theplains

Why?

What do you believe is the most significant false teaching of the LDS Church?

Does being "one with God" mean you are God or in the Godhead?

Reminds me of former President Hinckley's interview with Mike Wallace.

I'll address this more later, possibly in a separate thread or in our other ongoing threads. I provided several sources where LDS leaders taught there was a father above Heavenly Father, but you never explain where you believe Heavenly Mother came from and how she became a God. Maybe you don't believe "heavenly parents" is an official doctrine of the LDS Church? As for the LDS teaching of the Holy Spirit being a son of heavenly parents: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the Holy Ghost is a spirit man, a spirit son of God the Father. It is fundamental Church doctrine that God is the Father of the spirits of all men and women" (Encyclopedia of Mormonism). https://eom.byu.edu/index.php?title=Holy_Ghost "The Holy Ghost is a man; he is one of the sons of our Father and our God; and he is that man that stood next to Jesus Christ" (Journal of Discourses, volume 5, page 179). If you believe teaching Jesus became a God is leading people astray, then let me know.

[1] "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods". [2] "That which is without body or parts is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones". Teachings of Joseph Smith, chapter 2 Comment on [1] - three Gods in the Godhead. Comment on [2] - the Holy Spirit is not God or he is God with flesh and bones.

If I am not mistaken, I think you believe you were made partakers of the divine nature when you were born to heavenly parents prior to coming to earth. If you study Romans 8, there are no sons of God who are not also "joint heirs with Christ". I don't believe LDS believe they will supplant (take the place of) Christ, but it is taught they will "have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge" (Gospel Principles). You might even be greater than Heavenly Father if you have more spirit children, create more worlds, and enable more of your children to become Gods themselves. God will never cease to be our God. But Latter-day Saints believe they will become Gods in the future and have spirit children. The God of those children will be the one by whom they were begotten and born. Take yourself for example: your God is not the Father of Heavenly Father, because he did not beget you.

They need to be cautious so as not to play whac-a-mole with past LDS teachings.

There is one God, eternally existing as 3 divine personages. How that is possible, I cannot comprehend. Teaching the Mother, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are spirit children of their respective heavenly parents, who then became Gods, is leading people astray. Oh ... and I don't have any CFR that specifically uses the phrase "this is official doctrine".

Apparently? Then he should have called the book "Speculations and Opinions of Salvation".

I didn't understand the imagery he was using.

InCognitus and I tend to write a lot 🙂

I think the LDS Church teaches many things in publications and General Conference that you wouldn't regard as official doctrine. The existence of Heavenly Mother is a doctrine of the church so that's why I asked if you believe she became a God and how. You didn't elaborate on that. Joseph Smith and others taught there was a father above the father of Christ. 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. Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation "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" Orson Pratt, The Seer You may not also consider them as official doctrines, but do you view them as false teachings?

How do you define that term?

Thanks for that article. Origen doesn't add telestial like Joseph Smith did when he retranslated the biblical passage. Do all heavenly beings inherit the same glory like Doctrine and Covenants 129:1-3 says? In what way would a star like Antares (much bigger than our Sun but classified as a telestial object) have a lesser glory than the Sun or Moon? Is this relative to how bright they appear in the sky to our natural eyes? Is the glory of the star Kolob (telestial) lesser or greater than the Moon (terrestrial) and the Sun (celestial) and why? That would explain why some LDS leaders of the past go beyond only focusing on our Earth as their perspective and teach an infinite regression of Gods. Apart from some individuals who built altars (beginning with Noah), the Bible does not specifically inform us that they held the Melchizedek priesthood or if that priesthood was known by another name. LDS canon, in Doctrine and Covenants, refers to it as the Holy Priesthood (84:6). Moses 5:5 implies that Adam built an altar to offer sacrifices but again it doesn't classify if that priesthood had a name. Doctrine and Covenants 84 mentions how this priesthood (the Holy Priesthood) extended from Moses all the way back to Adam through Abel. Seth is not mentioned for some reason. Verse 16 is a little tricky. "And from Enoch to Abel, who was slain by the conspiracy of his brother, who received the priesthood by the commandments of God, by the hand of his father Adam, who was the first man". Apparently it could not be traced to anyone else between Enoch going back to Abel. It's unclear if both Cain and Abel had the Holy Priesthood. If they did, Cain probably lost it when he killed Abel. Oddly enough, Seth is not mentioned or that Abel had children and then ordained one of them (to follow in the lineage of the fathers). We don't see that Adam ordains Seth either. The priesthood is only traced back to Adam through Abel. Maybe the part about Cain's conspiracy should have be rewritten as "by the conspiracy of his brothers and sisters (Moses 5:29-31). Verses 14-15,17 says this priesthood (the Holy Priesthood) extends in all generations through the [literal] lineage of their fathers but then a later verse says this higher priesthood (the Holy Priesthood) was taken away and replaced with a lesser priesthood. "Which priesthood continueth in the church of God in all generations, and is without beginning of days or end of years". If this applies only to our Earth, then the priesthood has a beginning - with Adam's creation. If this applies to all of creation everywhere and is really without beginning of days, then it exists eternally with uncreated eternal intelligences, even before a man becomes the God and Heavenly Father of our Earth. Someone would eventually ordain this man to the Holy Priesthood before he became a God. Verse 28 says Moses was baptized when he was only 8 days old but doesn't identify who did the baptism or why water baptism was necessary for a child under 8 years of age. Verse 32 seems to be a picture of the future, with Mount Zion being the New Jerusalem to be built in Jackson County, Missouri (verse 2). "And the sons of Moses and of Aaron shall be filled with the glory of the Lord, upon Mount Zion in the Lord's house, whose sons are ye; and also many whom I have called and sent forth to build up my church". The "many" other apparently includes Gentiles who are converted and join the LDS Church. Somehow the LDS Church was able to identify some of its members as sons of Moses and Aaron in September of 1832 (when section 84 was written) even though patriarchal blessings, including lineage declarations, would not happen begin to happen until Joseph Smith Sr. was ordained the first Patriarch in December 1833. And then we have this seminary teaching: "The great majority of those who have come into the Church are Ephraimites. It is the exception to find one of any other tribe, unless it is of Manasseh" (Religion 43-431 – Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, volume 3). Apparently this is not correct since we would have to add exceptions for those Latter-day Saints who supposedly descended through Moses and/or Aaron. Verse 6 says Moses was ordained to the Holy Priesthood under the hand of his father-in-law Jethro, but Jethro was a pagan priest. He didn't even know who the true God was until after the exodus out of Egypt (Exodus 18:1-11). Exodus 18:12 mentions the one and only time Jethro would offer a burnt offering and sacrifices to his newly-discovered God. Doctrine and Covenants 84:7-13 mentions that it was Caleb (another pagan priest by extension) who ordained Jethro and includes some other unknown characters. 7 And Jethro received it under the hand of Caleb; 8 And Caleb received it under the hand of Elihu; 9 And Elihu under the hand of Jeremy; 10 And Jeremy under the hand of Gad; 11 And Gad under the hand of Esaias; 12 And Esaias received it under the hand of God. 13 Esaias also lived in the days of Abraham, and was blessed of him It doesn't indicate who ordained Melchizedek or why Abraham would bless some unknown Esaias. The Bible, specifically the Book of Hebrews, states that Melchizedek was "without father or mother, without genealogy," but the interpretation of this is debated. Some scholars believe this means there is simply no record of his parents, while others interpret it to mean he was a divine or supernatural being, such as a manifestation of Christ, or that the phrase is symbolic of his priesthood not being based on lineage. Melchizedek is referred to as a priest of the most high God but Abraham never was. In the New Testament, only Christ is ever referred to as being a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:16). Before it was renamed the "Melchizedek Priesthood", it was apparently known as the "Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God." Doctrine and Covenants 107:3-4 says the name was changed to avoid the too frequent repetition of the name of Deity. I'm not even sure what priestly duties would ever constitute "too frequent repetition" of God's name. You've said that Ephraim and all of Joseph's brothers held the priesthood but you never really explain how the priesthood manifests itself in Ephraim's history in the Old and New Testaments. As a seminary manual teaches, priesthood is one of the responsibilities of having the birthright. See below. This has its fulfillment in the New Testament; where women are included in the royal priesthood of believers. Here is the specific seminary teaching I am referring to: Point out that Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 contain the patriarchal blessings given to the twelve sons (or tribes) of Jacob (Israel). Read and discuss part of the blessing given to Joseph as recorded in Deuteronomy 33:17. List the following symbols on the chalkboard, and explain them: 1. Firstling = firstborn 2. Bullock = domestic ox 3. Unicorn = wild ox 4. Horns = power 5. Pushing the people = gathering Israel This verse is being fulfilled in this, the last dispensation, as Joseph steps forward to claim his birthright as the firstborn son, which includes the responsibility of the priesthood. It is by the power of the priesthood that Israel will be gathered and that the saving ordinances will be administered under the direction of the tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh). Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel – Teacher Manual, chapter 21, page 76. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/32499_eng.pdf https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel/chapter-21?lang=eng Based on the seminary manual, the responsibility of the priesthood is forwarded to Joseph, later to Ephraim. The birthright, with the responsibility of the priesthood, does not fall on any of Jacob's other sons. However, in the Old Testament, God chose the Levites over the firstborn of Israel (Numbers 3:12). The responsibility of the priesthood (included in the birthright) does not fall upon Ephraim. As I mentioned before in the other thread, the LDS Church does not understand the meaning of Deuteronomy 33:17. "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh". Some other translations have "gore" instead of "push" and "wild ox" instead of "unicorns". See https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/deu/33/17/t_bibles_186017 They tend to agree with the intent being made. See Strong's Lexicon for "push" in that verse. H5055/H5056 (gore or push) is also used in other cross-references. https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5055/esv/wlc/0-1/ "Now Zedekiah son of Kenaanah had made iron horns and he declared, "This is what the LORD says: ‘With these you will gore the Arameans until they are destroyed.'" (1 Kings 22:11) "Now Zedekiah son of Kenaanah had made iron horns, and he declared, "This is what the LORD says: ‘With these you will gore the Arameans until they are destroyed.'" (2 Chronicles 18:10) And "Through you we push back our enemies; through your name we trample our foes" (Psalm 44:5). https://www.blueletterbible.org/niv/deu/33/17/p0/t_corr_186017 We find the same thing in Exodus 21:32,36: "If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned". "Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own". "Push" is a reference to gore. https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/exo/21/32/t_conc_71032 https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5055/kjv/wlc/0-1/ https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/exo/21/36/t_conc_71036 https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5056/kjv/wlc/0-1/ The passage is not teaching what the church believes in Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel - Teacher Manual. Another example of how the LDS Church misunderstands this "push" is found in Religion 327 – Pearl of Great Price Student manual, page 172. "For example, the posterity of Jacob's (Israel’s) son Joseph were promised a special land beyond Canaan where they would "push the people together to the ends of the earth" (Deuteronomy 33:17; see verses 13–17; see also Genesis 49:22–26). This prophecy refers to the Western Hemisphere". https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35852_eng-the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018_8.25.17_FINAL.pdf The prophecy in Deuteronomy is not referring to people being gathered into the Western Hemisphere, the land of Zion. Other related things taught in Religion 430-431 Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual: "It is essential in this dispensation that Ephraim stand in his place at the head, exercising the birthright in Israel which was given to him by direct revelation. Therefore, Ephraim must be gathered first to prepare the way, through the gospel and the priesthood, for the rest of the tribes of Israel when the time comes for them to be gathered to Zion. The great majority of those who have come into the Church are Ephraimites. It is the exception to find one of any other tribe, unless it is of Manasseh. It is Ephraim, today, who holds the priesthood. t is with Ephraim that the Lord has made covenant and has revealed the fulness of the everlasting gospel. It is Ephraim who is building temples and performing the ordinances in them for both the living and for the dead. When the ‘lost tribes' come—and it will be a most wonderful sight and a marvelous thing when they do come to Zion—in fulfilment of the promises made through Isaiah and Jeremiah, they will have to receive the crowning blessings from their brother Ephraim, the ‘firstborn' in Israel" (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:252–53)". You still never show how Ephraim exercised his birthright authority, where priesthood is a responsibility according to the seminary manual, in the Old Testament. I think you said all the sons of Jacob held the priesthood too but you never show how, except for Levi, the other sons exercised their priesthood in the Old Testament. Do you believe that all of Jacob's sons possessed the birthright, which included the responsibility of the priesthood, as taught in the seminary manual? Jesus was not precluded from being the High Priest. "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?" "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law". "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood". "For the [Mosaic] law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore". The tribe of Ephraim does not serve as priests in the tabernacle or temple at Jerusalem. See Exodus 28 and Numbers 3. This was in reply to what I asked in my last post - "What do you believe the utmost bound of everlasting hills is?" Joseph Fielding Smith said in Doctrines of Salvation, "In an epistle issued by the First Presidency in October, 1852, the following appears: The invitation is to all, of every nation, kindred and tongue, who will believe, repent, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of hands, Come home: come to the land of Joseph, to the valleys of Ephraim". Where is this land and the valleys of Ephraim? The scripture specifically mentions that Moses sent "young men of the children of Israel" to offer the sacrifices (Exodus 24:5), and it doesn't explicitly state that these young men were the 70 elders. The elders were present as witnesses to the covenant ceremony, but the text does not specify their direct involvement in the sacrificial offerings. Also, there is no specific name given to the type of priesthood these elders or the young men held. Subsequently, the men who served in the Mosaic Law were not of the order of Melchizedek. Melchizedek is not some pattern that God set up for several men throughout the ages. As mentioned earlier, some interpret the scripture to mean Melchizedek had neither father nor mother. The 70 elders who accompanied Moses on Mount Sinai were chosen by Moses himself, as directed by the Lord (Numbers 11:16-17). The concept of a group of seventy leaders does have a historical presence in Jewish tradition, particularly with the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was an assembly of seventy-one elders, which included a president, and it functioned as the supreme council and tribunal during the time of the Second Temple and later. This body was responsible for religious, legal, and political matters. While the Sanhedrin is not a direct continuation of the seventy elders appointed by Moses, it reflects a similar structure of leadership and governance within the Jewish community. But the LDS Church has continued, not only with the Seventy, but with quorums of the Seventy. In Exodus 24:1, the Lord instructs Moses to bring Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel to worship from afar. In Numbers 11:24-25, Moses follows the Lord's instructions and gathers the seventy elders around the tabernacle. The Lord comes down in a cloud, speaks to Moses, and takes of the spirit upon him, giving it to the seventy elders. When the spirit rests upon them, they prophesy. As far as I know, the LDS groups of Seventies do not prophesy as those in the Old Testament. There is no specific name given to the type of priesthood the Old Testament 70 elders held. You cannot arbitrarily assign the Melchizedek priesthood to them using the Bible as your guide. I understand that extra scripture has been supposedly revealed to Joseph Smith, opening up a swath of people who held the Melchizedek priesthood (Doctrine and Covenants 84). But strangely enough, even that section does not specifically mention Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, his brothers, Ephraim or Manasseh holding the Melchizedek priesthood. Instead, it mentions some unknown biblical individuals (Caleb, Elihu, Gad, Jeremy, Esaias). There is no genealogical connection between Abraham and Esaias; Abraham did not receive priesthood from his father but is rather believed to have received it under Melchizedek (not "in the lineage of the fathers" either). Where verses 14-15 mention "in the lineage of the fathers", it is not really clear if Jethro is the son of Caleb, or if Caleb is the son of Elihu, etc. But it is clear that Esaias is not the father of Abraham. But if that lineage (Esaias down through Jethro) is father to son, then apparently a whole group of descendants outside of Abraham's lineage held the Higher Priesthood. While Melchizedek is mentioned, it doesn't identify which of Noah sons Abraham is claiming his priesthood through. If we go to the Pearl of Great Price, it says the priesthood was conferred upon Abraham from the fathers. "It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me" (Abraham 1:3). While it doesn't here identify the individual who conferred it upon Abraham, it does show that the priesthood is associated with the right of the firstborn. This would presume that he was older than his brothers Nahor and Haran. The church's seminary manual says Ephraim would exercise the right of the firstborn, of which priesthood is a responsibility. The birthright is also associated with priesthood in Religion 327 – Pearl of Great Price Student Manual, page 172. It teaches that Ephraim was Joseph's birthright son, Joseph Smith was a pure Ephraimite, and identifies the Western Hemisphere as the place of gathering so the other tribes could receive blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant by the hands of the children of Ephraim. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35852_eng-the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018_8.25.17_FINAL.pdf I think it's believed that the Melchizedek Priesthood was effectively withheld from the Israelites during the time of Moses after the incident of the golden calf, as described in Exodus 32, so it did not continue in all generations like Doctrine and Covenants 84:17 says – unless the lineage of Esaias down through to Jethro kept the Higher Priesthood in a population separate from the Israelites. I don't accept the Pope or LDS President as someone who speaks for all of Christianity. My leader is Christ, his Word, and the Holy Spirit. I don't view the sermons, discourses, revelations by Brigham Young, or Conference addresses being the word of the Lord like Gospel Truths volume 1, teaches (see chapter 22, pages 328-332). Right. And they are led astray by LDS leaders and hopefully survive to see the errors corrected. Unfortunately, many have died worshipping a man who they believe progressed into becoming their God. You like to use the word "speculation" and "opinion", but some LDS teachings do not use words which hint of such constructs. Then you have all the teachings in books published through various channels of the LDS Church throughout history and its General Conference talks. Gospel Truth, by George Q. Cannon, on page 309 teaches "some of God's servants who bear the priesthood may go astray and teach incorrect doctrines". LDS Presidents are fallible, so they can teach things which lead their members astray. Likewise, the Pope is fallible. You believe he leads his followers astray, right? Paul, in his New Testament writings, often expressed a sense of urgency and anticipation regarding the return of Jesus Christ. Some of his letters suggest that he believed the Second Coming could occur within his lifetime or the lifetime of his contemporaries. For example, in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, Paul speaks of those who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, which can be interpreted as an expectation that some of his readers might witness this event. I interpret this to mean those living in whatever time Christ does come, not that Chris would definitely come in that era. However, it's also clear from his later writings that Paul understood the timing of the Second Coming was uncertain and known only to God. In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3, he cautions against being quickly shaken or alarmed by claims that the day of the Lord has already come, indicating an awareness that certain events must precede Christ's return. Overall, he expressed hope and anticipation for the imminent return of Jesus; He also acknowledged the unpredictability of its timing. If you're critical of Paul, then extend some of that critique to Joseph Smith. History of the Church, volume 2 records the following: "President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision 3 and by the Holy Spirit. He then gave a relation of some of the circumstances attending while journeying to Zion—our trials, sufferings; and said God had not designed all this for nothing, but He had it in remembrance yet; 4 and it was the will of God that those who went Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh—even fifty-six years should wind up the scene". The fifty-six years were passed by 1891 and the Lord had not come. https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-book/history-of-the-church-volume-2/volume-2-chapter-13-1 In Doctrine and Covenants 130:12, Joseph Smith prophesied that the beginning of the troubles leading to widespread bloodshed before the Second Coming would start in South Carolina. While this aligns with the outbreak of the American Civil War, those events clearly weren't an immediate lead-up to the Second Coming. Likewise, even the staggering death tolls of World War I and II didn't signal Christ's imminent return. History has seen massive global conflicts, but none yet have fulfilled the prophesied conditions for His coming. Then we have another prophecy about the temple in the New Jerusalem. In Doctrine and Covenants 84:4-5, it is stated that a temple would be "reared in this generation". "Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house." This revelation was given in 1832, and it refers to the building of a temple in the city of New Jerusalem, which was to be established in Zion (Independence, Missouri). However, due to persecution and other challenges, the Saints were unable to build the temple in Independence during that time. The phrase "this generation" has been interpreted in various ways, and the prophecy is still anticipated by Latter-day Saints as part of the future establishment of Zion. I don't think the concept of a Heavenly Mother has been formally canonized as official doctrine in the Church unless the 1995 "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" served as that. Apparently the LDS leaders had all those years since Paul to finally declare it even though the doctrine of heavenly parents is frequently mentioned in the 1997 Gospel Principles. It even mentions that they obtained their fulness of joy (associated with exaltation). "If we passed our tests, we would receive the fulness of joy that our heavenly parents have received. (See D&C 93:30–34.) (page 14). "We learned that if we placed our faith in him, obeying his word and following his example, we would be exalted and become like our heavenly parents. We would receive a fulness of joy" (page 15). Achieving a fulness of joy is one of the blessings of exaltation as Gospel Principles teaches. I'm extrapolating that from the LDS doctrine of a Heavenly Mother and teachings from Gospel Principles. Where do you believe she came from and how did she become a God? Joseph Smith taught God the Father had a father before him. So he too was a spirit child of heavenly parents. Consider that an unofficial uncanonised doctrine, like Heavenly Mother was during those years she was not officially declared a doctrine. If you focus only on our Earth, the LDS Godhead is made up of three Gods. But when you look more broadly, LDS thought includes a regression of Gods and various realms with their own Godheads—though these are more like unofficial doctrines. The existence of Gods before Heavenly Father became a God is taught in several LDS sources, such as Gospel Truth by George Q. Cannon and Teachings of Joseph Smith himself – but you want readers to swap out supposed "truth" for "speculation" and "opinion". If I accepted the idea that a man became a God and my Heavenly Father, I would be worshipping a figure that is foreign to the teachings of the Bible. I believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one God, consisting of three personages. They are not 3 Gods. I don't know if that makes me accepting how you view the term "homoousious" No God was formed before God and no Gods will be formed after him. And this God was not once a man, who with his wife (more likely wives) became Gods and then Heavenly Parents of our Earth. Yes. Some sheep go astray. But in the end Christ doesn't lose his sheep. All of Christ's sheep have eternal life. If you go astray and remain lost, then you were never really a sheep. Yes. Paul was trying to move the Corinthians away from their pagan views of heavenly gods and goddesses. He was not replacing the highest Greek god with Heavenly Father or Hera as Heavenly Mother. Likewise for Paul preaching on Mars Hill. He did not focus on one of the false deities they were worshipping and re-identified that deity as Heavenly Father. While he does mention "offspring of God", he does not teach we are "offspring of heavenly parents". God is able to raise up children from stones for Abraham (Matthew 3:9). The involvement of a heavenly spouse is not required.

Yes, but fallible leaders can lead people astray with false teachings. I believe worshipping a false God will not lead to one's salvation. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, teach Michael the Archangel provided the atonement. In this case, their belief in the atonement is nullified.

The existence of Heavenly Mother is a doctrine. How did she become a God?

Is God the Father head over his Father God and over all his other exalted spirit brothers (who were born to Jesus' Grandfather God)?

False teachings, if found therein, lead people astray.

Even if our Earth and supposedly all the other planets where all spirit children of Heavenly Father reside are celestialized?

Damnation is also a lack of eternal increase.

What do you think of "Doctrines of Salvation"? Does it contain true or false doctrines?

Meaning they could be wrong and leading people astray. Future gospel topic essay - "Today, the Church disavows the doctrines theories advanced in the past that ... "

How would one become like God without creating worlds and having spirit children? Isn't that the way it worked out when a man became a God and Heavenly Father of our world?

That would explain why Latter-day Saints don't worship Jesus' Grandfather (the Father above Heavenly Father).