All Activity

The explanation that caught my attention is it started in 2022, a letter was going around concerning the Church's tax-exempt status. I have not been able to locate the letter. I would be careful about interpreting your bishop's announcement as meaning that the Church no longer wants members organizing Christmas charitable activities. So, I'd also ask whether members can still organize an independent giving tree.

1 - Yes, counsel always steps in. Didn't stop the initial action from happening though, obviously. 2 - An attorney withheld evidence then played gotcha games with me about it (the Judge slapped his wrist but didn't sanction him). Since I'd never seen it before, I'd say that was rather unethical. That same attorney then filed a motion in limine with fabrications regarding both my analysis and my testimony. What's worse, I had worked with that attorney a number of times prior to finding ourselves on opposite sides on this case and previously considered him a friend. This is but one example. 3 - No, I've never been deposed and then asked not to testify at trial. Nor has my testimony ever been excluded. I have prevailed in all motions in limine brought against me.

For the last several years, my ward has had a giving tree at Christmas. This morning, our bishop announced that that was no longer allowed. Is it the same in other wards? Anyone have a guess why such things wouldn't be allowed?

LMAO!!!!! Of course shooting fascists is wrong in this context. The morally correct thing to do would have been to just punch him in his stupid face. I'd like to be encouraged that your ideology has some constraints, such that only endorse some physical violence against people you deem fascists, but not killing them. But then you included the caveat: "Of course shooting fascists is wrong in this context." This seems to be at odds with your comments about WWII and how killing "fascists" then was good and appropriate and necessary. If you really think that, and given that you so regularly accuse others of being fascists, why do you not endorse killing them? Why is battery an appropriate response to speech you deem fascistic, but killing is not? In what "context" is killing someone you deem a fascist "{t}he morally correct thing to do"? I am also curious about your perspective on this story: Do you endorse what this woman said to Mr. Collins? I still don’t believe for a second that you want to take him seriously but just wish he was kinder to the Christian Nationalist traitors so you could do so. This is not my position. Thanks, -Smac

Things I'd like to see in the life to come… A functioning Wayback Machine, or some mechanism of observing various periods of the history of the earth, that would allow us to view, hear, and fully understand the way events actually happened. I think this would require some kind of bullet point summary view of the past, and a method of drilling down deeper into the details if desired, because it would be extremely tedious to see every minute and second of past events. If this would be done through some form of multi-media experience (instead of being a fly on the wall observer of the events as they happened), it should be 3-D, surround sound in iMax format or better. A way of assimilating information about the way things work and the complex reality of created worlds and how they function. (I suspect this would involve several courses of study over several millennia of semesters, but I'm all in! ) Most importantly, all of us seeing others in the way that God sees them, not in the sense that we know all of their thoughts and intentions, but that we love the way God loves and recognize the potential in everyone in the family of God and all of God's creations.

It is an image because I posted it on another forum whose editor I know how to use. I am still learning how to use this forum's editor. (It would have taken me longer to post.)

Neat. But why is this an image?

Nope, both investigations had to occur because of the marriage. The first one was because it was a Catholic wedding and they had to make sure they were acceptable to be married. The second was because he wasn't Mexican. The book specifically points out that those investigations weren't triggered by age. The book brings them up to show how the investigations (which were normal and were going to be done no matter what) didn't care about her age. Here's the quote from the book (starts on page 39): Edited to add the quote from the book

So do you need a masters or a phd in theology before you can say whether a prophecy has failed? It is absurd to suggest that checking whether a prophecy happened requires some advanced theological training. The Old Testament criteria for a false prophet means Jesus was a failed or false prophet. This isn’t high level stuff here. Condescending and pathetic rhetotic. I don’t believe that white supremacist rhetoric is something upon which reasonable minds can disagree. LMAO!!!!! Of course shooting fascists is wrong in this context. The morally correct thing to do would have been to just punch him in his stupid face. Bull. You do have expectations of him as a Latter-Day Saint and have opined multiple times as to how what he is doing is wrong. I still don’t believe for a second that you want to take him seriously but just wish he was kinder to the Christian Nationalist traitors so you could do so. Nope, because while that might be what people say about their dogmas they change all the time and are reformed all the time. Some of those are accurate, some are not. It is the internet, what can you do? LOL. No, just no. Try to critique a doctrine of the Restoration in a Church setting and see how it goes. Actually there were a lot of them. Have they though? Nope, it changed the doctrine quite a bit. Many apostles and prophets shared the reasons same sex behavior existed and were just outright wrong. Mostly because they copied their rhetoric from other Christian religions. That was a change. Nope, the Law of Chastity has changed a lot. Even within just our dispensation. If you go through all the dispensations it is virtually unrecognizable in the Old Testament. The Law of Chastity is woefully incomplete as well and doesn’t really have any kind of coherent ethic behind it. As it is usually recited marital rape is not against the law of chastity. Many will say it is a violation but is it? If it is when did that change?

Would those investigations have taken place if one of them wasn’t so young? Doubt it. Seriously, the reason they did all this stuff is that the girl was abnormally young. Saying they “didn’t care” is silly.

No I don't believe God would command a man to marry a 14 year old. In today's world? No because 14 year olds shouldn't be married ever. But I also don't believe God would command a man to marry a 14 year old. This question doesn't make sense to me. Women have been married at younger ages for millennials. I don't think God was bothered by all of those marriages just because of the age. Agreed. We have, as a society, made it so that marrying a 14 year old shouldn't happen because of those reasons. I find it good that we condemn people now a days that marry that young. A 14 year old should be able to grow up. My best guess? This was a sealing of connection. He practiced a few types of sealings. Some were levirate (his brother's sister and a few other women who were widows), some were sexual, and some where sealing him to other families. An example of the later is the sealing between Brigham's sister and Joseph. She was 56 at the time. I feel like Helen was like that as well as a betrothal. Once she was older, it would have been a sexual marriage. As for why didn't Joseph just wait? I don't know. I don't have problems with people being disgusted by Joseph marrying a 14 year old. That's not where I'm pushing back on. If Joseph was alive today and married a 14 year old, I would condemn him. What I'm pushing back on is two things. The first is that he is similar to Warren Jeffs. I don't find the similarity because Warren grew up in an environment where marrying a 14 year old is condemned and wrong. Joseph's environment wasn't like that. The second is that what Joseph did was wrong in his own environment. It wasn't. It was rare and sometimes ridiculed (mostly because it was considered silly for a man to do that). But it wasn't condemned. I doubt I can. I have issues with him marrying a 14 year old. I wish he hadn't. But I don't think the marriage was sexual by the time he died (based on all of the known evidence, especially the Temple Lot case) so it feels more like a betrothal to me. I'm not trying to convince what Joseph did was right. Only that what he did wasn't wrong for his time and that he can't be compared to Warren.

I’m not sure where you got this idea from my post. I was sharing my experience, not speaking about, or defending the legal profession. Your experience has clearly been different than mine which is why I was interested in hearing more about the context around your experience. As you probably know, as a proposed expert witness, you are represented by counsel of the party who has proffered you as an expert. Did your counsel ever step in when you believed you were being attacked unfairly? Can you share an example of unethical treatment? Have you ever been deposed in a case that went to trial and weren’t asked to testify at that trial?

For the marriage in California, I pointed that the investigations because they didn't care about her age. I should have been clearer. The Catholic investigation was over consanguinity, whether there were existing betrothals, etc. It didn't care about her age or his age. The Mexican investigation was because he was not a Mexican and so they had to make sure he was legally allowed to marry her. Again, they didn't care about her age or his age. The age was not the reason for the investigations. And the investigations didn't bring up the age. He asked for special permissions because of the ridicule, not because of the age disparity. I agree it wasn't the norm. I'm not saying it was the norm. I also agree it wasn't expected. I'm just saying it wasn't condemned or considered wrong or evil.

Just some follow up questions I am interested in as you defend Joseph marrying a 14 year old girl. Do you think that God told Joseph to marry a 14 year old? Is God ok with men marrying 14 year olds if the person claims to have been told by God to do so? Is God still ok with that? Are you ok with someone claiming to be a prophet like some of these splinter group "prophets" marrying 14 year olds if they say God told them to? Basically I am asking if whether it is in the 1800 or today, is God that kind of God that doesn't see any issue marrying 14 year old girls no matter when it occurs? The second question: What does that do to the life of a 14 year old who has never really dated, never got any opportunity to explore life and decide that she doesn't ever want to date men her own age. Marriage at 14 means that basically she has put herself in a position to spend the rest of her life until her husband dies living as a wife decades older than her. Making such a decision at 14, do you think that is fair for her? And lastly, why did Joseph Smith even have to marry a 14 year old girl? What was his motivation? I get that you might not know what Joseph's reasoning for this was, but what is your best guess? I think there are real reasons why most people believe that 14 is way too young to make such a decision, especially with someone who has authority over them in other ways to sway that decision. Really interested in your thoughts on this. Maybe you can convince me that Joseph marrying someone at 14 is no big deal simply because it happened during a different time.

Your posts frequently lack substance, and are conclusory. Dan didn't say any of that. He said: "Just because I had never called Jesus a failed prophet doesn't mean I'm not perfectly happy to say the Jesus of the Gospels is a false prophet, which I am perfectly happy to say." I don't think you can have it both ways. I don't think you can rationally A) hold up Dan as a scholar and paragon of data > dogma and the impartial purveyor of scholarly methodological naturalism, and also B) defend Dan calling Jesus a “false prophet,” which adds a normative judgment, which presupposes a standard of true prophecy (accurate divine foreknowledge, divine authorization, etc.) and then applies that standard. Those criteria are theological or confessional, not generated by the historical method itself. In the end, though, I think you and I agree. I think Dan probably does mean something along the lines of what you say. You're just okay with it, as you are with anything Dan has to say. I am glad Dan lives in a time and place where he can say such things, but when he steps in and out of "scholarship" when it suits him, when he follows and then disregards scholarly methodologies when addressing the same topic, when he constantly declares he's all about "data > dogma" and then makes dogmatic statements himself, when he conflates his personal opinions and "the data," when he speaks in conclusory and unsubstantiated ways about matters that merit explanation and substance, when he steps away from thoughtfully distilling and presenting the nuances and complexities of biblical scholarship to a lay audience, when he says things to stir the pot and provoke and generate social media clicks, when he dunks on amateurs, when he measures in personal invective and taunts into his "I'm a scholar of the Bible and religion" pronouncements, I think he materially diminishes his stature as a scholar, and in do doing makes it harder to take him as a serious and reliable source of information. Again, I still frequently watch Dan's content for his scholarly assessments. I just wish he didn't make it unnecessarily difficult. Yesterday I saw this image and thought of the endless "Fascist! / Bigot!" schtick and its paired justification of violence against people who have done nothing more than disagree ideologically on matters about which reasonable minds can disagree: What are your thoughts about these images? No you don’t. I regularly watch his content to glean his scholarly assessments, including his critiques of "bad scholarship." You want him to shut up about a lot of things that you find damaging to many church dogmas but are also worried about his credibility? No. I have said nothing about wanting him to shut up. I would hope to take him seriously as a scholar. He is doing things that make that difficult. To the contrary, I think he is a good scholar. My critique is about the things he is doing on social media which diminish and detract from his scholarly stature. I would like to see him refrain from doing things that diminish him as a scholar. I have no expectations from him in his capacity as a fellow Latter-day Saint. And you don’t know what dogma is either. How shocking. Dogma is not something immutable or unchangeable. Me: "'Dogma,' in the sense of an immutable set of authoritative statements that cannot be revised or supplemented by further revelation." Wikipedia: "Dogma, in its broadest sense, is any belief held definitively and without the possibility of reform." Dictionary.com: "prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group." Cambridge Dictionary: "a fixed, especially religious, belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts." Oxford English Dictionary: "a belief or set of beliefs held by a group or organization that others are expected to accept without argument." I think I have a bead on it. The Church encourages its members to think about and study and pray and seek revelation about the doctrines of the Restoration. We are not expected to accept them without thought or effort or critique. I think the Church has set aside some (quite few) beliefs which arose due to error or supposition or tradition (rather than revelation), or which have been set aside based on new light and knowledge. I am grateful that the Church maintaining its doctrines while improving its understanding and promulgation of them. And yet the Church still prohibits same-sex behavior. Seems like the Church has not changed the doctrine, but rather has moderated its tone (I am glad of that) and materially improved its treatment and posture towards same-sex attraction. The Law of Chastity, though, remains the same now as it did in the 70s and 80s, and before. I can appreciate your perspective. Thanks, -Smac

In today’s political landscape Joseph Smith’s “polyamory” would probably be lambasted more for its secrecy and the imbalance of power in a lot of the relationships so he probably couldn’t be elected. Meanwhile conservatives would be unimpressed by a sex scandal involving people of legal age. How gauche and backwards. Have a sex scandal involving minors while accusing the Left of all being groomers or GTFO! He would have no political home.

Don’t be obtuse. You are obtuse enough even when you aren’t doing it deliberately. They did it dispassionately and declined to prosecute and then it came out they didn’t consider all the evidence. Either deliberately or due to incompetence. Now that someone else comes in to evaluate it you are worried they will be too passionate. Maybe a bit of passion might be a good thing.

That is a lot of nonsense over why saying Jesus reportedly said that a certain thing would happen within a specific timeframe and it didn’t happen so Jesus was wrong is somehow ultra-complicated and there is a distinction between Jesus being wrong when his prophecy failed and being called a false prophet. Endless special pleading. Yeah, he hates fascists. This offends you for some reason. I miss the days when I was younger where being opposed to fascist was a normal baseline. Alas that these evil days should be mine. No you don’t. You want him to shut up about a lot of things that you find damaging to many church dogmas but are also worried about his credibility? You do this while writing up long pieces of word salad about how he is a bad scholar. Yet you worry that he isn’t showing enough decorum and that might detract from his message. Right….sure…..yeah, I believe you. And that is why you fail. And you don’t know what dogma is either. How shocking. Dogma is not something immutable or unchangeable. The LDS church outside of the very early period doesn’t change any faster than other religions in regards to its dogmas. The LDS Church also changes its dogmas in a very quiet and imperceptible way to avoid disruption. The anti-gay screeds of the 70s and 80s that scared me and a lot of other queer people weren’t overturned by further light and knowledge or revelation. They want away because they were disproven and Church leaders quietly shifted the narrative. I struggle more and more to see how the LDS Church functions differently due to revelation.

I did say that Southern aristocratic women married younger. The same is true or royal and noble girls in Europe. Their marriage value declines with age. It is funny that you were saying these ages were normal but all the examples you share require special permissions and judicial investigations to prove their wasn’t kidnapping or extortion. That shows that marrying that young IS NOT normal. When two people marry at a socially acceptable age you don’t generally check whether someone was kidnapped. And no, it was viewed as odd and there was social scorn for marriages that young. It wasn’t the norm. It wasn’t casually acceptable or expected.

You want leaders to make stuff up? Is that how it works in your faith? Leaders fill out revelation with their own ideas and teach it as doctrine? Serious questions, trying to understand why you think LDS leaders, leaders of a faith that isn’t your own and you don’t believe in, should add unrevealed speculation to our doctrine. This happens more than enough unintentionally, people assuming they know what revelation must imply. If we add intentional speculation as well….

It really wasn't condemned. Unless you are talking about the late 1800s. The idea of girls needing to grow up before getting married didn't really take hold till the later 1800s. And even then, it started more from the idea that the girls were worth labor to the parents and they didn't want to lose that. "American Child Bride" by Nicholas Syrett talks about antebellum child brides (you can read it at https://archive.org/details/americanchildbri0000syre/mode/2up by logging in and borrowing it if you want). He discusses how the South was more lenient for child brides because they wanted to control the family wealth. The North saw daughters as more valuable for labor and so would prefer they didn't get married till later. The west was closer to the South. He gives several other examples of child brides that no one batted an eye against. One example is Abel Stens, a wealthy man born in Massachusetts who had moved to California, married Arcadia Estudillo, a daughter of a wealthy Mexican, in 1841. He was 43, she was 14. They had to get permission from the Catholic church (who investigated whether the marriage was acceptable per Catholic law) and civil authorities (because he wasn't Mexican). He did request to be exempted from the posting of the normal 3 banns because he wished "to avoid the ridicule which might arise among the idle young because of the disparity in years". So, he did worry about ridicule, but not condemnation or being considered "sick". Their marriage proceeded (with 0 banns) and they were one of the wealthiest families in California (both during Mexican rule and US rule). He also discusses legal cases around under age girls and how the cases weren't around the ages of the girls but around whether they were kidnapped or forced to marry the man or whether the parents were owed damages for losing their daughter. As some have said "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." Now a days, a man (of any age) who tries to marry a 14 year old would be condemned and stigmatized. That is not true of the mid 1800s.

The two expressions aren't contradictory. John distinguishes the Word from the God with whom the Word was, while simultaneously describing the Word as θεός. John 20:28 is different. Thomas says directly to Jesus "ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου" Here ὁ θεός has the article. Breaking it down: ὁ = the, θεός = God, μου = of me / my. So the literal construction is "the God of me". You miss the point of John 20:28 and what Thomas realized at that time. Back in John 14:8, Philip asked Jesus to “show us the Father”. Jesus responded: “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.” (John 14:9–11) And in John 20:28, Thomas finally realized what Jesus was saying to Philip back in John 14, that Jesus is the very image of God the Father, his representative, and to see Jesus is to see the Father (THE God). And when Thomas reacted to Jesus he acknowledges both Jesus and his Father (the God and Father of Jesus Christ) when he said, “My Lord [Jesus] and my God [THE God, God the Father]”. So, Thomas was not calling Jesus “the God”, he was recognizing that Jesus is Lord and acknowledging his representation of God the Father. He was referring to God the Father as “THE God”. We already know this relationship between the Father and the Son (God in human flesh). I was just showing that the phrase "THE God" is not always a reference to THE Father. Even the Book of Mormon shows this. But things get confusing when it refers to Jesus being both the Father and the Son – whereas Jesus did not teach that. Mosiah referring to Jesus as the Father shows a person can be a "father" without having spirit children or physical offspring in a biological (literal lineage) sense. We also become offspring (seed) of Abraham even though he is not our literal (biological) parent. That there are different meanings to the word “father” and “children” has been discussed over and over already. And Jesus can be called “the Father” for various reasons. Jesus is the “father” of creation. Therefore, Jesus is considered the "Father of the heavens and of the earth, and all things that in them are." (Ether 4:7.). And Jesus is the “father” of those who are spiritually “born again”, making him the “father” of salvation. In the Book of Mormon, King Benjamin said, "And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters." (Mosiah 5:7.) And in the Bible, "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will" (Ephesians 1:5). And, "Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me." (Hebrews 2:12-13) And probably most importantly, Jesus can be called the “Father” since he is the representative of God the Father, as I explained above regarding John 20:28. God the Father puts his own words into the mouth of Jesus (Deuteronomy 18:18, John 8:26-29, John 12:49-50, John 17:8), so sometimes Jesus speaks in the first person as if He were the Father. Jesus came in his Father’s name (John 5:48), so he can in fact be called “the Father” because of his unity with the Father. But none of this changes the fact that Jesus is not the “One God and Father of all, who is above all” (Ephesians 4:6). He is not the “only true God” (John 17:3), for Jesus is subject to the one God and Father of all, and God the Father is the very God of Jesus Christ. And finally, the fact that there are different meanings to the word “father” and “children” does not change the meaning of the Greek word génos in Acts 17:28-29, which literally refers to the “kind” of being that we all are. All of us are the génos of God, his “offspring” in a literal kind of way. But that’s just changing scripture to fit your doctrine again. If you reworded it that way then that statement would not be true, because Jesus is NOT “the God” according to Jesus himself. God the Father is the “only true God” according to Jesus (John 17:3), and God the Father is the very God and Father of Jesus Christ, and it’s not just from his earthly relationship to him, it goes back to “in the beginning” when he was God and was with “the God”. See above where I explained your misinterpretation of John 20:28. CFR where Joseph Smith taught anything about a “Grandfather God”. And since you already acknowledged that you can’t find anywhere that Joseph Smith taught that there are Gods “above” God the Father, then you really have nothing to support this idea of yours. But according to the Bible, Jesus had grandfathers (not his Gods) when he was born on earth, as would anyone born on an earth (including God the Father). There's a doctrine found in the Religion 430-431 seminary manual which teaches Jesus became (was ranked) a God when he reached some pinnacle of intelligence. Do you believe Jesus became a god or God by having a share of the Father? The quote from Origen is saying that “other beings besides the true God… have become gods by having a share of God”. He’s not just referring to Jesus. I believe that’s exactly what Jesus had in mind when he prayed for his disciples to be “one” in the very same way Jesus is one with the Father and shares his glory with others in John 17:11, 20-23, and what 2 Peter 1:4 has in mind when we become “partakers of the divine nature”, and what Jesus had in mind when he said that those who overcome will sit with God in his throne the same way Jesus overcame and sits with the Father on his throne. All those verses show that God shares his glory, power, his “divine nature”, and his throne with those who become “one” with him and his Son. In Against Celsus 8.12, Origen writes "We worship one God, the Father and the Son ... these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will". Origen explicitly distinguished the Father and the Son as two distinct "persons" or hypostases, while insisting that they are one God. He also acknowledged the biblical language of "many gods," but he did not mean that there are many supreme, independent Gods in the later LDS sense. https://ccel.org/ccel/origen/against_celsus/anf04.vi.ix.viii.xii.html This is a mischaracterization of Latter-day Saint belief because we do not believe that there are “many supreme, independent Gods”. All who become “Gods” are subject to the “Eternal God of all other gods”, the same way Jesus Christ is subject to the “Eternal God of all other gods”. All who become “gods” further the work of the one God and Father of all by being representatives of him. In the King Follet Discourse, Joseph Smith said, “Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you”. In other words, all who become “gods” are made “kings and priests to God”, the “head God” of all other gods. “He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.” (Revelation 21:7) And you also mischaracterize the way that Origen insisted that the Father and Son are “one God”. You make it sound like Origen is describing a trinitarian way that they are “one”, but he says: “We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely they are one, that he who has seen the Son, 'who is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person,' has seen in Him who is the image of God, God Himself". That sounds exactly like a Latter-day Saint description of how they are one, not a trinitarian view. And that is the exact same unity and oneness that Jesus prayed for on behalf of his disciples, even saying, “Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are…. 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. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 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.” (John 17:11, 21–23) The disciples will also be the “brightness of God’s glory” and the “express image of His person”, the images of God. And Origen’s depiction of “many gods” explicitly indicates that humans will become gods in the same sense. Notice that Origen refers to “God” as a title, a job description so to speak, and says that the Son of God was honored with that same title. Your analysis above is seriously flawed. The so called "Origenist crises" didn't start until the very late fourth and early fifth century AD, long after Origen’s death (Origen lived from c. 184 – c.253), and these controversies were primarily against the so called “Origenists” (not Origen himself) and it (according to the Catholic Encyclopedia article) is not to be understood to be so much about Origen’s theology and the body of his teachings, but against a “certain number of doctrines, rightly or wrongly attributed to him, and which by their novelty or their danger called forth at an early period a refutation from orthodox writers.” In other words, there were some people called “Origenists” that took some of Origen's writings beyond what he actually taught. Another huge flaw with your attempt at dismissing Origen using these later controversies is that Christian doctrines had evolved significantly between the time of the life of Origen and the early fifth century, so it is completely unfair to look back and judge the doctrines of Origen from the environment of the later developed teachings. Instead, you need to view Origen and his teachings as he was viewed by his contemporaries. Just think about it. Using your modern Protestant standard of monotheism and your doctrines of a “homoousious” Father and Son, all the early Christian Fathers would be viewed as heretics for teaching that other gods exist and that men become gods. And this is exactly like how you are using the fifth century (and later) Origenist crises to look back in time to judge Origen. I have made posts about this topic previously in response to claims that Origen should be dismissed based on his doctrine. But the truth is that Origen was never condemned on any of his doctrines during his lifetime and was considered to be quite orthodox. See my post on May 10, 2023 for a good example of this. I’m especially glad that you brought up St. Jerome. St. Jerome stated that during Origen’s lifetime, at the very time when Origen was writing his commentary on the gospel of John that we have been discussing, that Origen was not condemned on any point of his doctrine, as it says in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Origin: “St. Jerome declares expressly that he [Origen] was not condemned on a point of doctrine.” This was during a period of controversy where Origen was reviewed during his lifetime, not because of his doctrine, but because of the jealousy of Demetrius over his ordination. Jerome wrote, “having been ordained presbyter by Theoctistus and Alexander, bishops of Cæsarea and Jerusalem, he offended Demetrius, who was so wildly enraged at him that he wrote everywhere to injure his reputation.” (See Jerome: De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men, chapter 54) See also Jerome’s Letter 33 to Paula, where he wrote about this same controversy, saying (of Origen), “He stands condemned by his bishop, Demetrius, only the bishops of Palestine, Arabia, Phenicia, and Achaia dissenting. Imperial Rome consents to his condemnation, and even convenes a senate to censure him, not — as the rabid hounds who now pursue him cry — because of the novelty or heterodoxy of his doctrines, but because men could not tolerate the incomparable eloquence and knowledge which, when once he opened his lips, made others seem dumb.” But if we view the teachings of Origen among his contemporaries, we find other early Christians teaching the very same doctrines far and wide throughout the Christian world. I have talked about this previously. It wasn’t just Origen who taught that Jesus is the “second God”, it was also Lactantius (c. 240-c 320 AD). And Justin Martyr taught, speaking of Jesus (150 AD), that “there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things”. And when heavy hitters like St. Clement of Rome, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Theophilus of Antioch, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Hippolytus of Rome, Origen (Highly regarded as one of the most influential Christian theologians), St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Augustine of Hippo all taught that men become gods and that other gods exist in no uncertain terms, then there is no question that those were widely accepted fundamental doctrines of early Christianity. They were church wide doctrines, and they were found in all parts of the Christian world at that time. So, trying to discredit Origen because of later disputes about his followers is futile, and it doesn’t make these teachings go away. They were fundamental Christian doctrines throughout all of early Christianity and were considered to be orthodox teaching of the time. Why do you think all the main early Christian fathers taught that men become gods and that other gods exist? Suppose there is only one God in existence anywhere and everywhere, and that God decides to take on human flesh. Would you then have 2 Gods? Of course not. But if that one God in existence anywhere and everywhere begot a son and gave him his glory and appointed him to be his heir and representative and sent him to a world to take on human flesh, then there would be at least two Gods, even though the first God would remain the “head God” and “God of gods”. A few comments on your bullet points: Becoming a God (2 Corinthians 3:18, 2 Peter 1:4, 1 John 3:2). 2 Corinthians 3:18, 2 Peter 1:4, 1 John 3:2 do not portray humans becoming Gods. The emphasis is on likeness to Christ as God's children, particularly in the resurrection/glorification. 2 Peter 1:4 says believers become "partakers of the divine nature," which is strong language for genuine participation in God's life and character. But the immediate context explains this primarily as escaping "the corruption that is in the world through lust" (v. 4), developing faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love (vv. 5–7). So the passage clearly teaches transformation into godliness, but it does not explicitly say humans become Gods. You say, “it does not explicitly say humans become Gods”. You sound like the people who try to claim that the trinity isn’t biblical because the word “trinity” isn’t in the Bible. Does the Bible need to say “humans become Gods” before you will believe that “humans become Gods”? The concepts are there, all throughout scripture. And the earliest Christians taught that “men become Gods” very explicitly. Why do you think they did that? Again, you are focused on specific terminology instead of the concepts being conveyed. What symbol in the Bible best represents God’s dominion, kingdoms, and powers? The Throne of God, obviously. Who gets to sit with God in his throne? Jesus, and those who overcome. You are just splitting hairs and arguing semantics. Top that off with the fact that the Bible already says we are all the same “kind” of being as God in Acts 17:28-29. So it’s all part of the plan. Again, you are focused on specific terminology instead of the concepts being conveyed. If neither the man or woman are without each other in the Lord then they are not without each other in the Lord, plain and simple. Did you read what you posted? Of course, the “children of this world” are not equal to God. The "children of this world" are those who are worldly, and do not know the scriptures or the "power" of God (as Jesus said to the unbelieving Sadducees in Matthew 22:29), so they would not be sealed by God’s priesthood power in their marriages. That's how Jesus says this in Luke. Jesus contrasted the "children of this world" with the "children of light" in Luke 16:8 "And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." Marriages performed by men by civil authority (the children of the world) have no power in the resurrection, but a marriage bound by the priesthood power of God is for time and eternity, and that's exactly why Jesus told those unbelieving Sadducees that in the resurrection, their brethren would not be married but would be "as the angels of heaven". This is EXACTLY how a Latter-day Saint would answer the same question to any marriages performed by the "children of this world" instead of by the “power of God”. Compare that to Doctrine and Covenants 132:15–17: “Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.” Those who "overcome" will “eat of the tree of life” (2:7), and will “not be hurt of the second death” (2:11), and will "eat of the hidden manna" (2:17), receive power over the nations (2:26), be clothed in white raiment (3:5), will have the name of God written upon them (which is “God”) and the "new name" of Jesus (3:12), will sit with Jesus and the Father in the throne of God (3:21), and will "inherit all things" (21:7). These are all the thrones, kingdoms, powers, and dominions that describe those who become “gods” and reign with God. They are given the name of “God” (Revelation 3:12). It's all right there in the Bible. You already know that what you said above is incorrect. There are two main divisions of the resurrection, the “first resurrection” which occurs prior to the millennial reign of Christ, and the “second resurrection” that occurs after the end of the millennium. Those in the terrestrial kingdom take part in the afternoon of the first resurrection. See our prior discussion on this topic in my post last year on 10/12/2025. I already addressed this by showing you how various Bible translations render it. See above. None of those translations dispute the literal meaning of the Hebrew word ʿôlām which means “age”. The bottom line is that the Bible doesn’t teach that God has existed as a God eternally. I agree that Isaiah 44 is addressed to Israel and is concerned with Israel's exclusive allegiance to Yahweh. But the actual claim goes beyond 'Israel has only one God.' He says, 'beside me there is no God' (Isaiah 44:6), and then asks, 'Is there a God beside me?' and answers, 'there is no God; I know not any' (44:8). So the question is whether 'no God beside me' means merely 'Israel must worship no other gods' or whether Isaiah is making the broader claim that no other deity exists. The latter is certainly a legitimate reading of the text, and many interpreters understand these chapters as expressing explicit monotheism. You can add other verses too: Isaiah 43:10, 45:5–6, 18, 21–22, and Deuteronomy 4:35, 39. I mistyped in my prior response; I was referring to Isaiah 43:10. But you quoted from both Isaiah 43:10 and Isaiah 44:6. To address Isaiah 44:8 as well as the other verses (as I have done many times before), the phrase, "none beside me" simply means there is none that can compare to the God of Israel, not that no other gods exist. Psalms 86:8 “Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works." Psalms 89:5-7: “And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O LORD: thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints. (6) For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD? (7) God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him." To say “none beside me” is a common way to express incomparability in ancient writings. This is evident from other verses of scripture where the phrase “none beside me” is used, such as Zephaniah 2:15 which says (of the city Nineveh): “This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.” Do you believe that no other cities exist besides Nineveh? You really need to believe that Nineveh is only city in existence if you are going to be consistent, otherwise you misconstrue the “beside me” phrases in Isaiah 43:11, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 44:8, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 47:10, and Hosea 13:4 to mean that the God of Israel is the only God that exists. Keep the Bible in its context. The “I am” terminology is also present in Ninevah’s statement of incomparability in Zephaniah 2:15, as noted above. And you really need to abandon your belief that God exists eternally if you think there is such a thing as “before me” and “after me” in that context. Those expressions (“before me” and “after me”) can only make sense in the immediate context of that chapter where God is saying to Israel, “I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God.” (Isaiah 43:12). Israel is God’s witness, and no other Gods are formed to be the God of Israel, either before or after God declared himself to be the God of Israel. John's theology is "The Father is the only true God and Jesus is also God". Therefore, "only true God" cannot mean "the Father is one God among several true Gods." John 17:3 does not provide support for the idea that the Father and Jesus are two separate true Gods. It presents the Father as the one true God while the same gospel identifies the Son with God. Correction, John’s theology is that The Father is “THE God”, the “only true God”, and Jesus is simply called “God”, as the image of God and representative of the Father. Jesus has been given the title “God” by the Father as he serves as the mediator between God and man. You need to consider all of what John says about the disciples. John 6:56, “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” In John 14:10, Jesus says “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?”, and then in verse 20 he says (to his disciples), “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” Note the structure: Jesus + disciples: “ye in me, and I in you”. They are “one” in the same way Jesus is “one” with his Father. Furthermore, you make the distinction that Jesus and his Father are two persons, but this also expresses that they are separate beings, and therefore separate Gods who are “one” in their relationship, glory, love, and indwelling, just as are the disciples. I see no distinction being made between the way Jesus is one with his Father and how the disciples are to be “one” with Jesus and the Father. Do you? Jesus says, "EVEN AS WE are one", clear as can be. Note also that this is nothing like the unbiblical notion of a “homoousious” Father and Son that was imposed into the Nicene Creed. I have never argued that modern Christians don’t see the Father and Son as separate persons. The problem is that they have come to understand the term “homoousious” to mean one being. That’s simply not like anything found in the Bible. Jesus and his Father are separate and distinct beings, making them separate and distinct Gods, and they are inviting those who unite with them to become “one” in the exact same covenantal way they are “one”, become Gods as well. Also, see Origen's explanation about what Jesus meant when he said "I and my Father are one", below. Being brought into the Father/Son relationship is exactly how they become additional Gods. They become “equal with God” as explained below. It’s exactly the same context as Jesus used in John 10. See below. The opponents of Jesus understood Jesus to be claiming deity when he referred to God as his Father, as noted earlier in John 5: “But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” (John 5:17–18) Also in John 19:7, “The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” The context of John 10:30 also has Jesus referring to God as “My Father” in verse 17, 18, 25, and 29. And Jesus affirmed this as the very reason for the Jews accusing him of blasphemy in verse 36 of John chapter 10 when he said, “Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” Notice that Jesus did NOT say, “Say ye of him… Thou blasphemest; because I said, I and my Father are one”. That is not the reason for their accusation of blasphemy. So, the Jews already had another reason to believe that Jesus was “making himself equal with God”, and Jesus saying “I and my Father are one” has little to do with it. Furthermore, Jesus elaborated on how he and his Father are one because of the works that he does, when he said, “believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him” (verse 38). This again is exactly like how Jesus said his disciples should be in John 14. In John 14:15, Jesus says, “If ye love me, keep my commandments”, and he explains how the Spirit of truth will dwell in his disciples and says, “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” This is the same exact indwelling of both Jesus and the disciples. We are “in him” and he is “in us”. The disciples become “Gods” just like Jesus and his Father. And what does John 1:12 teach us? “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name”. And what does it mean to be the “sons of God”? According to the gospel of John, it means to be “equal with God”. You may call that blasphemy, but John has Jesus affirming that it is true. Also, see Origen's explanation about what Jesus meant when he said, "I and my Father are one", below. Yes. Jesus is a distinct personage in the Godhead. One cannot view Jesus and the Holy Ghost as two separate true Gods, making three true Gods. Distinct person, distinct being, distinct God in the Godhead. There is no difference. Remember, according to Jesus in scripture there is only one “true God”, God the Father. So how are Jesus and the Holy Spirit “God”? They are the images of the one true God and represent the one true God. They are his agents and do the will of the Father. They are not “one being” as modern Christianity teaches. That’s not biblical. People cannot fathom the Trinity so they try to simplify it as three separate Gods. People cannot fathom the Trinity because it’s nonsensical and not biblical. You yourself have admitted that you can’t fathom it. But the Bible explains the unity and covenant relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in much better ways. Go with how Jesus explained how he and his Father are one and how the disciples can be one with them in the same way instead of making up some other way they are one that is not biblical. And the “homoousious” doctrine of the Father and Son is not only unbiblical, the word has its origin in Gnosticism and was introduced into the Nicene Creed by the Roman Emperor Constantine. It’s just plain wrong and contradicts the Bible. That’s just like how the early Christians taught it, with Jesus as the “second God” and “another God and Lord subject to the maker of all things”. So it started right in early Christianity but got off track as later Christians adopted the Nicene creed and evolved into modern monotheism. That may be your belief, but that’s not biblical, and the Bible actually contradicts that view (God is the “God of gods”, Deuteronomy 10:17 and elsewhere). And God didn’t need to come down in the form of a human for it to be two Gods, because John 1:1-3 teaches that there are two Gods (“the God” and God) in the beginning. And God the Father appointed Jesus to be his representative (giving him the title of “God”) before creation began. God the Father crowned him with glory and honor and set him over the works of his hands (Hebrews 2:7), and appointed him the heir of all things (Hebrews 1:2) and made him both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), and gave him power (Matthew 28:18, and was given authority (John 5:26-27), and he was given “glory” from the Father before the world was (John 17:5, 22, 1 Peter 1:21). And in all that, God the Father is still “the God” of Jesus Christ. That’s all biblical. I found his bio at https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/about/ Is he authoritative for the LDS Church? If no, can you give me one or two official LDS sources which indicate "many Deities" in the Old Testament? The Bible is authoritative. It says there is a council of gods and that other gods exist and the works of the God of Israel are compared to the works of other gods. Jesus is the exact representation of God the Father. He fully embodies the Supreme God’s nature, mind, love, and authority. Thus, we can see God the Father in Jesus and through Jesus. And God the Father wants each of us to be images of him in the exact same way, as we become one heart and mind with him and his Son. Other individuals in scripture are images of God as well. For example, when Jacob had his wrestle with God and said, “I have seen God face to face” (Genesis 32:30), he was really wrestling with an angel of God (Hosea 12:3-4). The same thing happened with Manoah and his wife in Judges 13:21-22, where Manoah knew he was communicating with an angel of the LORD, but he said, “We shall surely die, because we have seen God”. That is how images of God work, the same way that Jesus was the image of the Father when Thomas recognized that he was seeing both Jesus (“my Lord”) and God the Father (“and my God”) in John 20:28. As for the phrase “invisible God”, that doesn’t mean that God the Father is transparent or incapable of being seen. It simply means beyond our present view. The Bible also says, "By faith he [Moses] forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible." (Hebrews 11:27) So the “invisible” God can indeed be seen. This was your reply to my previous post: Who is the only true God in these Old Testament verses? Deuteronomy 4:35 - "the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him." Deuteronomy 6:4 - "The LORD our God is one LORD." Isaiah 43:10 - "Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." Isaiah 44:6 - "I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." Isaiah 45:5 - "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me." Isaiah 45:22 - "I am God, and there is none else." I assume you mean a second God (the Father) instead of Jesus (the Son) is being referenced in these Old Testament verses. Oddly enough, the Book of Mormon identifies Jesus as the God of Israel and the whole world in several places: "And the God of our fathers, who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, by Moses, who was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world, and all those who look upon the Son of God with faith, having a contrite spirit, shall live, even unto that life which is eternal" (1 Nephi 19:10). "Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world" (3 Nephi 11:14). Now, getting back to the Bible. Jesus is the first and the last according to the New Testament, echoing what Isaiah 44:6 says. "Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen..." (Revelation 1:17–18). "These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive..." (Revelation 2:8). "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last ... I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches..." (Revelation 22:12–13, 16). Do you believe Jesus is not regarding himself as truly God? Or do you believe he is not God, but just an agent of God standing in the place of God like, like the Septuagint said? There is no difference. Jesus is the “image” of God the Father, his agent and mediator, and thus has the full authority of the Father. And of course Jesus is truly God (God the Father gave him that title) but he is just not the same being as his God and Father, who is the “only true God” (as Jesus said). And it’s interesting that you would quote from Revelation to try to make a point, since that’s not really Jesus speaking in those verses, it is his “angel”, as it says in 22:16, “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches” (Revelation 22:16). The angel was speaking the words of Jesus to John in the first person, and John was so impressed that he fell down to worship the angel (and the angel corrected him). This shows how God and Jesus appoint others to bear their image and represent them. God the Father does the same thing with Jesus. “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18, compare with Acts 3:20-22). Jesus said, praying to the Father, “For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me” (John 17:8). “I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things” (John 8:28). “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak” (John 12:49-50). But Origen did teach “two Gods” and he in fact taught there are many “Gods” that become “one” with the one Supreme God (see my post on September 20 in this thread). Origen clearly did not teach the trinitarian formula of a “homoousious” Father and Son, he did not teach they are “one God” in being in that way. In the context of the same passage we are discussing, Origen explained what is meant by the statement from Jesus, “I and my Father are one”. I’m going to post the full context again but emphasize how Origen explains the Father and Son are “one” in the same way that a “multitude” of believers can be “one heart and of one soul” (as taught in Acts 4:32). I’m going to also color in blue the arguments of Celsus, the anti-Christian writer that Origen is countering, to avoid confusion: “Chapter XII. In what follows, some may imagine that he says something plausible against us. ‘If,’ says he, ‘these people worshipped one God alone, and no other, they would perhaps have some valid argument against the worship of others. But they pay excessive reverence to one who has but lately appeared among men, and they think it no offence against God if they worship also His servant.’ To this we reply, that if Celsus had known that saying, ‘I and My Father are one,’ and the words used in prayer by the Son of God, ‘As Thou and I are one,’ he would not have supposed that we worship any other besides Him who is the Supreme God. ‘For,’ says He, ‘My Father is in Me, and I in Him.’ And if any should from these words be afraid of our going over to the side of those who deny that the Father and the Son are two persons, let him weigh that passage, ‘And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul,” that he may understand the meaning of the saying, “I and My Father are one.’ We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not ‘reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared,’ as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, ‘Before Abraham was, I am.’ Again He says, ‘I am the truth;’ and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared. We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, ‘who is the brightness of God’s glory, and the express image of His person,’ has seen in Him who is the image of God, God Himself.” (Origen, Contra Celsum, Book 8 Ch. 12) Notice that when explaining to Celsus how Jesus and his Father are “one” Origen quotes Jesus’ own words in John 17:22, where Jesus is praying for his disciples, “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one”. And he also quotes Acts 4:32, referring to the multitude that were “of one heart and one soul” and says this is how we need to understand the words of Jesus in saying, “I and my Father are one” in John 10:30. All worship is to the one Supreme God, the one who is above all (God the Father) through those who bear his image and become “one” with him. Is that how you believe Jesus and his Father are “one God”? Do you believe the way that Jesus explained it? Or do you believe the way that the Emperor Constantine explained it in the Nicene creed? I’m glad to see that you finally recognize that the doctrine of the Trinity is a “later” formulation and did not originate from the Bible or the original Christian teachings. But the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. got into the weeds about trying to define how the Son was truly God. After the Roman Emperor Constantine added the word “homoousious” to the creed, the Christian historian Eusebius explained the discussion that followed. He wrote, “He [Constantine] gave his interpretation of this word, saying that ‘<the Son> was not ‘of the same being as’ according to what we experience in our bodies, as if the Son had come to be by a dividing or breaking off from the Father. For his nature could not be subjected to any bodily experiences, as it does not consist of matter, exists in a spiritual realm, has no body. Therefore such things must be thought of in divine, unspeakable concepts.’ Such were the theological remarks of our most wise and most pious Emperor; but they were intent on adding the word ‘of the same being as’” to the creed. And that’s how they came up with the creed that you have today. Eusebius also wrote about a lot of other discussions that followed concerning the meaning of the word “homoousious”, but I won’t quote it here. See Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to his church regarding the Nicene Creed. And in his talk, Elder Holland explained it as an evolution of doctrines as well. He said: “In the year a.d. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged ‘trinity in unity.’ What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils) as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted ‘mystery of the trinity.’ They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.” (October General Conference 2007, “The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent”). First of all, I have never said that God became a God “in the sense of Fatherhood only”. What I said is that’s how God became our God. But let’s explore the question. What does it mean to be a “God”? Let’s look at this from a modern Christian theology point of view. You have God existing eternally as “God”. But what does that mean? Since he is the only eternal being in existence, he was all alone before he began to create things and there was nothing but him. Prior to him creating anything, what was he God over? Who were his subjects? What was his dominion over? What did he rule over? What was his “glory” for? And why would he even need a throne? None of that makes any sense until he (as a beginner) started to create things and began to have dominion and ruling authority. So even from a modern Christian theological point of view, God progressed to become a “God” by his act of creation and didn’t really become “God” until he had something to rule over and have dominion. From a Latter-day Saint point of view, God the Father has always existed as the most intelligent of all other eternal beings. And, God the Father has been creating “worlds without number” for who knows how long. So, how would he “become” a God? The only way is by creating worlds and bringing others into his realm and plan of progression.

Under methodological naturalism, the method "brackets" religious truth claims, supernatural causation and divine knowledge. An apocalyptic announcement that the kingdom would arrive imminently is therefore evaluated by whether the predicted transformation of the present age is visible in the subsequent historical record. When scholars conclude it is not, they can report that the expectation was unfulfilled by ordinary historical standards. That is a descriptive claim about the fit between the reconstructed proclamation and later events. Dan calling Jesus a “false prophet,” however, adds a normative judgment. It presupposes a standard of true prophecy (accurate divine foreknowledge, divine authorization, etc.) and then applies that standard. Those criteria are theological or confessional, not generated by the historical method itself. Historical scholarship can say “the prediction as reconstructed does not match the subsequent course of events under naturalistic assumptions.” It cannot, without stepping outside its own rules, declare that the speaker was therefore religiously false or that no divine action occurred. Dan’s statement collapses that distinction. By moving directly from a historical assessment of unfulfilled expectation to the label “false prophet,” the claim functions as a religious evaluation presented in the language of data-driven scholarship. The method can support the first step; the second step is a value judgment that the method is not equipped to authorize. Dan’s videos and posts seem to regularly select the most stark, counter-intuitive formulation available under critical scholarship (“the Jesus of the Gospels is a false prophet,” “the data do not support the resurrection,” “Isaiah 53 is about Israel, not Jesus”) and present it as the straightforward result of “the data.” The wording is precise enough to be defensible inside the guild—where everyone already understands the methodological naturalism and the limited scope of historical claims—yet blunt enough to land as a religious verdict for a general audience. The equivocation is useful. “False prophet” can mean either (a) a historical figure whose reconstructed predictions did not materialize under ordinary standards or (b) a religiously unauthorized or demonic deceiver. By refusing to flag which sense is in play, or to note that the second sense lies outside the method, the statement generates maximum friction with confessional viewers while remaining technically retractable as “just scholarship.” Whether the motive is primarily pedagogical provocation, audience growth, or both, the rhetorical effect is the same: a value-laden label is delivered as if it were a neutral empirical finding, producing the controversy that keeps the content circulating. Perhaps at times. He often comes across and pretty mean-spirited when addressing people whose sociopolitical worldview varies from his. I appreciate his addressing "bad scholarship." I think some of his social media antics are detracting from him as a scholar. I don't think that is correct. In Latter-day Saint usage, the Restored Gospel is structured around continuing revelation rather than a closed, fixed body of propositions. Living prophets and apostles can receive and declare new revelation; the canon is open; and doctrine is understood to be clarified or expanded “line upon line” as circumstances and understanding change. Personal revelation and individual agency are also treated as operative, so members are expected to seek confirmation rather than simply assent to a finished creed. “Dogma,” in the sense of an immutable set of authoritative statements that cannot be revised or supplemented by further revelation, does not sit easily with that framework. Early Latter-day Saint leaders explicitly rejected creedal formulations as incomplete or corrupted, and the Church’s institutional practice has been to treat official teachings as binding for the present while remaining subject to additional light. The result is a system that claims revelatory authority but resists the idea of a permanently closed doctrinal deposit. Thanks, -Smac

Even though you have no evidence for it. Okay. Yes. I'm happy to consider alternative inferences. So you are conceding the inference about Joseph and Emma being sealed is "probably right," but you are refusing to retract your claim that Joseph and Emma were never sealed? Thanks, -Smac