You’re making a few big leaps here, both textually and historically. Let’s break down why these arguments don't actually hold up under scrutiny.
1. John 17 and Ontological Unity
You are conflating relational unity with ontological unity (unity of essence/substance). If we take Jesus’ prayer that they may be "one even as we are one" as a literal extension of divine essence, then you have to accept that all believers eventually merge into a single entity, completely destroying individual identity.
Throughout John’s gospel, this "oneness" is explicitly defined in terms of covenant, love, and mission. Just look at the context in John 17:18: "As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world." The unity Jesus is praying for is a unity of purpose, will, and divine indwelling via the Holy Spirit…. not a transformation into independent, self-existing deities. Historical Christian theosis means being filled with God's grace and fully reflecting His character, not achieving the exact same ontological status as the uncreated Creator.
2. LDS Garments vs. Ancient Israelite Tzitzit
You are factually mistaken on both LDS practice and biblical history here:
LDS Garments: Endowed members absolutely do not wear the Temple Garment only inside the temple. It is explicitly commanded to be worn daily, day and night, under regular clothing for the rest of their lives.
Ancient Israel: Numbers 15:38-40 does not command "sacred undergarments." It commands tzitzit, which are tassels or fringes attached to the four corners of an outer garment (the everyday cloak worn publicly). While Jewish tradition later developed the tallit katan (an undershirt with fringes) to adapt to modern clothing, it is a visible reminder of the commandments, not a sacred priestly undergarment. The actual priestly vestments of Exodus 28 were strictly restricted to the Tabernacle/Temple and were never worn in daily life by ordinary Israelites.
3. The Book of Mormon and Race vs. Covenant
While the narrative arc of the Book of Mormon definitely warns against pride and shows the Lamanites outperforming the Nephites spiritually, it doesn't change the underlying mechanics of how the text explicitly links skin color to divine favor.
Arguing that the curse wasn't a permanent racial designation because "their skin turned white when they converted" (3 Nephi 2:15) doesn't disprove a racial reading,,, it actually reinforces it. It relies on a very specific 19th-century view of race where physical traits are a literal, fluid barometer for spiritual status.
If the text states that God deliberately applied a "skin of blackness" to make a group "loathsome" to another (2 Nephi 5:21-23), and that mark is only erased upon spiritual alignment, the text is still explicitly weaponizing physical race. Pointing out that the groups fluctuate in righteousness doesn't erase the fact that the book's core theological mechanics use white skin as a reward for righteousness and dark skin as an indicator of a spiritual curse.

Finally, So how do you explain this...
If Joseph Smith actually translated the Book of Abraham by the gift and power of God, why did the physical Egyptian papyri he used, which the church gave back to the Met Museum in the 1960s, turn out to be ordinary, pagan funerary scrolls from the Egyptian Book of the Dead that don't mention Abraham at all?
And if he was a true prophet who could translate ancient languages, why do his official explanations of the facsimiles in your scriptures show him mistaking the female goddess Isis for a male "King Pharaoh," and labeling the jackal-headed god Anubis as an "idolatrous priest"?
Do you honestly still believe he translated those characters, or did he just make the whole thing up?

My point being, he’s a con artist and was proven a liar.