LDS The Infallibility of the Prophets

[He is the way]

While still preaching the false gospel of mormonism. That does not override your fascination with LOVE.

Yes LOVE is the most important thing in the universe. God is LOVE.

 

[Leaf473]

Thank you, here are a few of the talks that were given:

Love—the Essence of the Gospel

The Need for Greater Kindness

Let Virtue Garnish Your Thoughts

Charity Never Faileth.

“We Believe in Being Honest”

Face the Future with Faith

"Are Ye Stripped of Pride?" - Kim B. Clark - BYU Speeches

Finding Joy through Loving Service

Well, in addition to love, though, doesn't a person also have to agree that Joseph was a prophet in order to be LDS?

 

[BigDaddy4]

Yes LOVE is the most important thing in the universe. God is LOVE.

It is not an act of LOVE to preach a false gospel.

 

[He is the way]

Well, in addition to love, though, doesn't a person also have to agree that Joseph was a prophet in order to be LDS?

Joseph Smith was/is a prophet of God. If a person does not believe he was/is a prophet it is probably best that they don't belong to The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints.

 

[He is the way]

It is not an act of LOVE to preach a false gospel.

That is why, as I have shown, leaders of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints do not teach a false gospel.

 

[dzheremi]

That is why, as I have shown, leaders of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints do not teach a false gospel.

You haven't, though. You've invoked the concept of love in obnoxious ways and irrelevant situations thousands of times to the point of souring people here on it as a concept, and quoted scripture to that effect so as to make it clear to all reading this thread that while you know how to perform a word search or otherwise present a prooftext, you don't actually know how to deal with objections that come from the same canon of scripture, or the fact that nothing you believe or claim was believed by the hypothesized (but not documented) early, pre-'apostasy' Church is found anywhere outside of your own esiegesis.

 

[He is the way]

You haven't, though. You've invoked the concept of love in obnoxious ways and irrelevant situations thousands of times to the point of souring people here on it as a concept, and quoted scripture to that effect so as to make it clear to all reading this thread that while you know how to perform a word search or otherwise present a prooftext, you don't actually know how to deal with objections that come from the same canon of scripture, or the fact that nothing you believe or claim was believed by the hypothesized (but not documented) early, pre-'apostasy' Church is found anywhere outside of your own esiegesis.

Everyone has their own concept of the meaning of the scriptures, but this I do know members of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints are the most loving, giving, and service oriented people on the earth. The members show their love through service and charity. We are taught correct doctrine and we live by that doctrine.

 

[Leaf473]

Joseph Smith was/is a prophet of God. If a person does not believe he was/is a prophet it is probably best that they don't belong to The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints.

Right, in addition to preaching about love, LDS leaders also preach strict adherence to Joseph and all of the LDS prophets since then.

This strikes me as odd since those prophets are also said to be imperfect.

One could say that God required strict adherence to the words of Moses, though he was imperfect. Well, that was true under the old covenant, it is not true under the New covenant, imo.

 

[Leaf473]

...but this I do know members of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints are the most loving, giving, and service oriented people on the earth.

I mean this as gently as possible, but this is almost word for word what the Jehovah's Witnesses I meet with on Saturday tell me about their group.

 

[BigDaddy4]

That is why, as I have shown, leaders of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints do not teach a false gospel.

You have shown nothing of substance. Your "gospel", however, has been shown to be built on the sands of wishful thinking - BOM "translation" process and all its errors, "Reformed Egyptian" not a language, lack of evidence of BOM peoples, cultures, and infrastructure ever existing, etc.

 

[He is the way]

I mean this as gently as possible, but this is almost word for word what the Jehovah's Witnesses I meet with on Saturday tell me about their group.

God knows and loves all of His children, some return His love through charity and service while others do not. This is true for all people no mater what religion they belong to. That being said The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints have a proven track record for charity and service which I believe is second to none. I do admire all religions and institutions which put LOVE and charity first. That is the hallmark of Godliness.

 

[He is the way]

You have shown nothing of substance. Your "gospel", however, has been shown to be built on the sands of wishful thinking - BOM "translation" process and all its errors, "Reformed Egyptian" not a language, lack of evidence of BOM peoples, cultures, and infrastructure ever existing, etc.

Lack of evidence proves NOTHING. However, as for evidence fruits are the important part:

(New Testament | Matthew 7:16 - 20)

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

 

[dzheremi]

Everyone has their own concept of the meaning of the scriptures, but this I do know members of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints are the most loving, giving, and service oriented people on the earth.

Okay, but this is not how truth claims work. You could be the nicest person in the history of the world, and it wouldn't make Reformed Egyptian somehow be a real thing, and it wouldn't change history to make things like "baptism for the dead" a practice of the Christian Church in any era.

The members show their love through service and charity.

That's great. That's a very positive thing.

We are taught correct doctrine

Mormon-specific doctrine is not correct doctrine. Your religion's theology, ecclesiology, prophetology, etc. are all wrong, not on my word but on the word of the early Church itself, as found in the holy scriptures, the early Church fathers, the councils and synods, the desert fathers and mothers, and any other resource we can look at.

and we live by that doctrine.

That's why it's a problem. False doctrines about God, the Church, and everything else lead to adherence to false religions like Mormonism, which are not salvific and truly endanger people's souls.

 

[He is the way]

Okay, but this is not how truth claims work. You could be the nicest person in the history of the world, and it wouldn't make Reformed Egyptian somehow be a real thing, and it wouldn't change history to make things like "baptism for the dead" a practice of the Christian Church in any era.

There is no way to prove that reformed Egyptian is a real thing or NOT a real thing at this moment. I believe it will be proven to be a real thing. Baptism for the dead was practiced in ancient times and was acknowledged by Paul as an acceptable practice:

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 15:29)

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

The answer to Paul's question is that there is a resurrection and baptism is a necessary ordinance for everyone who sinned to be forgiven.

That's great. That's a very positive thing.

Yes it is a positive thing as we will be judged by our works:

(New Testament | Revelation 20:13)

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Mormon-specific doctrine is not correct doctrine. Your religion's theology, ecclesiology, prophetology, etc. are all wrong, not on my word but on the word of the early Church itself, as found in the holy scriptures, the early Church fathers, the councils and synods, the desert fathers and mothers, and any other resource we can look at.

The doctrine of LOVE is NOT wrong and will never be wrong. Neither is our specific doctrine wrong, nor does it disagree with the Bible.

That's why it's a problem. False doctrines about God, the Church, and everything else lead to adherence to false religions like Mormonism, which are not salvific and truly endanger people's souls.

Jesus Christ pointed out that EVERYONE who keeps the commandments of LOVE will be saved no mater what. There is NO other criteria for salvation:

(Old Testament | Ecclesiastes 12:10 - 14)

10 The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.
11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.
12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
13 ¶ Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

(New Testament | Luke 10:25 - 28)

25 ¶ And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

 

[dzheremi]

There is no way to prove that reformed Egyptian is a real thing or NOT a real thing at this moment.

There's no way to prove that Jesus didn't open up a soft-serve ice cream shop in Galilee, either, but that doesn't mean anyone should take that idea seriously. Reformed Egyptian is not an idea that any serious, non-LDS linguist takes seriously. At all.

Just last week I got a book in the mail called Coptic: A Grammar of Its Six Major Dialects by James P. Allen, professor of Egyptology at Brown University and also author of A Grammar of Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, vol. 1: Unis. Both books were published by Eisenbrauns, a serious academic publisher unaffiliated with any religion. I think it's safe to say that Professor Allen probably knows a thing or two about the languages of Egypt and the Egyptians. At no point in this work is the existence of anything known as 'Reformed Egyptian' even so much as hinted at, which is strange since it makes references to other stages of Egyptian where appropriate throughout the work (I didn't realize when I ordered it that it is actually a pedagogical grammar, intended to teach the language itself rather than be a deep dive on its history, so the bibliography is not quite as big as I had expected). Same thing can be said of other works in my modest library of Coptic language material. Heck, my own master's thesis (which I would not ever present as being a professional-level academic resource, as due to family problems I was never able to go back to it and edit/rewrite it for publication, so it is very raw and severely lacking in some areas of analysis), which dealt with Coptic as well, had a bibliography of something like 13 pages since I referenced dozens and dozens of works (it took me 1.5 years just to write the thesis, and this was a good chunk of that time), and not one of those works mentioned anything about 'Reformed Egyptian', either, despite the fact that many of them didn't just deal with Coptic but with all known stages and varieties of Egyptian.

I don't want to be arrogant, but my point is that if a literature review going back to before the beginning of your religion (I believe the chronologically earliest work in English that I consulted dated back to around 1810, though I'd have to double check to be sure) doesn't find any mention of 'Reformed Egyptian', and no books today that are not published with the involvement of BYU/FARMS mention it either, at what point can we say that for all intents and purposes that we can treat it as a non-entity as regards scientific research? I believe we are long past that point by now, and any further waiting -- whether done by Mormon or non-Mormon (surprise: science doesn't care what religion you are) -- is not at all likely to produce anything beneficial or revelatory.

I believe it will be proven to be a real thing.

And you can still believe that. That's fine. I'm not here to tell you what you can and cannot believe. I'm just saying scientifically, when it comes to the work of linguists who work with Egyptian, it is a non-entity. There's nothing to present as being 'Reformed Egyptian'. It doesn't exist, and there's nothing we have seen so far that suggests it ever did. And also that if LDS 'scholars' working in this area have any evidence, then they need to submit it to the wider scientific community so that it can be scrutinized. That they don't do that is very telling. Personally I think they know that there is no evidence now and no evidence forthcoming (they'd have to, if they were educated outside the LDS system as many were; UCLA or wherever would not be awarding hacks like , but I can understand why they wouldn't want to be so blunt about it.

Baptism for the dead was practiced in ancient times and was acknowledged by Paul as an acceptable practice:

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 15:29)

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

The answer to Paul's question is that there is a resurrection and baptism is a necessary ordinance for everyone who sinned to be forgiven.

Don't make me go get St. John Chrysostom again. The only groups in early Christianity who took that verse in a proto-Mormon manner were gnostic heretics who the Church rejected on the basis of their false beliefs and practices, no differently than why we continue to reject Mormonism today.

The doctrine of LOVE is NOT wrong and will never be wrong.

I don't see how love is a doctrine, but okay. I'm not against love, though I personally think that your constant evoking of it in contexts where we're not talking about that really cheapens it. Love is a wonderful thing (to accidentally quote Michael Bolton...), but responding to questions about specific points of Mormon or Christian doctrine with "What about LOVE; you guys are forgetting LOVE" or some such really does seem like a dodge. That's not a good thing to do with love.

Neither is our specific doctrine wrong, nor does it disagree with the Bible.

That's as you see it, of course, but I believe that the Christians of this messageboard have shown that it is wrong, and it does disagree with the Bible. You simply refusing to acknowledge that there is anything wrong with Mormonism isn't an answer to their/our refutations.

Jesus Christ pointed out that EVERYONE who keeps the commandments of LOVE will be saved no mater what. There is NO other criteria for salvation:

(Old Testament | Ecclesiastes 12:10 - 14)

10 The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.
11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.
12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
13 ¶ Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

(New Testament | Luke 10:25 - 28)

25 ¶ And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

These are things that Christ said concerning a summation of the Law (of Moses), and are of course perfect and unspoiled as is everything Christ said and did. They are not the only things He said period, however. These other things Christ said and did are not believed in by Mormonism. For instance, I don't think any Mormon could affirm Christ's divinity as was shown to His beloved in the Transfiguration (since you guys don't hold to Christian theology, so you do not have a correct understanding of what that event 'means', theologically), or possess a correct understanding of what He means when He says "I and the Father are one" (again, because your theology is off).

 

[Leaf473]

That being said The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints have a proven track record for charity and service which I believe is second to none.

I hear what you're saying.

The reason I brought up the JW's is that they believe just as sincerely that they are the leaders in charity and service.

For charity, they will point to how their congregations are some of the most racially mixed.

For service, they will show how every active Jehovah's Witness goes on field service every week, if at all physically able (nowadays that has switched to a massive letter writing campaign).

Myself, I don't think it's a good idea to try to compare one group with another to see which is more loving.

Imo, people can walk in love, groups cannot.


1 Corinthians 13,
Love rejoices whenever the truth wins out.
One thing that concerns me is the level of secrecy in the LDS and JW groups. Secret financial records, secret rituals (LDS), a secret book (JW).

 

[BigDaddy4]

Lack of evidence proves NOTHING. However, as for evidence fruits are the important part:

(New Testament | Matthew 7:16 - 20)

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

And by JS's fruits, we know that he was a false prophet and built a false religion. Thanks for sharing those scriptures!

 

[He is the way]

There's no way to prove that Jesus didn't open up a soft-serve ice cream shop in Galilee, either, but that doesn't mean anyone should take that idea seriously. Reformed Egyptian is not an idea that any serious, non-LDS linguist takes seriously. At all.

Just last week I got a book in the mail called Coptic: A Grammar of Its Six Major Dialects by James P. Allen, professor of Egyptology at Brown University and also author of A Grammar of Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, vol. 1: Unis. Both books were published by Eisenbrauns, a serious academic publisher unaffiliated with any religion. I think it's safe to say that Professor Allen probably knows a thing or two about the languages of Egypt and the Egyptians. At no point in this work is the existence of anything known as 'Reformed Egyptian' even so much as hinted at, which is strange since it makes references to other stages of Egyptian where appropriate throughout the work (I didn't realize when I ordered it that it is actually a pedagogical grammar, intended to teach the language itself rather than be a deep dive on its history, so the bibliography is not quite as big as I had expected). Same thing can be said of other works in my modest library of Coptic language material. Heck, my own master's thesis (which I would not ever present as being a professional-level academic resource, as due to family problems I was never able to go back to it and edit/rewrite it for publication, so it is very raw and severely lacking in some areas of analysis), which dealt with Coptic as well, had a bibliography of something like 13 pages since I referenced dozens and dozens of works (it took me 1.5 years just to write the thesis, and this was a good chunk of that time), and not one of those works mentioned anything about 'Reformed Egyptian', either, despite the fact that many of them didn't just deal with Coptic but with all known stages and varieties of Egyptian.

I don't want to be arrogant, but my point is that if a literature review going back to before the beginning of your religion (I believe the chronologically earliest work in English that I consulted dated back to around 1810, though I'd have to double check to be sure) doesn't find any mention of 'Reformed Egyptian', and no books today that are not published with the involvement of BYU/FARMS mention it either, at what point can we say that for all intents and purposes that we can treat it as a non-entity as regards scientific research? I believe we are long past that point by now, and any further waiting -- whether done by Mormon or non-Mormon (surprise: science doesn't care what religion you are) -- is not at all likely to produce anything beneficial or revelatory.



And you can still believe that. That's fine. I'm not here to tell you what you can and cannot believe. I'm just saying scientifically, when it comes to the work of linguists who work with Egyptian, it is a non-entity. There's nothing to present as being 'Reformed Egyptian'. It doesn't exist, and there's nothing we have seen so far that suggests it ever did. And also that if LDS 'scholars' working in this area have any evidence, then they need to submit it to the wider scientific community so that it can be scrutinized. That they don't do that is very telling. Personally I think they know that there is no evidence now and no evidence forthcoming (they'd have to, if they were educated outside the LDS system as many were; UCLA or wherever would not be awarding hacks like , but I can understand why they wouldn't want to be so blunt about it.

I don't see what the problem is. I speak and write reformed English, it is not the King James English, and it sure is NOT the Wycliffe English. In fact few people would even understand the Wycliffe English today. Having been to Jamaica I can assure you that Jamaican Patois, or Patwah is an English based creole language that is very different than the English we speak. So to say that there was no reformed Egyptian is like saying there is NO reformed English, while in fact there is definitely reformed English

Don't make me go get St. John Chrysostom again. The only groups in early Christianity who took that verse in a proto-Mormon manner were gnostic heretics who the Church rejected on the basis of their false beliefs and practices, no differently than why we continue to reject Mormonism today.

You can criticize Paul's teachings all you want as I am sure others have. I would rather go down the right road even if only a few are going that way than go down the wrong road even if everyone else is going that way.

I don't see how love is a doctrine, but okay. I'm not against love, though I personally think that your constant evoking of it in contexts where we're not talking about that really cheapens it. Love is a wonderful thing (to accidentally quote Michael Bolton...), but responding to questions about specific points of Mormon or Christian doctrine with "What about LOVE; you guys are forgetting LOVE" or some such really does seem like a dodge. That's not a good thing to do with love.

I bring up LOVE because the whole gospel is about LOVE. God is LOVE so the most important thing in the universe is LOVE. All of the commandments are about LOVE. We have to LOVE others:

(New Testament | 1 John 4:16 - 21)

16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
19 We love him, because he first loved us.
20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

That's as you see it, of course, but I believe that the Christians of this messageboard have shown that it is wrong, and it does disagree with the Bible. You simply refusing to acknowledge that there is anything wrong with Mormonism isn't an answer to their/our refutations.

Maybe it is just me, but I see nothing that refutes what I believe to be true. As far as I see it none of the accusations bear any fruit.

These are things that Christ said concerning a summation of the Law (of Moses), and are of course perfect and unspoiled as is everything Christ said and did. They are not the only things He said period, however. These other things Christ said and did are not believed in by Mormonism. For instance, I don't think any Mormon could affirm Christ's divinity as was shown to His beloved in the Transfiguration (since you guys don't hold to Christian theology, so you do not have a correct understanding of what that event 'means', theologically), or possess a correct understanding of what He means when He says "I and the Father are one" (again, because your theology is off).

We do believe in Christ's divinity and we do believe He is one with the father. Perhaps it is not the same way you believe that Christ is one with the Father. Christ taught us how He and the Father are one. He said this:

(New Testament | John 17:11)

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

(New Testament | John 17:21 - 23)

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ are one in unity, glory, and perfection.

 

[BigDaddy4]

You can criticize Paul's teachings all you want as I am sure others have. I would rather go down the right road even if only a few are going that way than go down the wrong road even if everyone else is going that way.

Here is where you get off track. "Baptism for the dead" is not a teaching of Paul. You and your church have taken it WAAAYY out of context. Similar to your levels of heaven. You don't seek to understand what is in the Bible. You seek to confirm what your prophet(s) have been feeding you.

I bring up LOVE because the whole gospel is about LOVE. God is LOVE so the most important thing in the universe is LOVE. All of the commandments are about LOVE. We have to LOVE others:

This sounds very familiar to LGBTQ arguments I've heard to justify their lifestyle and/or gay marriage. They just want to LOVE their partners.

 

[dzheremi]

I don't see what the problem is. I speak and write reformed English, it is not the King James English, and it sure is NOT the Wycliffe English. In fact few people would even understand the Wycliffe English today. Having been to Jamaica I can assure you that Jamaican Patois, or Patwah is an English based creole language that is very different than the English we speak. So to say that there was no reformed Egyptian is like saying there is NO reformed English, while in fact there is definitely reformed English

This is a mixture of claims that don't seem all that related to the existence of 'Reformed Egyptian'. Yes, Jamaican Patois is an English-based creole, but what is your point? Is the Mormon claim that 'Reformed Egyptian' is an Egyptian-based creole? If so, why doesn't anything we find in the Egyptian 'Grammar and Alphabet'' produced by the Mormons in 1835 bear any relation to any form of Egyptian actually known to linguists or Egyptologists? Being a creole, it should still retain a clear relationship to its parent languages. So where are your samples of it that show this relationship? Where can we pick out specific Egyptian lexical items in said samples, or see the underlying structures? You don't have anything to present in any case, so how can you say that it's akin to Jamaican Patois, or anything else that actually exists in the world?

You can criticize Paul's teachings all you want as I am sure others have.

Hahaha. That's not St. Paul's teaching; that's Mormonism's teaching. The two are not the same. St. Paul traveled to the Antioch, to Arabia, and to several other places according to the scriptures and the fathers, as preserved in the various commemorations of the churches around the world (particularly those which claim descent from Antioch, for obvious reasons), but places we know he never went include upstate New York or anywhere in Utah or Idaho. Nice try.

I would rather go down the right road even if only a few are going that way than go down the wrong road even if everyone else is going that way.

Mormonism is neither the narrow road nor a particularly unpopular choice when viewed outside the lens of the oppression fantasies that some Mormons themselves choose to live in. It is in reality just one strain of 19th century restorationist religion which has been particularly successful due to its aggressive missionary campaign and the sense that joining it provides access to a level of wealth and prestige that the people of Oceanic nations (where it has been most successful) or Africa (where most of its growth is currently coming from) can thereby model themselves after in hopes that it becomes a reality for them.

I bring up LOVE because the whole gospel is about LOVE.

Again, I don't disagree. I just don't think that means that it is directly relevant to every possible conversation we could have. Questions like "How many wives did Joseph Smith have?" or "Why do Mormons not divulge their true beliefs and practices to everyone without first forcing those who want to know them to become temple recommend-carrying members?" cannot be answered by capitalizing the word love over and over like you're getting paid per mention. It's just evasive and irritating, by a certain point.

Maybe it is just me, but I see nothing that refutes what I believe to be true.

It's definitely just you and the other Mormons. Of course you don't see anything as a refutation of Mormonism because you think Mormonism has it all right in the first place. That makes sense, though being unable to critically engage with non-Mormons doesn't exactly say much for the general level of knowledge or zeal (in the positive sense of that word) among the Mormons.

As far as I see it none of the accusations bear any fruit.

This is weird phrasing. The 'accusations', as you call them, are criticisms concerning the missteps in Mormon theology, ecclesiology, prophetology, and especially (here) Biblical hermeneutics. These are not exactly the kinds of discussions that you would normally expect to bear fruit, unless you're willing to count as fruit the ex-Mormons who are here like Phoebe Ann and the few others we have, none of whom were probably converted by such conversations anyway. But what are the chances that currently believing Mormons such as yourself would count ex-members who are now Christians as good fruit!

We do believe in Christ's divinity and we do believe He is one with the father.

No, you believe that your Mormon Christ is one in purpose with the Mormon Heavenly Father and Mormon Holy Spirit, but they are three separate Gods each made of matter, and united in purpose but most definitely not sharing one and the same divinity (hence, Mormons have consistently told us here, your religion rejects the Nicene Creed for saying that the Persons of the Holy Trinity are homoousious, of one and the same nature). This is so far from anything resembling even the most basic grasp of Christian theology that even a five minute review of any of the many, many times we have already discussed exactly this should be enough to put to rest any claim to Christianity on the part of Mormons or the Mormon religion.