theplains

"After his resurrection" does not necessarily mean they were raised immortal like Christ. I discuss this more below. Romans 6:9 has no bearing on Jairus' daughter and Lazarus. 1 Corinthians 15:53 is pointing to a specific type of resurrection in the future, not to those Christ raised from the dead during his mortal ministry. As for those who came out of their graves in Jerusalem, we are not given specific details as to whether they were raised immortal. Lazarus would die later. This did not diminish who Christ was when he first raised him from the dead. He is still the Resurrection and the Life. The Book of Mormon, in 3 Nephi 23:9-13, records that many Nephite saints were resurrected when Christ was glorified (supposedly at His resurrection), but does not mention them being raised to immortality ("after his resurrection" as you interpreted its meaning). I'm not against it but the scripture gives no specific details for that event regarding the others. A complete fulfillment of eternal life will be experienced in the resurrection, but we can have eternal life even before we physically die. "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" (John 3:36, NASB) Back on August 3, you said, "Yet, there are "first fruits" and others mentioned in scripture. In the parable of the sower, Jesus said of those that "that heareth the word, and understandeth it", there are those "which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty" (Matthew 13:23). The early Christians understood these to be referring to the different abodes in the afterlife". This is not representative of "first fruits" in the sense of the resurrection. James 1:18 says, "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures". According to this article on Got Questions, we are the firstfruits in several ways; the firstfruits of salvation (they were the first to be saved and be part of the New Testament church) and the firstfruits of the new creation (Ephesians 4:24). By one abode, I mean the Kingdom of God. Within that abode, Christ has prepared mansions for the faithful. "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also". I've bolded the key part of my point. Jesus is where the Father is. This is where the mansions are. The answer for #12 (Frequently Asked Questions) says, "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". A key point is that the terrestrials do not return into Heavenly Father's presence. Receiving the presence of the Son seems to infer occasional visits. "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also". Jesus is really residing in the abode where the Father is. This is where the mansions are. If you still believe the terrestrials "are Christ's", then have a look at Doctrine and Covenants 76:58-59 and 88:98. Those who "are Christ's" is a reference to exalted beings (gods). "Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ's, and Christ is God's". "They are Christ's, the first fruits, they who shall descend with him first, and they who are on the earth and in their graves, who are first caught up to meet him; and all this by the voice of the sounding of the trump of the angel of God". A comment about your mention of the telestials not being gathered: this refers to individuals who are not gathered into the Church of the Firstborn—meaning they do not attain godhood. This would include those in the terrestrial kingdom, as well as those in the two lower degrees of the celestial kingdom. The people in these four lesser kingdoms (the fourth being the telestials) do not belong to the Church of the Firstborn as seen in D&C 76. Also, terrestrials do not fit into Romans 8:14-17. The condition is "if sons, then heirs". Guide to the Scriptures (Firstfruits) gives several references: The first crops gathered in a season. In Old Testament times, they were offered to the Lord (Lev. 23:9–20). Jesus Christ was the firstfruits unto God in that He was the first to be resurrected (1 Cor. 15:20, 23; 2 Ne. 2:9). Those who accept the gospel and endure to the end in faithfulness are in a symbolic way the firstfruits, for they belong to God. Those who follow the Lamb wherever he goes are the firstfruits unto God, Rev. 14:4. They who shall first descend with Christ are the firstfruits, D&C 88:98. None of these support the idea that those who rose after the resurrection of Christ and went into Jerusalem were raised with immortal bodies. "Joe Doe" is not the firstfruits unto God in that he may have been the second or third, etc, to be resurrected. "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:" "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). The terrestrials are not forever with the Lord. The terrestrials had not endured to the end so I don't consider them as these symbolic firstfruits. Doctrine and Covenants 14:7 says those who endure to the end have eternal life. Other passages teach this too (2 Nephi 9:24; 2 Nephi 31:16; 3 Nephi 15:9, and Doctrine and Covenants 50:4). Those who don't endure to the end are not saved, but they are damned. "Firstfruits" is applied in several different ways in the New Testament. "And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body" (Romans 8:23). This applies to those waiting to be adopted as sons of God. "Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ" (Romans 16:5). Firstfruits applies to Epaenetus, the first in Achaia to come to faith in Christ. "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20). Firstfruits here applies only to Christ. This is similar to Christ being the only one referred to as the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18). No other resurrected person is labelled as "firstfruits of them that slept". "But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming" (1 Corinthians 15:23). Firstfruits only applies to Christ and his resurrection. "I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,) (1 Corinthians 16:15). Members of the household of Stephanas (the living ones) are represented as the firstfruits of Achaia. This has nothing to do with being firstfruits from the dead. "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (James 1:18). All living faithful believers are described as firstfruits. This has nothing to do with them being firstfruits after first dying physically. "These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb" (Revelation 14:4). A special group of 144,000 living men are the firstfruits. They are not firstfruits from the dead. "First-fruits" is mentioned several times in the Book of Mormon. "Wherefore, he is the first-fruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved" (2 Nephi 2:9). This is relating to only Christ and his intercession, not his resurrection with an immortal body. The Guide to Scriptures definition for first-fruits earlier said "Jesus Christ was the firstfruits unto God in that He was the first to be resurrected (1 Cor. 15:20, 23; 2 Ne. 2:9)". "Wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first-fruits of Christ unto God, having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him before he manifesteth himself in the flesh" (Jacob 4:11). This would seem to apply to every Christian who is resurrected with an immortal body. But this is contrary to what the Guide to Scriptures definition for first-fruits said earlier ("Those who accept the gospel and endure to the end in faithfulness are in a symbolic way the firstfruits, for they belong to God")). Only those who gain eternal life (become gods in LDS theology) had endured to the end (2 Nephi 31:16,20; 2 Nephi 33:4; 3 Nephi 15:9). There is another occurrence (only one I think) in the Doctrine and Covenants 88:98. But it does not portray that those who rose from the dead after the resurrection of Christ and went into Jerusalem were raised with immortal bodies. It depicts a future time when only those "that are Christ's" are caught up to meet Him. As shown before, those that "are Christ's" are the exalted ones according to D&C 76:58-59. Joseph Smith invented the telestial glory. There are two glories in 1 Corinthians 15. A comparison is being made of 2 things, not 3. Key highlights: Celestial bodies vs. terrestrial bodies. Sown in corruption vs. raised in incorruption. Sown in dishonor vs. raised in glory. Sown in weakness vs. raised in power. Sown a natural body vs. raised a spiritual body. Verses to support this: "There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another". "So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption". "It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:" "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body". "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality". According to Romans 8:14-17, those led by the Spirit of God are adopted as sons. If, sons, then heirs. Those not led by the Spirit of God are not adopted as sons, If not heirs, then not sons. It's a contradiction to say you accept Christ but want to follow Him only the way you want, not how He wants. I see this when I read 2 Nephi 25:23. "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." "After all we can do" is the way we want; our human effort plus Christ making up the difference. "After all we must do" plus "Christ alone" (so we have no reason to boast) is the way He wants. If you want to approach God with your works (the modern day equivalent of the Law), you must obey it all, and not try to do what you can do. Does God really give you a command you cannot do? Be perfect? How? By Christ perfecting you, not you perfecting yourself. That is why I don't participate in all the handshakes, passwords, chanting, wearing sacred garments, and ceremonies that were adapted from Freemasonry into LDS temple rituals. Yes. Children of God in a generic sense, of being created by God – not that uncreated, eternal intelligences were somehow transferred/begotten into a family with a Heavenly Father and at least one Heavenly Mother. I added some commentary about Acts 17:29-29 in a June 2025 post entitled "Continued - Ephraim, birthright, and the gathering". https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/113064-continued-ephraim-birthright-and-the-gathering/ If sons, then heirs. If you are not a covenant son, then you are not an heir. That is the meaning of Romans 8:14-17. An heir is an exalted being in LDS theology as I mentioned before. "Children of God" in the sense of being created by God, but not in a spiritual sense of being adopted as sons through faith. We are not children of the bondwoman but of the freewoman. "Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free". And add another condition from Romans 8:14-17: "if sons, then heirs". If not an heir, then not a son. The disobedient people would be in the same camp as the corrupt and violent; they are the unsaved in the days of Noah as in 1 Peter 3:18-19. We find a parallel when the people rebelled at Mount Sinai and worshipped the golden calf when Moses had not returned. They were disobedient. As time progressed in their history, false prophets rose up and led/deceived the people to worship false gods. The disobedient had become corrupted. In some cases, they became violent too, as they sacrificed their children to Molech. The deceivers themselves had also become corrupt and violent. There is a difference between first-degree murder and second-degree murder but both are murder. Disobedience led to corruption and violence as we see in the days of Noah. Only eight were saved. So they, including Satan, were acting in the will of God by performing all the required steps for progression to begin? Romans 5:12 says, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned". What sin of Adam? Moses 6:54 says, "Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world. What is the context of "the sins of the parents"? In the March 2008 Ensign, article titled "The Atonement of Jesus Christ", Elder Jeffrey Holland said, "Some gifts coming from the Atonement are universal, infinite, and unconditional. These include His ransom for Adam's original transgression so that no member of the human family is held responsible for that sin". What sin? It seems you believe some on the earth in the days of Noah were not corrupt and violent but were honorable and were considered as the unsaved who perished.

I don't see that simultaneous aspect in Joseph Smith's teaching. "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" (History of the Church, volume 6; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1938). https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf).

It doesn't diminish who Christ is. Matthew pointed it out for the same reason people were raised from the dead to mortality before the resurrection of Jesus. Before Jesus went to the cross, he said "I am the resurrection and the life". You seem to believe there's a difference in one being raised from the dead versus one being resurrected from the dead. I don't make a distinction except that in some cases, Jesus raised (resurrected) some back to life only to die again later. That is your focus so it doesn't make sense to you. Jesus was raised physically from the dead, in a glorified body. Jehovah's Witnesses refer to it as a resurrection but in their theology, it's actually a newly created body. The old body was destroyed. Every time Jesus appeared to his disciples, he had to appear in a newly materialized body. But I don't know if their view of Christ's spiritual body has substance. If I paraphrase them correctly "Jesus went into the grave, but Michael came out". Scripture doesn't say that the people who came out of the grave after Christ's resurrection were immortal or if the people were Gods (i.e. possessing eternal life). Thanks for the links. In Alma's case, redemption brings eternal life. "And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else. Therefore the wicked remain as though there had been no redemption made, except it be the loosing of the bands of death; for behold, the day cometh that all shall rise from the dead and stand before God, and be judged according to their works" (11:40-41). There are some for whom redemption will not be made. "And Amulek hath spoken plainly concerning death, and being raised from this mortality to a state of immortality, and being brought before the bar of God, to be judged according to our works ... And now behold, I say unto you then cometh a death, even a second death, which is a spiritual death; then is a time that whosoever dieth in his sins, as to a temporal death, shall also die a spiritual death; yea, he shall die as to things pertaining unto righteousness. Then is the time when their torments shall be as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever; and then is the time that they shall be chained down to an everlasting destruction, according to the power and captivity of Satan, he having subjected them according to his will. Then, I say unto you, they shall be as though there had been no redemption made; for they cannot be redeemed according to God's justice; and they cannot die, seeing there is no more corruption" (12:12, 16-18). You seem to also remove the terrestrials and those in the two lower divisions of the Celestial Kingdom from being priests and kings even though they are in the First Resurrection (Revelation 20:6). This fruit bearing occurs in mortality. Your "different abodes" is actually one abode. "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also". Jesus is where the Father is. These are where the mansions are. I wanted to clarify something from my last reply. I said, "We don't have four classes (first, second, third, and fourth fruits) of those who are "dead in Christ" or who "are Christ's" (which are three divisions of the Celestial Kingdom plus the Terrestrial Kingdom in LDS theology)". Those who "are Christ's" is a reference to exalted beings (gods) in Doctrine and Covenants 76:54-59 and 88:98. This particular classification does not represent all people in all the various kingdoms in LDS theology. There are stars even larger and brighter than our star (Sun, celestial), but yet they are likened to a telestial glory (76:81,98) while the moon is of a terrestrial glory (76:71). It seems Joseph's revelation has as its yardstick only the two brightest lights in our sky. 1 Peter 3:19-20 says, "By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water". I see both groups that perished in the flood ("the blinded honorable men" and "the crafty men") as being disobedient. That is why they are not saved. Considering Genesis 6:11-13, I see both groups that perished in the flood ("the blinded honorable men" and "the crafty men") as being corrupt and violent. Romans 8:14-17 has a specific condition - "if children, then heirs". It doesn't say some children are heirs and others are not. The same is taught in Galatians 4. "Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ". The point is that heirs are taught to be exalted beings from LDS sources. The covenant children of God are these heirs. New Testament Study Guide for Home-Study Seminary Students https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/new-testament-study-guide-for-home-study-seminary-students/introduction-to-romans/unit-21-day-1-romans-8-11?lang=eng Teachings of Joseph Smith, chapter 3 and chapter 18 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-3?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-18?lang=eng New Testament Student Manual, Romans 4-8 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/new-testament-student-manual/romans/chapter-36-romans-4-8?lang=eng New Testament Study Guide for Home-Study Seminary Students, Romans 8-11 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/new-testament-study-guide-for-home-study-seminary-students/introduction-to-romans/unit-21-day-1-romans-8-11?lang=eng 1 Peter 3:18-19 doesn't specifically use the words "corrupt" and "violent" to describe the people in Noah's day that perished in the flood, but we see this from Genesis 6:11-13. But do you believe corrupt and violent people are disobedient? Was their choice to disobey God a good choice when all was said and done? Moses 5:10-11 depicts it as being the right thing for them to do. What do you believe is the punishment of the sinner in Alma 42:1-12 and why is Adam and Eve (the first parents) used as the focus of the lesson? As for Moses 6:54 ("Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world") – original guilt is original (or first) sin. "The sins of the parents" is a reference to Adam and Eve. The "children" is a reference to Abel and Cain initially. That is identified in verse 54. The initial scene is identified by verse 53 – the Garden of Eden. As for Romans 5:12 ("Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"), how do you believe sin entered the world by one man? What sin caused death? Yes. 1 Peter 3:18-19. These people are identified as those who perished in the flood. Corrupt and violent people are disobedient too. As you inferred before, I don't get the impression that those who perished in Noah's day were really honorable people who were then blinded (corrupted) by others and yet they remained honorable and "all flesh had NOT corrupted his way upon the earth" (tweaking Moses 6:12) and "for the earth WAS filled with violence through SOME OF them" (tweaking Moses 6:13).

What's the case for you: whether or how God became a God?

The original reply from @InCognitus is found here. I branched into a new thread in hopes of making it easier to follow. There are two gatherings spoken of in the scriptures. One is of a spiritual nature – where Israelites were joined to the church of Christ in the ministry of Christ and subsequent evangelism to them and the Gentiles who would join the body of Christ. The other is a physical gathering of the Israelites to their land of inheritance in Israel, not America. I don’t believe all the members of the early church were only from the tribe of Judah and Benjamin. The idea that there were no Israelites from the other ten tribes who had not migrated from the north to the south prior to the Assyrian captivity is an urban legend. It is also an urban legend that there were no people of the ten tribes who went into Babylonian captivity who never returned to Israel after 70 years. I found this web site that has some ideas of the tribes that the 12 apostles came from. https://www.abrahamsdescendants.com/uploads/8/1/0/5/8105580/1270.910.pdf I saw some commentary by John Darby. I’ll quote some of what he said. Consequently we have, in chapters 11, 12, the Messiah and His reign, the source of the millennial blessing of the people of God. The first verses of chapter 11 (1-5) give his character; afterwards it is the effect of His reign. The heading in the ESV of the Bible has for Isaiah 11 “The Righteous Reign of the Branch”. From my reading of Doctrine and Covenants 113, it tries to identify the rod and the root but is not quite clear who these people are. Who do you believe they represent? Verses 3-4 – “What is the rod spoken of in the first verse of the 11th chapter of Isaiah, that should come of the Stem of Jesse? Behold, thus saith the Lord: It is a servant in the hands of Christ, who is partly a descendant of Jesse as well as of Ephraim, or of the house of Joseph, on whom there is laid much power. Verses 5-6 – “What is the root of Jesse spoken of in the 10th verse of the 11th chapter? Behold, thus saith the Lord, it is a descendant of Jesse, as well as of Joseph, unto whom rightly belongs the priesthood, and the keys of the kingdom, for an ensign, and for the gathering of my people in the last days”. I don’t know the way that Christ will continue to bring the Israelites back to their own land of Israel in the future in the way Isaiah 11 describes, but we saw a glimpse of this in the events that led to the founding of the nation of Israel in 1948. I don’t believe in the theory of British-Israelism or that one or more tribes will inherit the land of America (or specifically the United States) in the future. By spiritual Israel, I mean those who become members of the church of Christ (whether they are literal Israelites or Gentiles). When I read page 57 of the Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, it appears the literal blood of a Gentile changes into the literal blood that coursed in Abraham's veins. “... 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". The New Era article in 2005 (“Your Patriarchal Blessing”) speaks more of this literal blood issue. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2005/11/your-patriarchal-blessing?lang=eng Thank you for that lineage chart of Abraham where you highlight the sceptre promises of Judah and the birthright promises of Ephraim plus Manasseh (or maybe you just meant Ephraim). The firstborn in Israel’s family was transferred from Reuben to Joseph. I would say the birthright (the right of the first born) passed to Manasseh since he was born first but Jacob gave precedent on Ephraim over him. But each family of all the subsequent sons of Jacob had their own first born in their respective families that had the birthright. But let’s focus on Ephraim for a moment. Numbers 26 lists three sons of his sons. 1 Chronicles lists eight sons (if I count right). Which of Ephraim’s eight sons had the birthright blessing (the blessing given to the first born)? I would say Jacob’s immediate family, not the families that would come from all the other 11 tribes. See my comment above. Going back to the diagram you provided about the lineage of Abraham. You highlighted the sceptre promises of Judah and the birthright promises of Ephraim. The sceptre promises of Judah as King of Israel did not apply to all individuals in Judah’s lineage. It was only to one reigning king, in whom Christ is the ultimate fulfillment as the King of Israel. Seeing that Ephraim did not hold the priesthood in the Old Testament and in the New Testament church, on what basis do you assume that Jacob passed onto him any priesthood role in the birthright blessing? This is an approximate map of the land inheritance allotted to the twelve tribes. Ephraim is not given a greater land inheritance. Even Manasseh exceeds that tribe. What exactly do you believe is the land inheritance of Ephraim and Manasseh and what in scripture indicates this greater land inheritance blessing that you mention? I am aware of several teachings in the church’s seminary manual about the unique role of Ephraim and the blessings. Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual I’ll quote a few of them for reference. I don’t think I have a question about it but I just observe that it does not mention a gathering of Gentiles. It focuses primarily on the gathering of Israel. On page 58: “The great majority of those who become members of the Church are literal descendants of Abraham through Ephraim, son of Joseph. Those who are not literal descendants of Abraham and Israel must become such, and when they are baptized and confirmed they are grafted into the tree and are entitled to all the rights and privileges as heirs” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:245–46)”. On page 64: B1. The gathering of scattered Israel is a result both of God’s mercy and also of Israel’s repentance (see Isaiah 54:7; Ezekiel 11:17; Jeremiah 50:4–5; 2 Nephi 10:7; 30:7). B3. The raising of an ensign to the nations is the signal for Israel to be gathered home in the latter days (see Isaiah 5:26; 11:12). B6. Of the twelve tribes, the tribes of Joseph’s sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, will be gathered first and then direct the other tribes in their gathering (see JST, Genesis 48:5–11; Deuteronomy 33:16–17; D&C 133:30–39). On page 65: As complete as was the scattering, so shall be the gathering of Israel” (Talmage, Articles of Faith, 328–29). On page 66: ‘We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; “Now, the gathering of Israel consists of joining the true church and their coming to a knowledge of the true God. “By and by the Jews will be gathered to the land of their fathers, and the ten tribes, who wandered into the north, will be gathered home. “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. It 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). Page 94: A3. Scattered Israel would be gathered home (see Articles of Faith 1:10; Jeremiah 16:14–16; Amos 9:8–15; 2 Nephi 25:15–17; Jeremiah 31:6–14; 1 Nephi 22:11–12). Page 95: Israel has been and is being gathered to the land of Zion. The Jews are returning to Jerusalem. What gathering and to where do you believe Jeremiah 31:1-17 refers to? I included that reference to the seminary manual because it doesn’t teach Joseph Smith is in Isaiah 40-48, but rather it is Christ. It says “Isaiah 40–48 - Isaiah writes about Jesus Christ, who will act as a shepherd to Israel and a light to the Gentiles”. The seminary’s manual mention of Isaiah 49 also doesn’t refer to Joseph Smith. Isaiah 49:5-6 – “And now the LORD says, he who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him; and that Israel might be gathered to him— for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD, and my God has become my strength—It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” Act 13:46 - Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. Act 13:47 - For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. In these verses, I believe Paul and Barnabas are representing the light but they themselves are not the light. Yes. Christ’s earthly mission was initially to the “circumcision” (Romans 15:8). Paul says a similar thing of himself in Galatians 2:7-8 (“But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles”). Jesus gave us a foreshadow of his calling to the Gentiles in John 10:16 (“And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd"). I think there is plenty in Romans 15 where Paul identifies Christ and ties this with his quote of Isaiah 11:10. The heading in the ESV Bible is “Christ the Hope of Jews and Gentiles”. I will highlight all the places Christ is referenced: Romans 15:8 - For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God's truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, Romans 15:9 - and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written, “Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles, and sing to your name.” Romans 15:10 - And again it is said, “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.” Romans 15:11 - And again, “Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and let all the peoples extol him.” Romans 15:12 - And again Isaiah says, “The root of Jesse will come, even he who arises to rule the Gentiles; in him will the Gentiles hope.” I believe the jealousy came about because God only recognized the temple in Jerusalem. With all that was going on in the original thread, I may have missed directly answering some of your questions. Please feel free to restate them if my answers in this thread did not. Thank you.

President Russell M. Nelson said in the April 2020 General Conference Now, my dear brothers and sisters, consider the fact that in these three instances just mentioned, just before the Father introduced the Son, the people involved were in a state of fear and, to some degree, desperation. The Apostles were afraid when they saw Jesus Christ encircled by a cloud on the Mount of Transfiguration. I see it portrayed another way when I look at the account as recorded in scripture, Matthew 17:5-6 - And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. And Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah." He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." When the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces and were terrified. The fear was not in seeing the cloud. It was in hearing the voice of the Father. Was Jesus encircled by a cloud or did the cloud actually overshadow (not encircle) all those present?