parts of D&C that do not constitute scripture, and by itself it is a completely meaningless book.

It seems to fit into this category mentioned in 1 Nephi 13:

40… These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first…

The “first” being the BoM.

Would I make a blanket statement about the D&C being scripture or not? No, because it’s not a yes or no question. It has been altered, and Joseph was an imperfect man. I trust the sections that are in harmony with the teachings in the BoM.

If Joseph's only work from God was to publish the BOM, then the D&C would not be from God. Instead the whole book would have been the product of Joseph having been deceived into believing that his own ideas, or the ideas of the devil, were revelations from God.

Joseph would have either been a fallen prophet or no prophet at all, just as David Whitmer later claimed.

If on the other hand, the D&C is one of these "last records" then it is scripture from God and the BOM was not Joseph's only work. In which case picking and choosing the parts you believe is foolhardy. It would be no different than picking and choosing which parts of the BOM you believe.

[Gadianton Slayer]

I think that translating the BoM was the extent of Joseph’s work.

So does this mean you officially reject the entire D&C as scripture?

I think there are parts of D&C that do not constitute scripture, and by itself it is a completely meaningless book.

It seems to fit into this category mentioned in 1 Nephi 13:

40… These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first…

The “first” being the BoM.

Would I make a blanket statement about the D&C being scripture or not? No, because it’s not a yes or no question. It has been altered, and Joseph was an imperfect man. I trust the sections that are in harmony with the teachings in the BoM.

If Joseph's only work from God was to publish the BOM, then the D&C would not be from God. Instead the whole book would have been the product of Joseph having been deceived into believing that his own ideas, or the ideas of the devil, were revelations from God.

Joseph would have either been a fallen prophet or no prophet at all, just as David Whitmer later claimed.

If on the other hand, the D&C is one of these "last records" then it is scripture from God and the BOM was not Joseph's only work. In which case picking and choosing the parts you believe is foolhardy. It would be no different than picking and choosing which parts of the BOM you believe.

What a joke, comparing D&C to the BoM. Not even remotely the same.

Not going to have this discussion with you though, two replies is enough.

[LDS Watchman]

So does this mean you officially reject the entire D&C as scripture?

I think there are parts of D&C that do not constitute scripture, and by itself it is a completely meaningless book.

It seems to fit into this category mentioned in 1 Nephi 13:

40… These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first…

The “first” being the BoM.

Would I make a blanket statement about the D&C being scripture or not? No, because it’s not a yes or no question. It has been altered, and Joseph was an imperfect man. I trust the sections that are in harmony with the teachings in the BoM.

If Joseph's only work from God was to publish the BOM, then the D&C would not be from God. Instead the whole book would have been the product of Joseph having been deceived into believing that his own ideas, or the ideas of the devil, were revelations from God.

Joseph would have either been a fallen prophet or no prophet at all, just as David Whitmer later claimed.

If on the other hand, the D&C is one of these "last records" then it is scripture from God and the BOM was not Joseph's only work. In which case picking and choosing the parts you believe is foolhardy. It would be no different than picking and choosing which parts of the BOM you believe.

What a joke, comparing D&C to the BoM. Not even remotely the same.

Not going to have this discussion with you though, two replies is enough.

Yeah, what a joke comparing the revelations of God for our day to his prophet Joseph Smith who opened the last dispensation to the revelations given to ancient prophets on the American continent.

Yeah what a joke!


On a serious note, this is what you always do when backed into a corner. You just start laughing hysterically and then refuse to give an answer. Reminds me of what Kamala Harris does.

[Baurak Ale]

I think that translating the BoM was the extent of Joseph’s work.

So does this mean you officially reject the entire D&C as scripture?

I think there are parts of D&C that do not constitute scripture, and by itself it is a completely meaningless book.

It seems to fit into this category mentioned in 1 Nephi 13:

40… These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first…

The “first” being the BoM.

Would I make a blanket statement about the D&C being scripture or not? No, because it’s not a yes or no question. It has been altered, and Joseph was an imperfect man. I trust the sections that are in harmony with the teachings in the BoM.

If Joseph's only work from God was to publish the BOM, then the D&C would not be from God. Instead the whole book would have been the product of Joseph having been deceived into believing that his own ideas, or the ideas of the devil, were revelations from God.

Joseph would have either been a fallen prophet or no prophet at all, just as David Whitmer later claimed.

If on the other hand, the D&C is one of these "last records" then it is scripture from God and the BOM was not Joseph's only work. In which case picking and choosing the parts you believe is foolhardy. It would be no different than picking and choosing which parts of the BOM you believe.

Joseph Smith commented on the concept that the Lord can say one thing at an earlier point and then essentially override or alter that command later:

STPJS 194:

On the subject of revelation, he said, a man would command his sons to dig potatoes and saddle his horse, but before he had done either he would tell him to do something else. This is all considered right; but as soon as the Lord gives a commandment and revokes that decree and commands something else, then the Prophet is considered fallen."

How true is that! Just look at the aspersion towards Joseph's works on this forum. Joseph, at one point, was only to translate—that is true. But with the growth of the church and advancement of the kingdom, Joseph was given more and more revelation until he came to the stations of Prophet, Priest, and King. Anointed as king he would have gathered the saints as chicks under his wings and led them to Zion and directly into exaltation, but they would not.

That said, Joseph's death was required to fulfill the covenants and cement the completion of his next step, so it was not a total loss. Brigham faithfully took up the reigns as the highest ranking member of the Quorum of the Anointed, having fully entered into the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage. It wasn't according to the pattern laid out even in the D&C, but it was according to a pattern the Lord established in the fulness of his priesthood. Not many saints knew that, but providentially those who needed to know saw the signs and manifestations of the truth.

[Gadianton Slayer]

Joseph Smith commented on the concept that the Lord can say one thing at an earlier point and then essentially override or alter that command later.

So you’re saying the BoM can become outdated? That it doesn’t already contain the fullness of the Gospel?

[Baurak Ale]

Joseph Smith commented on the concept that the Lord can say one thing at an earlier point and then essentially override or alter that command later.

So you’re saying the BoM can become outdated? That it doesn’t already contain the fullness of the Gospel?

My original statement was regarding the Lord's command to Joseph to only translate and then the Lord actually having more in mind for him that was revealed subsequent to the original declaration.

As for extending that logic to the Book of Mormon, I am saying that whatever the Lord says is right and that he has full authority to give commands that supersede or modify otherwise standing orders. As for the Book of Mormon containing the fullness of the gospel, I do not think that the Lord changes the definition of the fulness of the gospel. The fulness includes the clause to receive the Holy Ghost and obey its directives until Christ appears to you to tell you new and additional things:

2 Nephi 32: 5 – 7:

5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.
6 Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh. And when he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh, the things which he shall say unto you shall ye observe to do.
7 And now I, Nephi, cannot say more; the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance.

So the fulness contained in the Book of Mormon includes an open-ended clause for the Lord to initiate you into the mysteries beyond faith, repentance, and baptism, which is the sum of the gospel that leads to salvation. The mysteries come later and lead to exaltation:

Alma 12:9 – 11:

9 It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

As these verses show, though the mysteries are not included in the fulness of the gospel explicitly, knowing nothing concerning them leads to destruction and hell. It is more or less the implication of receiving the gospel to go on and be glorified in knowledge through obtaining the mysteries line upon line.

This is of course clearly laid out in the D&C as a second witness.

[Gadianton Slayer]

Joseph Smith commented on the concept that the Lord can say one thing at an earlier point and then essentially override or alter that command later.

So you’re saying the BoM can become outdated? That it doesn’t already contain the fullness of the Gospel?

My original statement was regarding the Lord's command to Joseph to only translate and then the Lord actually having more in mind for him that was revealed subsequent to the original declaration.

As for extending that logic to the Book of Mormon, I am saying that whatever the Lord says is right and that he has full authority to give commands that supersede or modify otherwise standing orders. As for the Book of Mormon containing the fullness of the gospel, I do not think that the Lord changes the definition of the fulness of the gospel. The fulness includes the clause to receive the Holy Ghost and obey its directives until Christ appears to you to tell you new and additional things:

2 Nephi 32: 5 – 7:

5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.
6 Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh. And when he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh, the things which he shall say unto you shall ye observe to do.
7 And now I, Nephi, cannot say more; the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance.

So the fulness contained in the Book of Mormon includes an open-ended clause for the Lord to initiate you into the mysteries beyond faith, repentance, and baptism, which is the sum of the gospel that leads to salvation. The mysteries come later and lead to exaltation:

Alma 12:9 – 11:

9 It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

As these verses show, though the mysteries are not included in the fulness of the gospel explicitly, knowing nothing concerning them leads to destruction and hell. It is more or less the implication of receiving the gospel to go on and be glorified in knowledge through obtaining the mysteries line upon line.

This is of course clearly laid out in the D&C as a second witness.

Hmm. I have a much different perspective on the meaning of 2 Nephi 32, not enough time right now to explain that though.

[Redpilled Mormon]

I think that translating the BoM was the extent of Joseph’s work.

So does this mean you officially reject the entire D&C as scripture?

I think there are parts of D&C that do not constitute scripture, and by itself it is a completely meaningless book.

It seems to fit into this category mentioned in 1 Nephi 13:

40… These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first…

The “first” being the BoM.

Would I make a blanket statement about the D&C being scripture or not? No, because it’s not a yes or no question. It has been altered, and Joseph was an imperfect man. I trust the sections that are in harmony with the teachings in the BoM.

If Joseph's only work from God was to publish the BOM, then the D&C would not be from God. Instead the whole book would have been the product of Joseph having been deceived into believing that his own ideas, or the ideas of the devil, were revelations from God.

Joseph would have either been a fallen prophet or no prophet at all, just as David Whitmer later claimed.

If on the other hand, the D&C is one of these "last records" then it is scripture from God and the BOM was not Joseph's only work. In which case picking and choosing the parts you believe is foolhardy. It would be no different than picking and choosing which parts of the BOM you believe.

I don't know of a single lds member that actually regards D&C as 100% unchangeable Word-of-God scripture. But maybe you do?

Is the Word of Wisdom a commandment? If you say yes; then you disagree with the D&C, and if you say no, then you disagree with the lds church.

Maybe there exists some splinter group outside the lds church that holds the belief that D&C is 100% scripture, but I'm not aware of any, and certainly for those who believe the lds church is true it seems logically impossible to hold to this view.

Therefore it simply becomes a question of what % of the D&C do you trust is true.

[Sarah]

So does this mean you officially reject the entire D&C as scripture?

I think there are parts of D&C that do not constitute scripture, and by itself it is a completely meaningless book.

It seems to fit into this category mentioned in 1 Nephi 13:

40… These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first…

The “first” being the BoM.

Would I make a blanket statement about the D&C being scripture or not? No, because it’s not a yes or no question. It has been altered, and Joseph was an imperfect man. I trust the sections that are in harmony with the teachings in the BoM.

If Joseph's only work from God was to publish the BOM, then the D&C would not be from God. Instead the whole book would have been the product of Joseph having been deceived into believing that his own ideas, or the ideas of the devil, were revelations from God.

Joseph would have either been a fallen prophet or no prophet at all, just as David Whitmer later claimed.

If on the other hand, the D&C is one of these "last records" then it is scripture from God and the BOM was not Joseph's only work. In which case picking and choosing the parts you believe is foolhardy. It would be no different than picking and choosing which parts of the BOM you believe.

I don't know of a single lds member that actually regards D&C as 100% unchangeable Word of God scripture. But maybe you do?

Is the Word of Wisdom a commandment? If you say yes; then you disagree with the D&C, and if you say no, then you disagree with the lds church.

Maybe there exists some splinter group outside the lds church that holds the belief that D&C is 100% scripture, but I'm not aware of any, and certainly for those who believe the lds church is true it seems logically impossible to hold to this view.

Therefore it simply becomes a question of what % of the D&C do you trust is true.

So maybe it would be better to call it history of the doctrine and covenants.

[John Tavner]

I think that translating the BoM was the extent of Joseph’s work.

So does this mean you officially reject the entire D&C as scripture?

I think there are parts of D&C that do not constitute scripture, and by itself it is a completely meaningless book.

It seems to fit into this category mentioned in 1 Nephi 13:

40… These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first…

The “first” being the BoM.

Would I make a blanket statement about the D&C being scripture or not? No, because it’s not a yes or no question. It has been altered, and Joseph was an imperfect man. I trust the sections that are in harmony with the teachings in the BoM.

I actually take that to mean the BoM establishes the Truth of hte Bible, but I can see your understanding of it. I agree with the rest though.

[Gadianton Slayer]

I think that translating the BoM was the extent of Joseph’s work.

So does this mean you officially reject the entire D&C as scripture?

I think there are parts of D&C that do not constitute scripture, and by itself it is a completely meaningless book.

It seems to fit into this category mentioned in 1 Nephi 13:

40… These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first…

The “first” being the BoM.

Would I make a blanket statement about the D&C being scripture or not? No, because it’s not a yes or no question. It has been altered, and Joseph was an imperfect man. I trust the sections that are in harmony with the teachings in the BoM.

I actually take that to mean the BoM establishes the Truth of hte Bible, but I can see your understanding of it. I agree with the rest though.

The reason I think “first” is referring to the BoM is because of verse 38:

38 And it came to pass that I beheld the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the book of the Lamb of God, which had proceeded forth from the mouth of the Jew, that it came forth from the Gentiles unto the remnant of the seed of my brethren.

39 And after it had come forth unto them I beheld other books…

[Luke]

So does this mean you officially reject the entire D&C as scripture?

I think there are parts of D&C that do not constitute scripture, and by itself it is a completely meaningless book.

It seems to fit into this category mentioned in 1 Nephi 13:

40… These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first…

The “first” being the BoM.

Would I make a blanket statement about the D&C being scripture or not? No, because it’s not a yes or no question. It has been altered, and Joseph was an imperfect man. I trust the sections that are in harmony with the teachings in the BoM.

I actually take that to mean the BoM establishes the Truth of hte Bible, but I can see your understanding of it. I agree with the rest though.

The reason I think “first” is referring to the BoM is because of verse 38:

38 And it came to pass that I beheld the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the book of the Lamb of God, which had proceeded forth from the mouth of the Jew, that it came forth from the Gentiles unto the remnant of the seed of my brethren.

39 And after it had come forth unto them I beheld other books…

To me that sounds like it’s referring to the Bible.

[John Tavner]

So does this mean you officially reject the entire D&C as scripture?

I think there are parts of D&C that do not constitute scripture, and by itself it is a completely meaningless book.

It seems to fit into this category mentioned in 1 Nephi 13:

40… These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first…

The “first” being the BoM.

Would I make a blanket statement about the D&C being scripture or not? No, because it’s not a yes or no question. It has been altered, and Joseph was an imperfect man. I trust the sections that are in harmony with the teachings in the BoM.

I actually take that to mean the BoM establishes the Truth of hte Bible, but I can see your understanding of it. I agree with the rest though.

The reason I think “first” is referring to the BoM is because of verse 38:

38 And it came to pass that I beheld the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the book of the Lamb of God, which had proceeded forth from the mouth of the Jew, that it came forth from the Gentiles unto the remnant of the seed of my brethren.

39 And after it had come forth unto them I beheld other books…

Yeah, still reads like the Bible to me. I mean it isn't anything to get into an argument over (not saying we are doing that, but just as commentary in general), but I feel like the rest of verse 40 really clarifies it : 40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, (then clarifies which first records) which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb,

That said, I can understand why you think the way you do.

[Gadianton Slayer]

I think there are parts of D&C that do not constitute scripture, and by itself it is a completely meaningless book.

It seems to fit into this category mentioned in 1 Nephi 13:

The “first” being the BoM.

Would I make a blanket statement about the D&C being scripture or not? No, because it’s not a yes or no question. It has been altered, and Joseph was an imperfect man. I trust the sections that are in harmony with the teachings in the BoM.

I actually take that to mean the BoM establishes the Truth of hte Bible, but I can see your understanding of it. I agree with the rest though.

The reason I think “first” is referring to the BoM is because of verse 38:

38 And it came to pass that I beheld the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the book of the Lamb of God, which had proceeded forth from the mouth of the Jew, that it came forth from the Gentiles unto the remnant of the seed of my brethren.

39 And after it had come forth unto them I beheld other books…

Yeah, still reads like the Bible to me. I mean it isn't anything to get into an argument over (not saying we are doing that, but just as commentary in general), but I feel like the rest of verse 40 really clarifies it : 40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, (then clarifies which first records) which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb,

That said, I can understand why you think the way you do.

Interesting, I may lean more towards your thoughts now. Makes sense.

The BoM will establish truth in the Bible and help sort out some of the imperfections. I'll do some deeper study into that later, thanks.

[TheDuke]

So, if you take that the BoM is the last word of the Lord as it contains the fullness and there is no more scripture, sure sounds like what everyone else says about the Bible. It also contains the fullness of the gospel, but with a few errors.

[Redpilled Mormon]

So, if you take that the BoM is the last word of the Lord as it contains the fullness and there is no more scripture, sure sounds like what everyone else says about the Bible. It also contains the fullness of the gospel, but with a few errors.

I don't want to put words in anyone else's mouth, but following the line of thinking expressed so far I don't think anyone posted so far that the BoM was the last word of the Lord.

As far as what it says in 1 Nephi 13 verse 40, I don't think the word usage of 'last' should equate to being the same as 'final'. Rather I think it was 'last' in the sense of being the 'latter' part shown in the vision, as compared to the earlier book (bible) shown. I could be wrong, but that was always my impression, that the vision wasn't instructing this would be the final scriptures ever released in mortality, I think we have scriptural references that would demonstrate that other scriptural records of other peoples (10 tribes and others) will come forward eventually too. Heck even the sealed portion of the BoM too I think.

[John Tavner]

So, if you take that the BoM is the last word of the Lord as it contains the fullness and there is no more scripture, sure sounds like what everyone else says about the Bible. It also contains the fullness of the gospel, but with a few errors.

It does indeed contain the fulness of the gospel, all there in its entirety. Any sincere seeker of truth who is seeking God can come to God through the Bible - just as in the Book of Mormon- if not more so. The BoM makes a lot less sense without hte Bible as a contextual backdrop.