theplains

Those gods were not real deities. Even Zeus was not a deity. The Jews sacrified to Baal, but Baal was not a real god in the sense of deity. He was either a being conceived in their mind or a demonic spirit. There is only one being referred to as the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4). The idea is that Satan has influence over the present world system and works to keep people from recognizing the truth of the gospel. There are not gods who are given ruling authority over specific countries.

The Bible uses the word "god(s)" in several different senses, and this is important because simply finding the word god does not mean the Bible is saying that the being is a true deity equal to Yahweh. The key Hebrew word is אֱלֹהִים (elohim), and the Greek equivalent is θεός (theos). Elohim can refer to Yahweh, pagan gods, heavenly/divine beings, and even human judges or authorities (Bible Hub). https://biblehub.com/hebrew/430.htm I would divide the Bible's use of "gods" into approximately five categories: 1] Yahweh/Jehovah, the true God (Deuteronomy 4:35; Isaiah 45:5; John 17:3). 2] Heavenly/divine beings (Psalm 8:5; Psalm 82; Psalm 97:7; Job 1:6) - real spiritual beings, but not deities. 3] Human judges/rulers (Exodus 7:1; 21:6; 22:8–9; Psalm 82). Not deities, but human beings exercising authority. I would put Psalm 82 into category #3. 4] Satan/demonic powers (2 Corinthians 4:4; Deuteronomy 32:17; 1 Corinthians 10:20) - real spiritual beings, but not deities. 5] Pagan gods/idols (Exodus 20:3; Psalm 96:5; Jeremiah 2:11; 5:7; 16:20; Galatians 4:8). Not deities. For example, Psalm 82:6: "Ye are gods" does not necessarily mean "You are individual gods who possess the same kind of deity as Yahweh." Likewise: 1 Corinthians 8:5: "there be gods many" does not contradict: 1 Corinthians 8:4: "there is none other God but one." And: Galatians 4:8: "them which by nature are no gods" shows that Scripture can use the word "gods" for beings/objects that are not actually divine by nature. Note: Exodus 7:1 says, "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet". The point is that Moses is placed in the position of God's authoritative representative before Pharaoh, while Aaron functions as his prophet/spokesman. But Moses is not a deity. Satan is not a deity either in 2 Corinthians 4:4.

There is no indication he was making an apology for the entire church. He used the individual "I" instead of the corporate "we". I am not aware of any apology from him or a church apostle prior to this NAACP event. I don't find it either in Official Declaration 2. If you know of at least one, then let me know. As I mentioned before, these [why certain races were barred from the priesthood and/or the curse of Cain] were not advanced as theories. If you could provide some words from pre-1960 leaders which depict them as theories, speculations, or opinions, then let me know. In the case of Cain, the mark was for his protection (Genesis 4:15). It was not a curse put upon him by God. And this mark was not put on his descendants. The Bible never connects Cain's mark with Ham, Canaan, or black Africans. As Dallin H. Oaks said, "Some people put reasons to the one we're talking about here [race and the priesthood], and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong". "It" being the reasons for the ban. Aaron made an honest mistake in constructing the golden calf for the people to worship. His action led the people astray. Regarding Gardner's comment, the Book of Mormon does not indicate the black skin came upon the Lamanites because they marked their forehead or other parts of their body. See 2 Nephi 5:21, Alma 3:6, and 3 Nephi 2:15. Regarding the comments by Scripture Central. 1] Dark Skins as Garments – the Book of Mormon does not depict God clothing them with special garments. Scripture shows Adam and Eve were clothed with coats of skin when God replaced their fig leaf aprons after the Fall. But neither God nor Cain clothed himself with a special garment for protection after he killed Abel. 2] Dark Skins as Body Paint – the Book of Mormon does not depict God using body paint to mark the Lamanites. Alma 3:4 is one clear example in the Book of Mormon where people deliberately mark/paint their bodies ("The Amlicites were distinguished from the Nephites, for they had marked themselves with red in their foreheads after the manner of the Lamanites"). The point is repeated in 3:13 ("they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads"). The Amlicites voluntarily put a red mark on their foreheads, apparently imitating the Lamanites and distinguishing themselves from the Nephites. There's an important distinction between them and the Lamanites. - the Amlicites explicitly marked themselves with red on their foreheads. - the Book of Mormon describes a mark associated with their skin, but it does not explicitly say that they painted their skin red in the same way the Amlicites did. Another interesting passage: 3 Nephi 2:15. Some Lamanites' skin became white after their conversion ("the curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites"). We do not see Cain painting his body or that this body paint was inherited by his wife's children. 3] Dark Skins as Tattoos – the Book of Mormon does not depict God tattooing the Lamanites all over their body or a portion of it. While the Bible speaks about a visible mark on Cain, it does not depict this as tattoos all over his body. Scripture does not reveal Cain's descendants inheriting a mark of protection or similarly for other people who intermarried his descendants. The LDS Church is trying to distance itself from past doctrines of black skin being a sign of the curse upon certain people. According to the church's essay: President Brigham Young and subsequent Church Presidents taught that the priesthood and temple restriction would one day end. Several affirmed that lifting the restriction would require a revelation from God.7 [7] See Saints 3:245–46; Edward L. Kimball, "Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on the Priesthood," BYU Studies, vol. 47, no. 2 (2008), 22, 31–32, 35. Another article adds more: "In the case of Marie Graves, the First Presidency did not ask the congregation to integrate, for fear that challenging racial codes like those in the South put both Black and white Saints at risk. Nor did Church leaders encourage active proselytizing among Black communities, since the Church restricted priesthood ordination and temple blessings from people of African descent". The LDS Church, like other churches, fell prey to cultural stigmas. One cannot misinterpret what those verses (2 Nephi 5:21, Alma 3:6, and 3 Nephi 2:15) meant in the Book of Mormon. That's the way Joseph Smith supposedly translated by the power of God. The Book of Mormon, possibly even a portion in the Pearl of Great Price, led to the doctrine which would form policy in the LDS Church for centuries. Saints Volume 3, chapter 16 also adds: "David, I am as sympathetic as you are," President Grant had responded, "but until the Lord gives us a revelation regarding that matter, we shall have to maintain the policy of the Church". Beginning in the early 1900s, Church leaders taught that any Saint known to have Black African ancestry, however small, would be restricted". The church leaders used their position and influence to inadvertently lead the members astray. They were sincere, but they were sincerely wrong. Dallin H. Oaks referred to it as "spectacularly wrong". If there wasn't a revelation from God to institute the ban, then LDS leaders were creating a commandment of man; thus leading their members astray with supposed theories. But Ezra Taft said it [the priesthood ban] originated with God, but didn't use that specific phrase. See his speech in the October 1967 General Conference. "The arm of flesh may not approve nor understand why God has not bestowed the priesthood on women or the seed of Cain ... The Prophet Joseph Smith understood this principle when he said, "the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come". It would only be revoked by as great a power as caused it to come (meaning by God, not by earthly men). LDS leaders sincerely believed they were being directed by God and used their influence and position to withhold the priesthood. They were spectacularly wrong and ended up leading their members astray for almost two hundred years. It's possible there is no available written record of this supposed revelation. I can't recall if I attributed the ban, using that word, to Joseph Smith. Can you send me the link to the thread? According to the church topic "Priesthood and Temple Restriction": "During the first two decades of the Church's existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood. One of these men, Elijah Able, also participated in temple ceremonies in Kirtland, Ohio, and was later baptized as proxy for deceased relatives in Nauvoo, Illinois. There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith's lifetime". Maybe you can count "a few" on one hand. But we find something to the contrary in an earlier publication. This is how it's recorded in The Way to Perfection. The doctrine was taught by Joseph Smith. "Piecing together the evidence as we discover it in holy writ and in tradition, we are brought to the conclusion that Ham, through Egyptus, continued the curse which was placed upon the seed of Cain. Because of that curse this dark race was separated and isolated from all the rest of Adam's posterity before the flood, and since that time the same condition has continued, and they have been "despised among all people. This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith. At a meeting of the general authorities of the Church, held August 22, 1895, the question of the status of the negro in relation to the Priesthood was asked and the minutes of that meeting say: "President George Q. Cannon ‘remarked that the Prophet taught this doctrine: That the seed of Cain could not receive the Priesthood nor act in any of the offices of the Priesthood until the seed of Abel should come forward and take precedence over Cain's offspring. Joseph Smith has left very little on record in his own words outside of the Pearl of Great Price. During the course of a discussion in Nauvoo in 1842, on the question as to whether the negroes or the Indians have received the greater ill-treatment from the whites, the Prophet Joseph said: "The Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes, or sons of Cain." ' (D. H. C. 4:501.) But we all ‘know it is due to his teachings that the negro today is barred from the Priesthood". The current LDS Church attempts to disavow reasons for the priesthood ban and calls those reasons "theories" instead of the way it was taught back then – as "doctrine". I can understand why LDS leaders are trying to bury some of its church history. Fortunately some of those older historical books are still available. Then there's this historical document: "The following year Elijah and Mary Ann migrated to Salt Lake City along with their children Moroni, Enoch, and Anna. That same year, Abel petitioned Young to receive the temple endowment and be sealed to his wife and children. While Young officially kept Abel's priesthood status intact, he denied the petition—marking perhaps the first documented instance of a person of color being denied this particular privilege. More broadly, this refusal was one of the first times that a person of color was denied participation in practices central to the Mormon faith. After Young's death in 1877, Abel again petitioned to be allowed to participate in the temple endowment and sealing ordinances. Once again, however, the church refused him". See above. Early LDS leaders viewed it as a directive from God. "Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance" (Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Study Guide for Home-Study Seminary Students, Unit 32: Day 2, Official Declaration 2). I think the issue of Declaration #2 was primarily one of timing. It states, "Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice". https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng We know this is not true when you read older church publications. President Kimball said, "As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords". Notice what inspired him? It was the growth of the church among many nations. And he specifically fails to mention those of African-descent. I said previously that it was one of timing. Was this the right time to override the ban? It seems so based on what he said next: "Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood". That's another admission that previous LDS presidents and prophets taught their time was not the time to remove the priesthood ban. Hugh B. Brown, who served in the First Presidency under McKay, tried to get the ban removed in the 1960s. "According to Brown's later-published memoirs, he came close to getting approval from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to remove the restriction in the late 1960s. The attempt ultimately failed. Contemporary reporting on the memoirs describes it as an "aborted attempt" to lift the ban nearly a decade before 1978. The decision-making procedure, Brown explained, generally worked like this: (An idea) is submitted to the First Presidency and Twelve, thrashed out, discussed and rediscussed until it seems right. Then, kneeling together in a circle in the temple, they seek divine guidance and the president says, ‘I feel to say this is the will of the Lord.' That becomes a revelation. It is usually not thought necessary to publish or proclaim it as such, but this is the way it happens" (LA Times: Debates by Mormon Leaders Preceded ‘Revelations'). The sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden is taught in several LDS Church publications. Here are just a few: [1] Chapter 45 of the seminary manual (Religion 211–212 - New Testament Student Manual). "Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Eternal Father. He is our Creator. He is our Teacher. He is our Savior. His atonement paid for the sin of Adam and won victory over death, assuring resurrection and immortality for all men". [2] October 1979 General Conference talk by President Marion G. Romney, recorded in the November Ensign article "Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ". "It [the gospel plan] anticipated the need for a Savior to win the victory over death, atone for the sin of Adam, which brought death, and provide the means whereby men, through repentance, may receive forgiveness for personal sins and be readmitted into the presence of God". Satan led Adam and Eve astray. Regarding the JW teaching of Jesus being Michael the Archangel – it is both an incorrect teaching and incorrect belief. By "good", I assume you mean "good" from a moral perspective. There are many "good" Hindu and Muslim leaders who err in doctrines and lead their followers astray. For example, having the Quran deny the actual crucifixion of Christ seems like an honest mistake, but it has serious consequences because it's contrary to biblical teachings. Personally, I suspect Satan inspired that teaching and it has been propagated by Muslims down throughout the centuries. But if it was actually recited by Muhammad without satanic influence and he viewed it as the truth, then one could refer to this as an honest mistake. He was actually doing a good thing by showing that all the Christians were deceived by Allah; who made it appear as if Christ was hanging on the cross. Their explanation is that it may have been Judas Iscariot. When you really think about the implications from a Muslim perspective, Allah's deception led to the rise of Christianity. As you stated above – "Leading people astray means using influence". Islamic mullahs and imams do have influence in the lives of Muslims. Hindus have their pujaris and acharyas, Buddism has its monks, and the Jehovah's Witnesses have their Governing Body. In case you don't know, the Governing Body is the group of senior leaders that provides overall spiritual direction and organizational oversight for Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide. They have significant influence on what is taught to organizational members. JW missionaries can be excommunicated for teaching people contrary to the Governing Body. I suspect this is the same case for LDS missionaries or members who don't sustain the leadership and what they teach and preach contrary to what the leadership says. A person can be sincere but also be sincerely wrong at the same time. Like those "sincere" Israelites who were "sincerely" worshipping the gold calf. And many people in our day are sincerely worshipping a being they believe is an exalted man, but he's really a God made in their image.

To be divine is to possess the nature or attributes of God—such as perfect goodness, wisdom, power, or holiness. I don't view humans as being divine in essence, though they may reflect God's image or be close to God. Don't forget the dual nature of Christ. He is both God and man. And as man, God is his father. That does not make Christ a lesser God. In LDS theology, Heavenly Mother is above Christ (a higher God than Jesus) because she became a God before Jesus was born to her. She would also be a higher God than her other son who also became God (i.e. the Holy Spirit). Then you have to consider a few other things. I'll just throw in some possible events. Supposedly Heavenly Father was a man who lived on another world. He was married in mortality and had physical offspring. Let's call two of his sons John and Peter. His two sons on that other world each married one wife (John married Mary, Peter married Martha). These four people (John, Mary, Peter, Martha) progressed into becoming Gods before Jesus is born as a spirit child to Heavenly Father and Mother sometime later. His other brothers are technically John and Peter. So, the four additional Gods would be above Christ (higher Gods). And this doesn't include all the other millions of people who lived with Heavenly Father on his world who would progress into becoming Gods too, above Christ (higher Gods than he). Think about all those millions of people who grew up with Heavenly Father on his world. Whose offspring are they? God is already God before he becomes our Father. Where in the King Follett Discourse does Joseph Smith say God became our God and Father when his heavenly wife (or wives) gave us some form of spiritual birth? Do you believe Heavenly Father is a heavenly father before some heavenly mother gives birth to her first spirit child in some celestial home and before his wife in mortality gave birth to a physical child on that other world? Regarding Hebrews 2:7 and 1:2, it makes it easier to comprehend when you realize that Jesus and the Father are not two Gods. The LDS Heavenly Father supposedly was the Redeemer and Lord of those on the planet he grew up on. Whose offspring are they? Who created them?

I remember. You said, "How he came to be our God was in our relationship to him, and him providing a way for us to advance and become like him. That is the way Joseph Smith taught it in his sermon". In the King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith does discuss the eternal nature of intelligence/spirits, but he does not explicitly teach that God and a heavenly wife produced spirit children. It does discuss humanity's existence before mortality, but its language is more about intelligence/spirits being eternal than the later familiar LDS formulation of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother having spirit children. So in short, it does not discuss how "God came to be God" (a phrase used in the sermon) before becoming "our God" (a phrase not used in the sermon). This is only in the sense of a spiritual relationship. Once a person is a literal offspring of God, he or she remains a literal child. In LDS theology, God continues to be the God (the literal parent) or all those spirit children who supposedly rebelled against him in some war in heaven. In the Protestant and Catholic views, one God is responsible for creating all planets, stars, universes, and everything relating to them. Offspring in two ways – [1] being created by God, and [2] in a spiritual sense (being adopted into his family), not in the sense of being born literally as spirit children to a heavenly mother. The LDS Heavenly Father supposedly was the Redeemer and Lord of those on the planet he grew up on. Whose offspring are they? You're making progress. We don't become God's offspring by being birthed by a heavenly mother. God being God from age to age = God being God from eternity to eternity = God being God from everlasting to everlasting. But I see your point if you only want to apply "age" to a human's perspective instead of to God's perspective. Joseph Smith and other LDS leaders taught there were Gods before (above) the God of Earth. Let me know which of the following 12 teachings are false and leading people astray and/or have another intended meaning: [1] [Joseph Smith] says: "If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that he had a Father also". Then he asks: "Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son?" [2] [Joseph Smith] taught that our Father had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, specially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him? [3] Evidently his Father passed through a period of mortality even as he passed through mortality, and as we all are doing. Our Father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a Father, and since there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father, until we come to a stop where we cannot go further, because of our limited capacity to understand" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation). [4] "We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father; and so on, from generation to generation, . . . we wonder in our minds, how far back the genealogy extends, and how the first world was formed, and the first father was begotten" (Orson Pratt, The Seer). [5] "Like man, He had a Father; and he was ‘the express image of the person of the Father.' Here "He" is God, in the preceding discussion of the true God. Thus Pratt explicitly describes God Himself as having a Father" (Orson Pratt, The Kingdom of God). [6] "He came here, was born, had a father and mother like you have. Well, who was his father? Why God was His father; and who was God's father? Why God had a father like you and I have". [7] "Now, with this information children can begin to understand something about their Heavenly Father. They can see that if Jesus is His Son, and we are His sons and daughters, that He must be the Son of some other personage, for He could not beget Himself, but must have a father even as He is our Father" (Gospel Truths, volume 1, George Q. Cannon, page 128). [8] "Long before our God began his creations, he dwelt on a mortal world like ours, one of the creations that his Father had created for him and his brethren. He, with many of his brethren, was obedient to the principles of the eternal gospel. One among these, it is presumed, was a savior for them, and through him they obtained a resurrection and an exaltation on an eternal, celestial world. Then they gained the power and godhood of their Father and were made heirs of all that he had, continuing his works and creating worlds of their own for their own posterity—the same as their Father had done before, and his Father, and his Father, and on and on" (Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, vol. 14, p. 71). [9] "If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, 1938). [10] "We must be grafted into the true vine, and continue to partake of its fatness, and then we shall go back to our Father and God, who is connected with one who is still farther back; and this Father is connected with one still further back, and so on; and just so far as we respect our superiors and try to save our children, so shall we receive blessings from this time forth and forever, and shall become as numerous as the sands upon the seashore" (Journal of Discourses, volume 5, Temple and Endowments— Raising Grain and Building Storehouses—President Heber C. Kimball, April 6, 1857). [11] "Some people are troubled over the statements of the Prophet Joseph Smith. . . . The matter that seems such a mystery is the statement that our Father in heaven at one time passed through a life and death and is an exalted man. This is one of the mysteries. . . . The Prophet taught that our Father had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, especially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him?" (Doctrines of Salvation, volume 1). [12] "Brother Kimball quoted a saying of Joseph the Prophet, that he would not worship a God who had not a Father; and I do not know that he would if he had not a mother; the one would be as absurd as the other" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 286). I am not aware of better LDS sources today which show that the 12 teachings I provided above are false LDS teachings. If you have these better sources, then let me know. Those leaders did not express what you now believe they did. Latter-day Saints also don't understand what the Bible means when it says Jesus is the firstborn. Trying to divert people from how the early LDS leaders spoke or what the biblical characters wrote is a common tactic. If one doesn't agree with something the Bible says, it means the Bible was not translated correctly. Likewise, if the King Follett Discourse does not say what one expects it to say or how one wants to understand it, then it means it must not have been recorded properly or that the speaker had something else in his mind. On this "intending" or "not intending" to mean, let examine a few statements by Brigham Young before I move to Joseph Smith. What did he [Brigham] intend to mean when he taught the following: "When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him". He continued: "He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do". This appears in Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 50–51, in a sermon titled "The Powers of the Priesthood". Do you understand his intended meaning or do you ascribe another meaning to what he is saying? In the sermon of July 24, 1870, titled "The Gospel—The One-Man Power," published in Journal of Discourses, volume 13, p. 271, Young said: "Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? … when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows". He then compared this with the sun: "So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain". https://journalofdiscourses.com/13/31 Do you understand his intended meaning or do you ascribe another meaning to what he is saying? Now, Joseph Smith. According to Oliver B. Huntington, Joseph Smith described the inhabitants of the moon this way: "The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the Earth, being about 6 feet in height. They dress very much like the Quaker style & are quite general in style, or the one fashion of dress. They live to be very old; coming generally, near a thousand years". Huntington then wrote: "This is the description of them as given by Joseph the Seer, and he could ‘See' whatever he asked the Father in the name of Jesus to see". https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/SCMisc/id/27480/ A slightly different version was published by Huntington in the Young Woman's Journal in 1892: "As far back as 1837, I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do—that they live generally to near the age of a 1000 years. He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style". Do you understand Smith's intended meaning or do you ascribe another meaning to what he is saying? We also clearly know what Joseph Smith had in mind when he gave the King Follett discourse. "I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible". Then, shortly afterward, he says: "These ideas are incomprehensible to some, but they are simple". Then, "God himself was once as we are now". and: "I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea". He then continues: "...God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible". But he never shows these things about Heavenly Father from the Bible; even when one tries to use the words of Jesus in John 5:19. God himself was once as we are now – meaning we are not Gods now – meaning we are not heavenly parents now. Jesus is not getting married and having spirit children like he sees the Father do. Jesus is not an exalted man, meaning a man who becomes God. One can't make it any clearer than that. But I understand other passages teach the opposite – that God is God from eternity. It's one or the other; it can't be both. It's plausible that Smith originally held onto those biblical truths (and those recorded in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants) but later changed his mind. I'll just focus on one. You quibble too much about whether one considers it a doctrine. Let's focus on whether it's true or false. This teaching of Joseph Smith leads no doubt as to what he intended to mean. There is no ambiguity. "If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, 1938). Are you scared to death at such a doctrine? He even used the word "doctrine". Don't change the focus as to whether this is official or unofficial. That's like saying one truth is official while another truth is unofficial. Do you view that statement by Smith as a true or false doctrine? Powers can be angelic beings with power. God foreknew Adam and Eve would sin and bring death into the world. The fall has had severe consequences for mankind and the rest of creation. In LDS theology, God actually uses disobedience as the way for Adam and Eve to begin their progression and have children after blood formed in their veins. Likewise, God supposedly foreknew his spirit children would rebel against him in heaven and he would need to send them to outer darkness. But first, he would allow these evil beings to deceive the rest of his children. Jesus did not create Satan in an evil state. He became evil. Does God's foreknowledge of evil make him evil? No.

Elder Stevenson said, "Now I'm deeply saddened and hurt by this error and for any pain that it may have caused our members and for others". It's "I'm", not "we're". The church's essay does not contain an explicit apology—it does not say, for example, "we apologize" or "the Church apologizes". Does the essay explicitly admit that the restriction itself was a mistake or error? No. Does it acknowledge that explanations taught by past leaders were wrong? Effectively yes, although it uses the language of disavowing rather than explicitly saying, "those leaders made errors". There's another version here. It also doesn't mention the word "apology", "error", "regret", or "wrong". A more honest assessment is found spoken by Dallin H. Oaks in another church seminary manual (lesson 26, Foundations of the Restoration Teacher Manual, Religion 225, 2015). "Some people put reasons to the one we're talking about here [race and the priesthood], and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong". It doesn't mention the word "apology", "error", or "regret". The identity of the "some people" is left purposely ambiguous. But at least he calls it spectacularly wrong. It's a subtle admission that church leaders and Presidents of the church can lead and have led people astray. God permits it. Brant makes a valid point that "Nephite" and "Lamanite" were not always purely biological labels. People could join another group and be "numbered among" them, so group identity could involve religion, politics, and allegiance, not just ancestry. This weakens a simplistic idea that Nephites and Lamanites were always two completely separate racial groups. However, he seems to take that point too far. The fact that people could change groups does not prove that there were no physical differences associated with the groups. A person could join the Nephites or Lamanites politically or religiously without that automatically changing every physical characteristic associated with their ancestry. Likewise, Gardner correctly shows that words like dark, white, filthy, and loathsome can sometimes be symbolic or spiritual. But he then applies this symbolic interpretation to passages that specifically mention literal skin: • 2 Nephi 5:21 — God caused "a skin of blackness" to come upon the Lamanites. • Alma 3:6 — "the skins of the Lamanites were dark" according to a mark. • 3 Nephi 2:15 — after conversion, "their skin became white like unto the Nephites". So the main flaw is that Gardner moves from "group identity was flexible" and "color language can be symbolic" to "therefore references to skin are probably symbolic as well". Those conclusions do not necessarily follow. Historically, the dominant teaching among early LDS leaders was quite different from Brant Gardner's interpretation. They taught the passages to mean that the Lamanites experienced an actual, visible change in complexion or skin color. Orson Pratt stated this especially clearly in 1840. Speaking of the Lamanites, he said that before their rebellion they were "white and exceedingly fair, like the Nephites" but that God "cursed them in their complexions, and they were changed to a dark colour". That is plainly a literal complexion/skin-color interpretation, not merely an insider/outsider character identity. Brigham Young likewise connected the Lamanites' "mark" with their being a physically "dark" people and taught that eventually "they will become a white and delightsome people". So he also taught the change as involving actual physical appearance. Gardner is correct that the Book of Mormon itself says people could join the Nephites or Lamanites. Alma 3, for example, says that someone could be "called" a Lamanite or a Nephite based partly on which traditions and beliefs they followed. But the early LDS interpretation generally did not conclude from this that skin references were merely symbolic. Instead, they seem to have understood both ideas to be true simultaneously: 1. "Nephite" and "Lamanite" could function as group, religious, or political identities. 2. There was also a literal physical mark associated with the Lamanite lineage. In fact, Alma 3 itself presents both concepts side by side. It says that the Lamanites' "skins … were dark" according to the mark, but it also says that those who adopted Lamanite traditions could be "called under that head" and receive a mark. So the historical LDS view was not "Because people could switch groups, the skin language must be symbolic". Rather, early leaders taught the Book of Mormon as describing fluid group identities alongside a real physical mark or difference in complexion. Then we have chapters 15 and 16 in "The Way to Perfection" which teaches about Cain and his descendants. For comparison, the church's topic "Race and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" takes a more cautious position: it says "the nature and appearance of this mark are not fully understood," rather than affirming the older leaders' specific complexion-based interpretation. Removing the reference of dark skin being a sign of the curse from the Book of Mormon would indicate errors in the supposed translation work (the Book of Mormon). He also modified and added things to the Bible which he felt were wrong, missing, or ambiguous. So I believe the LDS Church will not remove the three references mentioned earlier in my analysis of what Brant Gardner wrote. The Jehovah's Witnesses organization is overwhelming good too. But they teach a false Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus is Michael the Archangel and that Heavenly Father is not an exalted man. They are not worshipping the true God. A revelation from God was needed to institute the ban, so a subsequent revelation was needed to remove the ban. But the original revelation was not recorded, as far as I know, in a "Thus saith the Lord" way. In the October 1967 General Conference, Ezra Taft Benson taught, "The arm of flesh may not approve nor understand why God has not bestowed the priesthood on women or the seed of Cain ... The Prophet Joseph Smith understood this principle when he said, "the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come". This teaching clearly shows the ban was caused by God and that it would only be revoked by as great a power as caused it to come (meaning by God, not by earthly men). Or the ban and it's removal were both man-made (the commandments of men). In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve believed a false teaching by Satan and they were led astray. Being led astray can involve several things: • Believing something false - accepting teachings or claims that contradict the religion's understanding of truth. • Following the wrong influence - allowing a person, leader, culture, temptation, or ideology to pull you away from your faith. • Acting contrary to God's commands - not merely believing incorrectly, but choosing a way of life considered sinful or spiritually harmful. • Losing spiritual direction - gradually becoming less devoted to God, prayer, worship, or the values of one's faith. • Being deceived - in many religious traditions, being led astray can involve deception that initially looks convincing or appealing. Teaching that a being became a God (before or after getting married on the world he grew up on) and then becoming the heavenly father of those on our Earth is a serious matter. Teaching that Jesus was the first spirit child of two beings who became Gods and then became a God himself before obtaining a mortal body on our Earth is a serious matter. It's the difference between a false god and the true God. Wrong is wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses are pulling people towards Michael the Archangel, their version of Jesus. That is a false Christ. See above. Sounds clear to me. What does it mean to you? Maybe he had 5 things in mind and he left his hearers to decide which of the 5 was right and which were wrong. It's like someone saying, "Well, I don't think Joseph Smith had in his mind that God was not God from all eternity when he said God was not God from all eternity. He had something else in mind and that something else is more palatable to me because I can understand it more or I can believe it more. To do otherwise would have me admitting that he's a false prophet leading me toward another god". A similar principle follows. The Joseph Smith Papers gives the passage from Thomas Bullock's contemporary notes of Joseph Smith's discourse on April 8, 1844, in Nauvoo. The full relevant section reads: "...it is my duty to teach those who err in doctrine— the Sp[irit] is will[in]g. but the flesh is weak— it God made Aaron to be their mouthpiece & made me to be their K[ing]. & their God— & if you dont like it you must lump it— I have given instr[ucti]on to [Elder George J. Adams] in some principles— if he makes a mistake I will tell it". What is happening immediately before this? Smith had been announcing what he described as a "great grand & glorious revelation". He was explaining a change concerning the gathering of the Saints and the location and role of Zion. He said that the whole of North and South America constituted the promised land and that Nauvoo would have a particular role in performing ordinances for the dead. He then says: "it is my duty to teach those who err in doctrine" and immediately follows that by comparing his relationship to the Saints with God's relationship to Aaron: "if God made Aaron to be their mouthpiece & made me to be their K[ing] & their God" followed by: "if you dont like it you must lump it". The important thing is that "lump it" isn't standing alone as a general statement about disagreeing with church leaders. It occurs in a discussion of Joseph's claimed divine authority. The apparent argument is roughly: 1. God made Aaron Moses' spokesman/mouthpiece. 2. Likewise, God had made Joseph Smith the Saints' "King" and "God" in the particular sense Smith was using those terms. 3. Therefore, Smith had authority to teach and correct them. 4. If someone disliked what he was teaching, they had to "lump it"—i.e., put up with it / accept it rather than reject it merely because they disliked it. That interpretation is strengthened by the sentence immediately preceding it: "it is my duty to teach those who err in doctrine".

Not gods in the sense of true deities.

Are they real gods or just man-made idols with names?

Elder Stevenson does not speak for the entire LDS Church. Let me know when an LDS President issues an apology with the particular word "error". I don't think they will as the teaching (the dark skin being a sign of the curse) remains present in the Book of Mormon. Indicating it was an "error" casts doubt on Joseph's supposed translation and it also dismantles a belief that an LDS President will not be allowed to lead the church astray. There is no racial component in Mosiah 16:3. But I was wondering if the LDS Church would issue an apology for people being hurt by reading what it says about them (either the unbelievers or believers) in that verse or others. I am not aware of any LDS elder making an apology for any other teaching by LDS Presidents over the last 200 years or so that may have caused stress to people. Ok. The elder had this apology in his pocket all his life and wanted to issue it at an appropriate time. The LDS Church disavows this "theory" (taught as truth by LDS leaders for decades) but make no indication it was an error. Why? Because doing so shows LDS leaders have led their followers astray. As I've noted before, the teachings about dark skin being a sign of the curse were not presented as conjecture, opinion, theory, or speculation. False teaching leads people in the wrong path, to worship a false God. For example, Joseph Smith teaching that God is not God from all eternity. This is not the God faithful Jews or the majority of Christians worship. Take another example the Jesus of the Jehovah's Witnesses. He is Michael the Archangel, not God. This is a false Christ. They are being led down the wrong path. Another example: LDS Christians believe the Godhead is three Gods. Evangelical Christians believe in one God, eternally existent as three personages. You believe the later teaching leads believers astray. The pressure to remove the priesthood ban would not reach its zenith until later. You don't need a revelation from God if the priesthood ban originated with men. But as shown before, the ban originated with God as per LDS teachings. It seems we have different meanings for the same term. What does leading people in the Church astray mean to you? I don't believe God allows his "entire Church" to be led astray but he allows false teachers into the church, thus leading some followers astray. A previous LDS teaching says His church was destroyed when errors crept in. That teaching is a false teaching. This false doctrine is more formally known as The Great Apostasy. A manual is entirely fallible if it contains no truth. No LDS teaching manuals are "entirely" fallible. LDS Seminary manuals contain both truth and error. So they can and do contain teachings of former and current LDS Presidents which are leading their followers astray. Some of these teachings just passed down since Joseph Smith supposedly had a vision that he saw both the Father and the Son. Maybe I should add some clarity to what I said about a false teacher and false teachings. For my prime example, I'll use the Early Church Fathers and their teaching about deification. The church is repeatedly instructed to correct, teach, admonish, and restore people who are wrong. For example: • "instructing his opponents with gentleness" (2 Timothy 2:25) • "teach what accords with sound doctrine" (Titus 2:1) • "restore him in a spirit of gentleness" (Galatians 6:1) That assumes that not every doctrinally mistaken person is automatically an enemy of Christ or a false teacher. There are people who need correction, people who are immature, people whose understanding is incomplete, and people who are genuinely deceptive and destructive. "I don't have to deny the existence of false teachers in the New Testament church simply because I believe some early Church Fathers were mistaken about particular doctrines such as deification. Scripture clearly teaches that false teachers would arise within the church. But Scripture also gives us examples of genuine believers and teachers whose understanding was incomplete and who needed correction, such as Apollos. Therefore, 'teaches something I believe is erroneous' and 'is a false teacher in the full New Testament sense' are not synonymous categories. I can reject a particular teaching of a Church Father as unbiblical without making the much broader claim that the Father himself was a false teacher." A person can be a historically important Christian theologian while nevertheless being wrong about particular doctrines. I can respect the Fathers historically while maintaining that their writings are subordinate to Scripture and therefore subject to correction. My standard for identifying a false teacher is ultimately the apostolic teaching preserved in Scripture, not whether someone later became influential in church history. But I see a contrast with what is coming from LDS leadership. Wilford Woodruff, the 4th president of the LDS Church, said "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray". He continued that if a president attempted to lead the Church astray, "the Lord would remove me out of my place". This statement is included in Official Declaration 1. There are other LDS leaders who repeated the idea. For example, Harold B. Lee and Gordon B. Hinckley. Ezra Taft Benson even gave fourteen fundamentals in following a prophet, one of them talking about being led astray. Basically, following a true prophet will never lead you astray (Teachings of the Living Prophets). Others are mentioned in AARONIC PRIESTHOOD Manual 3, chapter 24. A false teacher can teach both truth and error. Example: God exists (true), but God is not God from all eternity (false). Jesus exists (true), Jesus is God (true), but Jesus is the first spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God (false). Worshipping a false god does not bode well. Another example is the Jehovah's Witnesses. Their teaching of Jesus being Michael the Archangel or he returned invisibly in 1914. Their Governing Body, who teach themselves to be the faithful and discreet slave, believe what they teach is true doctrine so they don't understand they are leading people astray. Worshipping Jesus is blasphemy in their theology. Add to this all their false prophecies over the last hundred years.

Who are the divine beings in Psalm 82 which are being condemned for dealing unjustly to the weak and fatherless?

The argument is essentially equivocating between two different questions: whether the Father is God over/relative to the Son in the biblical relationship, and whether the Father is a higher-ranking deity who is more divine than the Son. I would answer the first yes and the second no. The Bible certainly teaches that the Father is the God of Jesus in terms of their personal relationship. Jesus Himself says to Mary: "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." Paul likewise speaks of: "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Ephesians 1:3). So there is no reason for an evangelical to deny those verses. But that does not mean the Father is a higher God than Jesus in the sense that the Father possesses a greater degree of deity. The same New Testament that calls the Father Jesus' God also makes statements about Jesus that are incompatible with Jesus being merely a lesser deity. For example: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). And: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3). Paul says of Christ, "By him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible... all things were created by him, and for him" (Colossians 1:16). And Hebrews says of the Son, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever..." So the biblical picture is not the Father being a greater God and the Son being a lesser God, but rather the Father = God, the Son = God, and the Father is not the Son; while the Son is personally subordinate to the Father in certain respects. Then there's 1 Corinthians 15:28. This is probably the strongest verse for the argument: "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all". Evangelicals don't need to deny this. The Son is indeed subject to the Father. But subjection does not necessarily mean inferiority of nature. A good biblical example is Jesus' incarnation. Jesus says, "My Father is greater than I". Yet the same Gospel says, "the Word was God". The traditional evangelical interpretation is that Christ's submission to the Father concerns His relationship, role, and mission, not a lesser divine nature. This becomes especially important in 1 Corinthians 15, because Paul is discussing the Son's mediatorial kingdom. Christ has conquered His enemies, and then He delivers the kingdom to the Father. The Son's submission is the completion of His mediatorial work. This is what I see as the problem with the LDS argument: If the question is: "Does the Bible teach that the Father is the God of Jesus?", then yes. If the question is: "Does the Bible teach that Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father in some sense?", then yes. But if the question becomes: "Therefore, does the Bible teach that the Father is a more divine God than Jesus, or that Jesus is a lesser God?", the answer is no. The New Testament deliberately puts these ideas together. The Father is Jesus' God, while Jesus is simultaneously described as God, the Creator of all things, the one through whom all things exist, and the one who receives divine worship. So I would respond to the argument this way: Yes, the Father is the God of Jesus in the biblical sense in which Jesus relates to the Father, and yes, the Son willingly submits to the Father. But the Bible does not therefore teach that the Father is a "higher God" than Jesus. The same Bible identifies Jesus as God and attributes to Him the creation and sustaining of everything that exists. I distinguish between the Father and Son as persons and equality in divine nature. Your argument establishes personal distinction and subordination; it does not establish that Jesus is a lesser deity. There is also a particularly strong Colossians 1:15–17 plus 1 Corinthians 15:28 argument here: the very Son who is ultimately subjected to the Father is the one Paul says created "all things," including the invisible heavenly powers. That is why I believe Jesus created Satan.

Joseph Smith also said, "... it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, page 345). He doesn't say "how God came to be our God" – you insert the word "our". That's the difference. By that, you mean offspring through at least one heavenly mother. I did. But you keep inserting the word "our" into what Joseph Smith said. I understand what you're saying but you keep adding the word "our" in Joseph's phrase "how God came to be God". As you said previously and I'm rephrasing a bit, "how God came to be our God" is based on how people supposedly became his spirit children through celestial marriage. In the case of the LDS Jesus, we have "how Jesus became a God" and "how Jesus became our God" (in the sense that he became our redeemer and the Lord we covenant to follow). Heavenly Father supposedly becomes the Redeemer and the Lord of those on the planet that he grew up on. As you said above about Jesus, you might also say about Heavenly Father. Let me rephrase it a bit – "Those people on that world He grew up on entered a relationship with that God, this is where that God became their God". By the way, who are those that he supposedly redeemed? Whose offspring are they? I don't believe you or I are self-existent in the sense that we existed eternally as intelligences (maybe with or without gender) prior to being formed into spirit children of heavenly parents. Acts 17:29 says, "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device". Consider all those people who supposedly grew up with Heavenly Father on some other world whom he supposedly atoned for. Whose offspring are they? That's right. I'm aware of those. Some of these other worlds are also believed to have reached their celestial state already. The LDS Jesus is an uncreated, eternal intelligence who became the first spirit child of heavenly parents, who then became a God before his incarnation on our Earth. The Book of Mormon refers to him as the Eternal God. In similar fashion, LDS men and women are believed to be uncreated, eternal intelligences who became spirit children of heavenly parents. They hope to also become Gods in the future. In some future time, they will also be considered as Eternal Gods. But that doesn't mean they will have eternally existed as Gods. Jesus never specifically spoke the words "I am God" to the Jews. But they understood what he was saying and sought to kill him for blasphemy. I have previously shared scriptures that show God has always existed. He is from eternity to eternity. There never is a time when he is not God. Not in those specific places, but Joseph Smith and others did teach it. The Prophet says: "If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that he had a Father also." Then he asks: "Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son?" The Prophet taught that our Father had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, especially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him? Evidently his Father passed through a period of mortality even as he passed through mortality, and as we all are doing. Our Father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a Father, and since there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father, until we come to a stop where we cannot go further, because of our limited capacity to understand" (Doctrines of Salvation). It's also recorded in the Joseph Smith Papers, History, 1838–1856, volume F-1 [1 May 1844–8 August 1844]. "He came here, was born, had a father and mother like you have. Well, who was his father? Why God was His father; and who was God's father? Why God had a father like you and I have" (Orson Pratt, The Seer). "We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father; and so on, from generation to generation, . . . we wonder in our minds, how far back the genealogy extends, and how the first world was formed, and the first father was begotten" (Orson Pratt, The Seer). "Like man, He had a Father; and he was 'the express image of the person of the Father. Here "He" is God, in the preceding discussion of the true God. Thus Pratt explicitly describes God Himself as having a Father. (The Kingdom of God — Project Gutenberg). "Now, with this information children can begin to understand something about their Heavenly Father. They can see that if Jesus is His Son, and we are His sons and daughters, that He must be the Son of some other personage, for He could not beget Himself, but must have a father even as He is our Father" (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truths, volume 1). "We must be grafted into the true vine, and continue to partake of its fatness, and then we shall go back to our Father and God, who is connected with one who is still farther back; and this Father is connected with one still further back, and so on; and just so far as we respect our superiors and try to save our children, so shall we receive blessings from this time forth and forever, and shall become as numerous as the sands upon the seashore" (Heber C. Kimball, April 6, 1857 General Conference). https://journalofdiscourses.com/5/5 https://www.josephsmithfoundation.org/journalofdiscourses/reporters/g-d-watt/temple-and-endowments-raising-grain-and-building-storehouses-dedication/ https://historicalgeneralconferences.weebly.com/1857-april.html https://historicalgeneralconferences.weebly.com/1857-april.html#HCK "Some people are troubled over the statements of the Prophet Joseph Smith. . . . The matter that seems such a mystery is the statement that our Father in heaven at one time passed through a life and death and is an exalted man. This is one of the mysteries. . . . The Prophet taught that our Father had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, especially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him?" (Doctrines of Salvation, volume 1). Brigham Young stated: "Brother Kimball quoted a saying of Joseph the Prophet, that he would not worship a God who had not a Father; and I do not know that he would if he had not a mother; the one would be as absurd as the other" (Journal of Discourses, volume 9, page 286). I don't know. Let me speculate as if I were a Latter-day Saint - as for "who are the Gods present at the Grand Council for the creation of Earth, the plan of salvation, etc", I would say that it could have been attended by some or all the other children of Heavenly Father, who lived on the other worlds He created, and who have already been formed into Gods. These "Gods" may have also been the Gods which the Book of Abraham says created our Earth. From a traditional Christian point of view, John 1:3 teaches that the Word (Logos), who is Jesus Christ, was the agent through whom God created everything. "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made". The wording is deliberately comprehensive. John isn't saying merely that Christ created some things or that He helped God create the earth. He is saying that everything that belongs to the category of created things came into existence through Him. The logic is: • Everything that was created was made through the Word. • Therefore, the Word cannot Himself belong to the category of things that were created. John 1:1 says the Word "was God." • Therefore, the Word is understood as eternally divine, rather than a creature. Then we have Colossians 1:15–17 ("Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist"). But since you believe Satan is not made (i.e. he is an eternal uncreated intelligence), Jesus does not make him in LDS theology.

The New Covenant is for many. "In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also" (ESV). Jesus does not reside where some believe the terrestrials or telestials will go. Yes. It was a typo. If I am not mistaken, one aspect of the crown is exaltation. All others were not valiant in the testimony of Jesus so they didn't receive it. I think in LDS theology "fulness" is closely associated with receiving the fullness of God's glory and ultimately attaining godhood/exaltation, by following him, repenting, and keeping covenants. Those in the two lower divisions of the celestial kingdom, the terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms don't obtain it. LDS sources make that connection much more explicitly than the biblical text itself does. The fulness of the Son means receiving the full measure of what Christ has—his glory and power, through his grace, so you become like him. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ya-weekly/2021/04/pursuing-the-fulness-of-christ Doctrine and Covenants connects "fulness" with Christ himself: Jesus received a fulness of the glory of the Father and received all power, both in heaven and on earth (93:16-17). Then he teaches that this is the pattern for us too: if we follow him, we can "in due time receive of [the Father's] fulness" and be "glorified in [Christ]" (verses 19–20). The "Becoming Like God" essay connects receiving the "fulness" with becoming gods, citing Doctrine and Covenants 76:58–60 and 88:107. Now I turn to those biblical passages. Paul prays that Christians may "know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God" (Ephesians 3:19). "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Ephesians 4:13). Notice Paul's wording: "filled with" the fullness of God, rather than "become God." So I don't see how you can equate the terrestials having the "presence" of the Son with them having the "fulness" of the Son. By the way, the fulness of the Son equals the fulness of the Father. God is eternal, the Word is eternal, and the Spirit is eternal - three eternals but not three Gods. This doesn't make sense to some. According to blueletter bible, its μοναὶ. See https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3438/kjv/tr/0-1/

"How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy" (Psalm 82:2–4). So the beings addressed as "gods" are being condemned for exercising unjust judgment. Two options: 1. Divine/heavenly beings interpretation On this reading, the "gods" are heavenly beings who constitute God's divine council. God has assigned them authority to administer judgment, but they have acted corruptly and will therefore be judged. This interpretation fits particularly well with verse 1: "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods". It also explains why these "gods" can die like men in verse 7. They are supernatural beings who are being sentenced by God. 2. Human rulers/judges interpretation Another interpretation is that "gods" refers to human rulers or judges. They are called "gods" because they exercise delegated authority to judge on God's behalf. This interpretation has an important connection to Exodus 21:6; 22:8–9, where elohim can be understood as referring to judges or authorities. Strong's Concordance for H430. How does Jesus use Psalm 82? He's responding to Jewish leaders who accuse him of blasphemy because he said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30–33). The key is that Jesus is not simply teaching that the Jews were gods (i.e. judges). He's making a tightly constructed argument from Psalm 82:6. 1. What Jesus is arguing The exchange goes roughly like this: Jesus says that he and the Father are one. His opponents interpret this as Jesus, a man, making himself God. They prepare to stone him for blasphemy. Jesus answers by quoting Scripture: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10:34) Then he continues: "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 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?" (John 10:35–36) His argument is essentially: "If Scripture itself can use the word 'gods' for certain human figures to whom God's word came, why is it blasphemous for me to call myself God's Son, especially given the works I am doing?" He's turning their accusation back on them. Importantly, Jesus does not say, "You shall become gods." He is citing an existing designation from Psalm 82. And verse 7 creates a problem for using Psalm 82 as a direct proof of human deification. The sequence is: v.6: "Ye are gods" v.7: "But ye shall die like men" So Psalm 82 is not straightforwardly saying "Human beings are currently mortal, but eventually they will become gods". Rather, it is a judgment scene in which God addresses beings who have been given authority and declares that despite their elevated status, they are subject to God's judgment. Jesus isn't saying: "See, everyone is literally God, therefore I'm God too." Rather, his argument is closer to "Your own Scriptures use divine language for beings who receive God's authority. So your charge of blasphemy cannot simply be based on the fact that I, a human being, am speaking in uniquely divine terms." And then Jesus makes the argument from the lesser to the greater. If Scripture can call those people/beings "gods," how much more appropriate is it for the one "whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world" to say "I am the Son of God"? There's an important irony. Jesus' opponents say: "You, being a man, makest thyself God." (John 10:33). Jesus responds by quoting a passage where God himself says: "Ye are gods." So Jesus effectively says: "You're claiming that my language is inherently blasphemous, but your own Scripture uses elevated language for others".

I don't believe men and women can be formed into Gods but I understand this is an LDS doctrine. "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me" (Isaiah 43:10). "Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6). "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any" (Isaiah 44:8). "I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me" (Isaiah 45:5). "For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else" (Isaiah 45:18). "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the Lord? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else" (Isaiah 45:21-22). "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me" (Isaiah 46:9).