theplains

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).

A glimpse into the future according to Joseph Smith. "Go and read the vision in [Doctrine and Covenants 76]. There is clearly illustrated glory upon glory—one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and a glory of the stars; and as one star differeth from another star in glory, even so do they of the telestial world differ in glory, and every man who reigns in celestial glory is a God to his dominions" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, chapter 18). When Heavenly Mother became a God, did she possess a dominion of her own, or is dominion held solely by her husband (who also became a God)? Alternatively, do they share a joint dominion? When an individual is formed into a God and presides over his own dominions with spirit children, do these offspring worship their immediate divine parent (like it is currently for the context of our Earth), or is their devotion oriented toward a higher God before their immediate Father God? There's a FAQ , #12. 12. Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will "get their own planet"? No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Latter-day Saints believe that we are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father (see Romans 8:16-17). The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ's statement that "in my Father's house are many mansions" (John 14:2). The following question comes to mind when I combine the two topics, gaining a dominion and getting a planet. Will exalted beings create their own worlds and populate them with their own spirit children or will their dominions only be the world(s) that a previous Father/God created?

"There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable" (1 Corinthians 15:40-41). Do all people in the LDS version of the celestial kingdom inherit the same glory like Doctrine and Covenants 129:1-3 says or do those in the two lower sections have less glory? It's also taught in another teaching by Joseph Smith: "... [The righteous who have died] shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before". In Paul's teaching, where do heavenly (celestial) bodies like the Moon obtain an earthly (terrestrial) glory? The perishable (mortality, earthly) is compared to the imperishable (immortality, heavenly/celestial). The Joseph Smith translation says, "Also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial, and bodies telestial; but the glory of the celestial, one; and the terrestrial, another; and the telestial, another". Did Joseph Smith view the Moon as a celestial body? This verse is often interpreted in various ways. Some people see it as a poetic description of God's majesty and omnipotence, emphasizing His perspective and power over the earth and its inhabitants. Others have speculated about its implications regarding the shape of the earth. Which covenants prior to the law of Moses do you believe have been restored and when? Is circumcision one of them? What do you believe are the specific birthright blessings given to Ephraim and when did he and his descendants first exercise them and how? The Levites being reserved for the priesthood is mentioned in several places throughout the Old Testament. Here are a few key references: Exodus 32:26-29: After the incident with the golden calf, the Levites stood with Moses and were set apart for the Lord's service. This event marked them as dedicated to God. Numbers 1:47-53: This passage explains that the Levites were not numbered among the other tribes of Israel because they were appointed over the tabernacle of testimony, to carry it and minister to it. Numbers 8:14-19: Here, God instructs Moses to separate the Levites from the other Israelites, making them wholly given to Him in place of the firstborn. This passage also describes the purification and dedication of the Levites for their service. Deuteronomy 10:8-9: This passage reiterates that the Lord set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant, to stand before the Lord to minister, and to bless in His name. 1 Chronicles 23:13: This verse highlights that Aaron and his descendants were set apart to consecrate the most holy things, to offer sacrifices, and to minister before the Lord, emphasizing the priestly role of the Levites. These references collectively illustrate the special role of the Levites in the religious life of Israel, serving in the tabernacle and later in the temple, and performing duties associated with worship and sacrifice. If you believe I am wrong, then show me where Ephraim or his descendants obtain the priesthood, what type of priesthood it is, and when they first exercise the priesthood. This is not the Levitical or Melchizedek priesthood. The "kingdom of priests" has its fulfillment in the New Testament, when women are made a kingdom of priests and kings (1 Peter 2:5,9; Revelation 1:6). The same is taught for those in LDS theology who become Gods (Doctrine and Covenants 76:56). The LDS Church believes its members hold the office of high priest. Moses said nothing of the priesthood existing in Judah's lineage or other tribes except for Levi ("For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests", Hebrews 7:13-14, ESV). Ephraim has never served at the altar, unless you believe God gave a revelation stating otherwise for the New Testament. The blessings of the priesthood exercised through Christ as our High Priest, yes. But the priesthood was not specifically promised to the tribe of Ephraim. There's a generic land inheritance for the meek. As scriptures reveal, there are also a specific land inheritance for the Israelites. There is no scripture which clearly identifies a specific land inheritance for literal Ephraimites in Canada, the United States, or Mexico. The LDS Church today cannot, even with scripture, support teachings that any single event in the Book of Mormon occurred in the United States. However, the early LDS Church, in General Conference, taught the Nephites and Jaredites fought great battles in New York state. You miss the fact that none of Jacob's blessings pertain to certain tribes obtaining the priesthood. "Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel" (Exodus 19:5–6). Israel was to live under God's direct rule, representing His sovereignty. Just as priests mediate between God and people, the whole nation was meant to mediate between God and the rest of the world, showing other nations what it looks like to live under God's covenant. So while the tribe of Levi later had special priestly duties, the entire nation was intended to have a priestly vocation — reflecting God's holiness to all peoples (Deuteronomy 4:6–8, Isaiah 42:6, Isaiah 61:6). What do you believe the utmost bound of everlasting hills is? How much is a multitude of posterity? In several censuses recorded in the Bible, both Manasseh and Judah exceed Ephraim (Numbers 1:27,33,35; 26:22,34,37). Considering that the tribe of Manasseh obtained a double portion of land inheritance over Ephraim, what do you believe are the greater blessings Joseph received over all the other brothers? Genesis 49:26 says, "The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren". What blessings had Jacob received which prevailed above the blessings of his progenitors? Did any of these blessings have to do with a land inheritance? Would you consider the scepter not departing out of Judah as the second or lesser blessing than those you believe Joseph received? Ok. Let's analyze what you consider to be my double standard. Would you clearly identify what you believe is the blessing of Ephraim above all his other brothers at any time in history and please provide scriptural support. I addressed this earlier. In the Old Testament, several individuals set up altars for worship. Here are a few notable examples: Abraham: He built several altars to the Lord as he traveled through the land. For instance, he built an altar at Shechem (Genesis 12:7) and another between Bethel and Ai (Genesis 12:8). Isaac: He built an altar at Beersheba after the Lord appeared to him (Genesis 26:25). Jacob: He set up an altar at Bethel after his vision of the ladder reaching to heaven (Genesis 28:18-19) and later returned to build another altar there (Genesis 35:1-7). Moses: After the Israelites' victory over the Amalekites, Moses built an altar and called it "The Lord is my Banner" (Exodus 17:15). Joshua: He built an altar on Mount Ebal as part of the covenant renewal ceremony (Joshua 8:30-31). Gideon: He built an altar to the Lord after an angel appeared to him, calling it "The Lord is Peace" (Judges 6:24). Samuel: He built an altar at Ramah, where he lived and judged Israel (1 Samuel 7:17). David: He built an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, which later became the site of the temple (2 Samuel 24:18-25). Elijah: He repaired the altar of the Lord on Mount Carmel during his contest with the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:30-32). These altars were often places of sacrifice and worship, serving as physical symbols of the individuals' or communities' devotion to God. From the above list, only Isaac was the firstborn. The other individuals mentioned, such as Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, David, and Elijah, were not firstborn sons in their respective families. In the Book of Mormon, there are several instances where individuals set up altars for worship: Nephi: After arriving in the promised land, Nephi built an altar and made offerings to the Lord (2 Nephi 5:16). Nephi was not the firstborn; his older brothers were Laman and Lemuel. Lehi: He built an altar and offered sacrifices after his family safely crossed the ocean to the promised land (1 Nephi 18:23). Lehi himself was not a firstborn. The Brother of Jared: He built an altar but his birth order is not specified (Ether 2:13). No other altar, tabernacle, or temple is ever mentioned among the Jaredites. The Doctrine and Covenants has no examples of people setting up private or public altars. The Pearl of Great Price mentions Adam offering sacrifices on the altar (Moses 5:5) but he was not the firstborn. Maybe Eve and Abel (not the firstborn) also did not build altars or offer sacrifices on them? What double inheritance did Ephraim receive over Manasseh or his male siblings (if you include Jacob's other sons)? If neither of the parents were a Kohen or Levi, then they did not follow how God had set it up for the Old Testament. Maybe I could answer your question if you can tell me how large a multitude is. In that "electronic tattoos" link, I am not able to verify what Christian denomination the Daily Galaxy represents. When the LDS Church publishes "Doctrines of Salvation" and "Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual", are those true or false doctrines? Does "Gospel Principles" contain true or false principles of the gospel? Elder Packer isn't really trying to define what makes something "official doctrine" as you like CFRs for. He's more interested in whether a statement is actually true or not. This includes speculations or opinions. But if they aren't expressed that way, then it's not speculation or opinion. ... if it has scriptural support. That’s why I view the LDS doctrines of a Heavenly Mother as false. It's very dangerous to be taught that some being (an eternal intelligence?) became a spirit child of his heavenly parents, then become a man, got married, then became a God (the LDS Jesus became a God in the spirit world without becoming a man and getting married), then became Heavenly Father of our Earth, and then you ended up worshipping that being. That would be a foreign god. It's good to see that you believe false teachings lead people astray but you haven't admitted any false teachings in LDS publications or General Conference talks. I don't know what Constantine meant by that term but I understand there are various interpretations. I didn't have anything else to add from what I wrote in other threads. Ok. What teachings in Doctrines of Salvation or Doctrines of the Gospel – Student Manual should be considered as false? I don't see a sheep that does not have eternal life (John 10:27-28). Then we have the passage in Matthew. "Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world … And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal" (Matthew 25:34, 46). Talk about extremes. Which of the Corinthian gods was Paul teaching was the true God?

I don't believe the following teachings about Jesus becoming God. There is some truth in the Book of Mormon and some of the Doctrine and Covenants however. "As far as man is concerned, all things center in Christ. He is the Firstborn of the Father. By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state" (Religion 430 and 431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, chapter 4). "He, the lowly babe of Bethlehem who two millennia ago walked the dusty roads of the Holy Land, became the Lord Omnipotent" (former President Gordon B. Hinckley, "We Testify of Jesus Christ, March 2008 Liahona). Becoming God means you are not God from all eternity to all eternity. Mosiah 3:5 says Jesus is "the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity". Joseph Smith would eventually diverge from this. "In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, 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". Even other LDS scriptures speak of the eternal nature of God (Moroni 7:22; Doctrine and Covenants 20:17; 39:1; 61:1; and 76:4).

I provided scriptures showing the existence of one God, but you didn't provide scriptures to support your position.

Do you believe Jesus became a God like the LDS seminary manual teaches?

As Boyd K. Packer once said, "It isn't a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true". https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/boyd-k-packer/follow-rule/

Joseph Smith taught God is not God from all eternity. Heavenly Father can be considered "eternal" in the sense that he always existed as an eternal, uncreated intelligence before he becomes a spirit child of his heavenly parents (Jesus' grandparents) and then becomes a God.

Here are a few different cases of "god" and "God" for you to consider. With dominion comes worship by his own spirit children that he will have. All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children become like him—a god. He has said, "Behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). 1997 Gospel Principles "Go and read the vision in [Doctrine and Covenants 76]. There is clearly illustrated glory upon glory—one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and a glory of the stars; and as one star differeth from another star in glory, even so do they of the telestial world differ in glory, and every man who reigns in celestial glory is a God to his dominions". Teachings of Joseph Smith

Paul mentions two main sets – the earthly and the heavenly. Within the heavenly (the celestial) set, he identifies three subsets (the sun, the moon, and the stars). "There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another" (1 Corithians 15:40, KJV). The ESV words it a little differently ("There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another"). What earthly bodies is this a reference to? Since you believe the glory of the moon is terrestrial, what other terrestrial bodies have the glory of the moon? Is the earth a celestial (heavenly) or terrestrial (earthly) body according to Paul? 1 Corinthians 15:41 says, "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory". In the LDS version of the celestial kingdom with its three levels, how many glories are there? Do you believe Doctrine and Covenants 129:1-3, that all beings in heaven (angels who are resurrected and the spirits of just men made perfect) have the same glory as God as the passage says? The following is taught by Joseph Smith, chapter 18 Those who inherit the celestial kingdom are "they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all". But all in the LDS celestial kingdom don't have the glory of God because they are not exalted. This aspect of "same glory" is taught elsewhere in the chapter: "Go and read the vision in [Doctrine and Covenants 76]. There is clearly illustrated glory upon glory—one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and a glory of the stars; and as one star differeth from another star in glory, even so do they of the telestial world differ in glory, and every man who reigns in celestial glory is a God to his dominions". "… [The righteous who have died] shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before". There is one glory of the sun, not three. In 1 Corinthians, Paul does not say "and the glory of the telestial is another", but I understand Joseph Smith added it to his translation. Regarding the stars, do you believe all stars have the same glory or are there many glories because stars differ in the size, brightness, and energy? Why is there only one glory of the moon, without differences like the stars? Do all people with the "glory of the moon" have the same glory? I saw the thread going back to 2012. It has no bearing on what Paul is teaching. There was a quote from a website which said, "We know now that there are three worlds: the telestial, in which we live; the celestial, to which we aspire; and in between them another world, called the terrestrial. It is of neither the celestial nor the telestial". http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=58 That link is not active so I cannot determine who said it or when. I didn't find any relevant song by "The Telestials of Nashville" to indicate some doctrinal teaching. I tried to load up their webpage (telestials.com) but nothing displayed. I hadn't checked before. Now I see that Joseph Smith changed 1 Corinthians 15:40 to "Also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial, and bodies telestial; but the glory of the celestial, one; and the terrestrial, another; and the telestial, another". If you appeal to a song by "The Telestials", who don't speak for all the LDS and non-LDS churches, then you'll have to contend with LDS hymns that are for the LDS Church. 1] If You Could Hie to Kolob This one speaks of a place where Gods began to be (formed); an infinite regress of Gods. I'm not surprised as it follows the teachings of other LDS leaders too. Stanza 1 reads as follows: If you could hie to Kolob In the twinkling of an eye, And then continue onward With that same speed to fly, Do you think that you could ever, Through all eternity, Find out the generation Where Gods began to be? 2] Praise to the Man Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah! Jesus anointed that Prophet and Seer. Blessed to open the last dispensation, Kings shall extol him, and nations revere. Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven! Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain. Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren; Death cannot conquer the hero again. We don't praise anyone in heaven other than God. We don't sing about Peter, Paul, etc. Also, there is no scripture to teach that Joseph Smith has already ascended to heaven (like Roman Catholicism's Mary) and is mingling with Gods. We don't need Peter or Paul to plan for his brethren from heaven. Kings will only extol and revere Jesus Christ, not Joseph Smith. I see. You are applying it from a human perspective instead of God's perspective. "How they appear to us" when viewed from earth is like comparing an orange (what we see) with an apple (with what God sees) instead of comparing apples to apples (heavenly bodies like the sun, moon, planets, and stars to each other) as God sees them. With our telescopes we see "how stars appear to us" – they are larger and brighter than the sun. You limit "how they appear to us" to only what we can see with our naked eye, without the use of technology to see further and more. But Paul does not consider the earth to be celestial or telestial. The earth is terrestrial, an earthly body. There are several glories for earthly bodies (humans, plants, animals, etc). Joseph Smith did not understand that. Mars and Venus are other heavenly bodies but not stars. In similar fashion to celestial bodies and glory, Joseph Smith also misunderstood the aspect of "how time is reckoned" as shown in the Pearl of Great Price. Abraham 3:16 says Kolob is the greatest of the stars because it is nearest unto God. "And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it; And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest." (Abraham 3:2-3). These two verses are tricky. The stars are the governing ones but only Kolob governs the objects that are of the same order as the Earth. Maybe stars only govern objects that are not of the same order as Earth. "And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord's time, according to the reckoning of Kolob" (Abraham 3:4). If Kolob is revolving around the throne of God, then I would say the throne of God (of some planet or star) is the governing body over all the other stars and planets. Does a star even have seasons like Earth (winter, spring, summer, fall)? "And the Lord said unto me: The planet which is the lesser light, lesser than that which is to rule the day, even the night, is above or greater than that upon which thou standest in point of reckoning, for it moveth in order more slow; this is in order because it standeth above the earth upon which thou standest, therefore the reckoning of its time is not so many as to its number of days, and of months, and of years" (Abraham 3:5). The first part of this verse says the moon's reckoning is greater than the Earth's. The last part of the verse seems to reverse that position. Which is it? What moves in order more slow than what? Verse 7 again says the reckoning time of the moon is larger than the earth ("Now the set time of the lesser light is a longer time as to its reckoning than the reckoning of the time of the earth upon which thou standest"). Seeing that the moon is above the Earth sometimes and below the Earth at other times, how is its time of reckoning considered more than the Earth in the above two passages? After all, depending on the moon's position, it is sometimes farther from Kolob and other times closer to Kolob than Earth. "And where these two facts exist, there shall be another fact above them, that is, there shall be another planet whose reckoning of time shall be longer still" (Abraham 3:8). "And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord's time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest" (Abraham 3:9). Does Mercury or Neptune have a longer reckoning of time than the Earth? Before you answer than, consider the earlier statements of the Earth and the moon and consider all their positions relative to each other during their revolution around our Sun and supposedly Kolob. Seems that Joseph Smith mistakenly thought, despite planetary orbits, they are always the same distance away from Kolob relative to each other. Why is Kolob not specifically mentioned as governing the stars but is only mentioned as governing planets? Earth is of the order of a planet, not a star. I wonder too if the moon is of the same order as the earth since it [the moon] revolves around the earth and not earth revolving around the moon. "And it is given unto thee to know the set time of all the stars that are set to give light, until thou come near unto the throne of God" (Abraham 3:10). Considering that the Earth revolves around the Sun and the Sun supposedly revolves around Kolob, is the Earth or the Sun always closest to or farthest from Kolob? And what of the set time of all the other stars? Does their orbit always mean their "set time" is always the same even though they are farther or closer to Kolob? So, planetary distances vary, and some planets do get closer to or farther from the Sun than others at different times in their orbits. This means their "set times" or "times of reckoning" is not always the same. Joseph Smith's incorrect assumption depends on these distances remaining the same. You forget that the blessing upon the first born is not the priesthood. God designated the tribe of Levi to take the place of all the firstborn males in Israel for service at the tabernacle and later in the temple (Numbers 3:11–13, 8:16–18). But the LDS Church gives worthy members of Ephraim rights to serve in their temples. Here are some LDS teachings which seem to connect the birthright with the priesthood: Doctrine and Covenants 64:35–36. "The rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim" Ephraim was a grandson of the Old Testament prophet Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. Ephraim was given the birthright blessing (see Genesis 48:20). The phrase "blood of Ephraim" (D&C 64:36) refers to those who (1) are literal descendants of Ephraim, as well as (2) those who are not of the house of Israel but who, through baptism into the restored Church, are adopted into the tribe of Ephraim. Only those who are believing and obedient members of the Church are considered to be of the blood of Ephraim. The rebellious, though they may be literal descendants of Ephraim, will not receive an inheritance in Zion (see D&C 64:35–36). President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) explained the importance of Ephraim's birthright and the responsibility Ephraim's descendants have to bless others in the latter days: "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" (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie [1956], 3:252). Religion 324-325 - Doctrines and Covenants Student Manual These are pretty unusual doctrines – being baptized into the LDS Church somehow makes you of the blood of Ephraim. And those declared to be in the lineage of Manasseh by a patriarchal blessing are not considered to be of the blood of Manasseh even if they are believing and obedient. Instead, the Manassites are classified to be of the blood of Ephraim. This is not the only time the LDS Church has been preoccupied with the blood issue. Another seminary manual (Religion 430 and 431 – Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual) teaches that the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile is different that upon a literal descendant of Abraham. "It is more powerful in expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellect with present knowledge, of a man who is of the literal seed of Abraham, than one that is a Gentile, though it may not have half as much visible effect upon the body; for as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; and his whole soul and body are only exercised by the pure spirit of intelligence; while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost. In such a case, there may be more of a powerful effect upon the body, and visible to the eye, than upon an Israelite, while the Israelite at first might be far before the Gentile in pure intelligence" (Smith, Teachings, 149–50)." Again, these blood-related doctrines are unscriptural. Let's get back to our present topic after I briefly digressed. But, as you know, the right of the first born (the birthright blessing) that originally belonged to Reuben does not pertain to holding the priesthood. 1 Chronicles 5 says the birthright was taken from Reuben and given to the sons of Joseph. In Jacob's blessing of Ephraim over Manasseh, there is no specific mention of Manasseh losing the birthright. While Ephraim received a significant blessing and was set before Manasseh, the pre-eminence in terms of leadership and the lineage of kingship was given to Judah. Neither of these two birthright owners held the priesthood in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, Jesus in the lineage of Judah becomes our high priest. Unfortunately that's the way the LDS Church has interpreted things for Ephraim. And the blessing upon Jacob which "have [past tense] prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors" (Genesis 49:26) did not pertain to the priesthood or to a specific land inheritance in the United States. Issachar's sons were Tola, Puah, Jashub, and Shimron (Genesis 46:13). Zebulun's sons were Sered, Elon, and Jahleel (Genesis 46:14). Who had the right of the firstborn in the family of Issachar and Zebulun? The firstborn right for the family of Jacob ends when Jacob dies. The firstborn right of Jacob does not override the first born rights of all the other families born to Jacob's other sons. For example, Ephraim does not have the right of the firstborn in the family of Zebulun. The blessing upon Judah is more widespread and not limited to only Judah's (the person) family ("The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh comes"). This indicates leadership and authority. This is shown in the Old Testament record (1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles). It will have its ultimate fulfillment in the future. Inheriting the earth is in a general reference. It does not imply a specific land inheritance for Ephraim or Manasseh in the United States like Doctrine and Covenants refers to some place in Missouri as the land of Zion. Joseph Smith even taught all of America (North, Central, and South) is Zion, excluding Europe, Russia, etc. "The whole of America is Zion itself from north to south, and is described by the Prophets, who declare that it is the Zion where the mountain of the Lord should be, and that it should be in the center of the land" (April 1844 General Conference, History of the Church, 6:318–19.) https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1979/07/line-upon-line?lang=eng https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-book/history-of-the-church-volume-6/volume-6-chapter-15 But I'm not sure what he means by the "center of the land", where it is, or the location of the mountain of the Lord. All the seed of Abraham did not have a right to the priesthood in the Old Testament. The Levites were taken as God's firstborn. They held the priesthood until a change in priesthood came with the advent of Christ. Latter-day Saints still hold onto their need to have the Levitical Priesthood. "And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine" (Numbers 3:12). "And I have taken the Levites for all the firstborn of the children of Israel" (Numbers 8:18). Your understanding of Deuteronomy 33:17 is not correct. I explained this in part 1 of our other ongoing thread topic "Ephraim, the birthright, and the gathering", posted on October 10. Regarding your quote in the Pearl of Great Price: "And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee above measure, and make thy name great among all nations, and thou shalt be a blessing unto thy seed after thee, that in their hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations" (Abraham 2:9). This is not a specific reference to Ephraim. Only the Levites were taken by God and held the priesthood. With Christ came a change in priesthood. Ephraim only had the right of the first born for the immediate family of Jacob. This does not extend to the family of Issachar and Zebulun for example. The right of Ephraim to the Melchizedek Priesthood is not explicitly stated in a single verse of scripture. The verses in Doctrine and Covenants 86:8-11 refer to the continuation of the priesthood through the lineage of the fathers, but Ephraim is not mentioned by name, neither what priesthood this is. The connection to Ephraim is more of an interpretive understanding within Latter-day Saint teachings. Members of the tribe of Judah, Ephraim, or Manasseh did not hold the Levitical priesthood. But I understand that the LDS Church extends that priesthood to whoever is declared of the lineage of Jacob through a patriarchal blessing. Bill Gates is not a Christian leader who speaks for all of Christianity. Teachers at General Conference and what is printed in LDS Church manuals and books speak for the LDS Church though. For the September 23 prophecy, I think I found it mentioned here. https://thebiblebrief.com/september-23rd-and-no-rapture-what-now/ I'm not sure who this guy is. I don't have any doctrine that someone other than God knows the day or hour of His return or what some refer to as the rapture. Speculating about the return of Christ became coined as the "Great Disappointment" when it didn't occur on October 22, 1844. It's regrettable that many sold their properties and quit their jobs to wait for something that never happened. I also find it regrettable that all Latter-day Saints will be disappointed (maybe we'll call it the "Great Disappointment 2") when a temple and city of New Jerusalem will not be built in Missouri when the city of Independence currently stands there. "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" (Doctrine and Covenants 84:4-5) It's also unfortunate that the prophecy for the Saints to recapture their land of inheritance by force was proven to be false. See Doctrine and Covenants 101:44-58; 103:11-36. The prophecy of some Moses-like figure will fail too (103:16). D&C 103:15–20. The Lord's People Will Redeem Zion through His Power Doctrine and Covenants 103:15–20 clearly teaches that Zion will not be redeemed by human strength alone. The Lord said that the redemption of modern Zion will resemble the deliverance of ancient Israel from Egypt (see vv. 18–20). The biblical account describes how the Lord attended Israel in a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. In 1873 Elder Orson Pratt taught that the return to Jackson County may be accompanied by similar manifestations: "I expect that when the Lord leads forth his people to build up the city of Zion, his presence will be visible. When we speak of the presence of the Lord we speak of an exhibition of power.... "We shall go back to Jackson County. Not that all this people will leave these mountains, or all be gathered together in a camp, but when we go back there will be a very large organization consisting of thousands, and tens of thousands, and they will march forward, the glory of God overshadowing their camp by day in the form of a cloud, and a pillar of flaming fire by night, the Lord's voice being uttered forth before his army. Such a period will come in the history of this people. . . . And his people will go forth and build up Zion according to celestial law. "Will not this produce terror upon all the nations of the earth? Will not armies of this description, though they may not be as numerous as the armies of the world, cause a terror to fall upon the nations? The Lord says the banners of Zion shall be terrible. . . . "The man like unto Moses in the Church is the President of the Church." (Evidences and Reconciliations, 1:197.) Religion 324 and 325 – Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual. Ok. But for all that you consider speculative, official, or unofficial, you need to apply the same principle – "It isn't a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true" (Boyd K. Packer). Personally, speculative opinions should be laid by the wayside. There's also this admonition in Gospel Principles: "Teach only what is supported by the scriptures, the words of latter-day prophets and apostles, and the Holy Spirit". You find these LDS teachings in the sources I mention. The admonition and the statement by Boyd K. Packer do not mean Latter-day Saints should ignore what early LDS prophets and apostles have taught. You focus too much on the word "official". You should focus more on what Boyd K. Packer said – "It isn't a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true". Please don't strain at a gnat but swallow the camel. Each teaching must be considered as being either true or false. If false, then it leads people astray if they believe it. And as Gospel Principles says, "Teach only what is supported by the scriptures, the words of latter-day prophets and apostles, and the Holy Spirit". The LDS Church now interprets the Trinity as three separate Gods in the Godhead. And you need to consider that the LDS Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ were not part of the Godhead before they became Gods. Heavenly Father was the only member of the Godhead for our Earth when he became a God and created it. The Lectures on Faith (#5) once taught there were only two members in the Godhead. "There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space—They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man". Questions - Section V 3. Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead? A. Two: the Father and the Son (Lecture 5:1). See pages 48-49. https://ia601400.us.archive.org/8/items/LecturesOnFaith/lectures_on_faith.pdf And add what Gospel Principles says ("Teach only what is supported by the scriptures, the words of latter-day prophets and apostles, and the Holy Spirit""). Everything printed by the LDS Church (past, present, and future) is done to disseminate what it believes is the truth. That's why you find the words of latter-day prophets and apostles recorded in them. Older publications, that contained what the LDS Church taught as true back then, were just following what today's Gospel Principles had admonished them. The same will apply for newer publications after the deaths of recent LDS Presidents. If one doesn't go along with what the latter-day prophets and apostles have taught, then it's a sign that one believes it is false or not yet convinced to be true. Teachings in specific church publications like "Doctrines of the Gospel …" and "Doctrines of Salvation" are official doctrines. And publications like "Gospel Principles" and "Gospel Fundamentals" are just that; principles and fundamentals to be accepted as truth. I suppose you also see extremes for the sheep ("My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand"). Revelation 20:4-6 does not have extremes. What do you believe is the second death for those not in the first resurrection? Whoa. In my last post, I mistakenly inserted a statement and attributed it to Bruce R. McConkie: "The afternoon of the first resurrection will not begin until the end of the millennium." Not sure where I got that from. Pardon me for that. I even checked the 1958 version but it wasn't there either. I'll try to dig some more. I'll retract what I said for now. I can confirm what you said about the 1966 edition and Doctrines of the Gospel Teachers Manual. I even did a Google search and didn't find any results for that bolded statement I made either. Damnation is not achieving exaltation: "For someone who has come to understand that, because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, exaltation is truly within reach, failing to obtain it constitutes damnation. Thus, the opposite of salvation is damnation, just like the opposite of success is failure" (May 2015 General Conference, If You Will Be Responsible). Mosiah 5:7 speaks of becoming the children of Christ through a covenant relationship. There is no involvement of Jesus with a woman is required for this type of offspring. John 1:12-13 speaks of becoming children of God by faith. Also see Galatians 3:26, 2 Corinthians 6:18, and Ephesians 1:5. Again, there is no involvement of God with a woman required for us to become offspring (children). Maybe you believe Paul was agreeing with the Greeks that people are offspring of their pagan gods; Zeus as God-king and Heavenly Father and Hera his wife, Goddess-queen, and Heavenly Mother. The Greeks believed in their pagan gods (Zeus and Hera). Paul is teaching them about the true God, not a heavenly mother. As shown above, we can be considered children (offspring) of God by faith. A heavenly mother is not required. Image as in idol (statue, picture?) and likeness (appears) [like] something or someone that/who should not be worshipped as God. Not sure how else to explain it. I think Adam before the fall reflected the image of God more than children born to Adam. For some reason, Seth was the only one specified in a different manner as compared to all the other children born to Adam. "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth". There you go with your extremes again. According to this D&C passage, Jesus did not go to the wicked and to the disobedient. But 1 Peter 3:18-20 says he did go to the disobedient. Maybe you believe Jesus went to the slightly disobedient but did not go to the very disobedient?

A seminary manual teaches Jesus reached some level of intelligence to rank him as a God. Another teaching by an LDS leader has him becoming a God too.

The LDS Father and Son became Gods so they are not eternally God (uppercase g).

The passages in Isaiah are clear enough. "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).

Don't you believe the same about yourself? No. Define perfect. Are you a divine being (lower case) from all eternity to all eternity with the hope to become a Divine Being? For the Atonement. It's hard to grasp since Christ is fully God and fully man in his incarnation.

I attend a Baptist Christian church, also Pentecostal one from time to time. Our teachings about the eternal nature of God is primarily found in the Book of Isaiah.