InCognitus

The book of Job is classified as Wisdom Literature in the Bible (among the different genres of the Bible). It's like the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. And this video explains the role of "ha satan" (the satan) in the book of Job, among other things. I highly recommend it.

This is the whole problem, really. We are stuck with self identification and don't have @Navidad around to police their claims. It isn't all that different from the boundary maintenance of the identification of who is a "Christian". I suppose there is confusion over the word "Evangelical" since it can refer to missionary work rather than a specific movement. For example, Mormon Research Ministry defines itself as an "evangelical missionary/apologetics organization" (teaching "Mormons" the bad news of the LDS "gospel", those are my words, not from their website ). But Alpha and Omega ministries are Reformed Baptists, which (I understand) to be part of the broader evangelical movement. All I know is they don't like Mormonism and they are not shy about slamming it every chance they get.

The argument is essentially equivocating between two different questions: whether the Father is God over/relative to the Son in the biblical relationship, and whether the Father is a higher-ranking deity who is more divine than the Son. I would answer the first yes and the second no. The “two different questions” are an invention of your own. Your second question is impossible. How can a being be “more divine” than another? What is your definition of “divine”? Either Jesus has a God above him (a “higher God”) or he does not. The Bible says that Jesus has a God, and that God the Father is the “most high” God. There is “One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Ephesians 4:6). Jesus even taught that God the Father is the “only true God” (John 17:3), and Jesus is subject to him (he submitted to his will). God the Father is above him in rank (which is what being in subjection means). Therefore, there are two Gods, and one of them is above the other, and one of them is subject to the other (as the Bible says). God (the Father) is the “God of gods”. Hmmm. Now you sound like Joseph Smith when he was explaining how God became our God. This is the key. The creation argument doesn’t help, because as you said elsewhere, “the Word (Logos), who is Jesus Christ, was the agent through whom God created everything”. Jesus has a God above him, and God the Father is the one who created all things through Jesus Christ. God the Father granted Jesus the power to do this, and appointed him for that work. As Hebrews 2:7 says, Jesus was crowned “with glory and honour, and [God the Father] didst set him over the works of [his] hands” Hebrews 1:2, God the Father “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds”. Acts 2:36, “God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Matthew 28:18, Jesus said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” Matthew 11:27, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father”. John 5:26-27, “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.“ John 13:3, “Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God”. John 8:42, “If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.” And God the Father “gave” glory to Jesus prior to the creation of the world, “O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” (John 17:5, 22) God the Father “gave” him “glory”, he gave him “power”, he made him “Lord”, and Jesus is eternally subject to him. Clearly Jesus has a God above him, and Jesus serves his Father and does his will. Thank you for stating this as your “belief”, because the Bible doesn’t say anywhere that Jesus created Satan. You can believe anything you want, but don’t hold it up as a true teaching against Latter-day Saint doctrine, because it isn’t biblical. And see my prior post asking about this belief making Jesus the source of all evil in the universe.

Joseph Smith also said, "... it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, page 345). He doesn't say "how God came to be our God" – you insert the word "our". That's the difference. He does say how God came to be “our God” in the same sermon. I broke it down for you last time. If we define God as the most advanced being in existence, then God has always been God according to Joseph Smith. But scripture also shows us that there are ways that God becomes our God, which is what Joseph Smith was saying about our relationship to him. For example: "And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people". (Leviticus 26:12) "But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you." (Jeremiah 7:23) "Which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God". (Jeremiah 11:4) "And ye shall be my people, and I will be your God". (Jeremiah 30:22) "And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God". (Ezekiel 36:28) And there are also ways that God ceases to be God for some: "Then said God, Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God". (Hosea 1:9) By that, you mean offspring through at least one heavenly mother. No, by that I mean that God increases in the number of his creations. In the Protestant view, God has only one creation: this earth and the universe relating to it. So, from a Protestant point of view God is just a beginner at the creation thing, but he still went from being a non-creator to a creator (and that is an increase from zero to one, even though is just one creation). But in the Latter-day Saint point of view, God has made “worlds without number” and continually increases in the number of his creations. I don't believe you or I are self-existent in the sense that we existed eternally as intelligences (maybe with or without gender) prior to being formed into spirit children of heavenly parents. Acts 17:29 says, "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device". Consider all those people who supposedly grew up with Heavenly Father on some other world whom he supposedly atoned for. Whose offspring are they? The fact that we are all the “offspring of God” is a Bible teaching, whether you choose to believe it or not. And remember, you were the first to acknowledge how Paul’s Greek audience would have understood what Paul was teaching in that sermon. But Paul was teaching something more important than just that. Paul was teaching that we are all the same “kind” of being as God, since that’s what the Greek word génos means. We are the “genus” of God (as it says in the Latin translations), the same kind of being that God is. This means that some aspect of our existence (our spirits) is the same kind of being that God is, and is co-eternal with God, and the fact that we are the same "kind" of being as God is totally independent of the relationship we enter into with God, becoming his “offspring”. The LDS Jesus is an uncreated, eternal intelligence who became the first spirit child of heavenly parents, who then became a God before his incarnation on our Earth. The Book of Mormon refers to him as the Eternal God. In similar fashion, LDS men and women are believed to be uncreated, eternal intelligences who became spirit children of heavenly parents. They hope to also become Gods in the future. In some future time, they will also be considered as Eternal Gods. But that doesn't mean they will have eternally existed as Gods. Jesus never specifically spoke the words "I am God" to the Jews. But they understood what he was saying and sought to kill him for blasphemy. What the Jews understood was that anyone who claimed to be a “son of God” or to have God as their “Father” was making themselves equal with God. This goes back to the original Jewish teachings that the “sons of God” are also gods. Observe how the Jews reacted to Jesus calling God his “Father” in John chapter 5:17-18: “But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” This same line of reasoning was also applied in John chapter 10, when Jesus was referring to himself doing the works of his Father and the Jews took up stones “again” to stone him. Actually, you shared scripture that you tried to claim was saying that God has always been God, but it only said that he is God “from age to age”, which is not the same thing. Not in those specific places, but Joseph Smith and others did teach it. Joseph Smith did not teach that God has a God above him as I showed in my last post (in the part that you completely ignored). And what I quoted from what Joseph Smith taught contradicts what you are claiming that he taught. And that others may have interpreted the one incorrect account of a Joseph Smith sermon that was interpolated and published as if it was the original sermon in a way that Joseph Smith did not intend, is immaterial. We have better sources available to us today, and we can compare the original notes to his other teachings. Furthermore, even among the sources you quoted there are problems. First, none of them said that God has a God above him. Saying that God had a father is not the same as saying that God has a God above him (he would have had an earthly Father when he dwelt on an earth, like Joseph Smith was teaching). They are either talking about Jesus (as is the case of your quote from Orson Pratt’s, The Kingdom of God), or they are ambiguous (they may very well be talking about an earthly father, as Joseph Smith did), or they state a disclaimer about its relation to official church doctrine (as in the case of Joseph Fielding Smith’s, Doctrines of Salvation), or it was publicly disowned and rejected by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve apostles as being representative of official church doctrine (as in the case of Orson Pratt’s publication, The Seer), or are relying on a publication of Joseph Smith’s sermon that was interpolated from a single incorrect source. Official church doctrine is not derived from a few quotes here and there. I don't know. Let me speculate Since you don’t know, then we can’t speculate. There is no point in that. From a traditional Christian point of view, John 1:3 teaches that the Word (Logos), who is Jesus Christ, was the agent through whom God created everything. "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made". The wording is deliberately comprehensive. John isn't saying merely that Christ created some things or that He helped God create the earth. He is saying that everything that belongs to the category of created things came into existence through Him. The logic is: • Everything that was created was made through the Word. • Therefore, the Word cannot Himself belong to the category of things that were created. John 1:1 says the Word "was God." • Therefore, the Word is understood as eternally divine, rather than a creature. Your conclusion above is built upon unbiblical assumptions, or upon assumptions that contradict the Bible. And some aspects of your conclusion are based on ideas that were developed after the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo was formulated at around 177 AD by Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch. I’ll break it down here: “Everything that was created was made through the Word”. This, by itself, is an accurate statement. But the key part of this statement is “everything that was created”, which is relative to the creation of this earth (as is the context of John 1:1-3) and this indicates that there are things or beings that were not created (i.e. “without him was not any thing made that was made”). So Jesus created only those things that were made, and it is correct to say (as you did) that “everything that belongs to the category of created things came into existence through Him”, since this excludes those things, or beings, that are not created (such as our spirits, since we are all the same “kind” of being as God). “Therefore, the Word cannot Himself belong to the category of things that were created. John 1:1 says the Word ‘was God’”. This is also, by itself, an accurate statement. Jesus has existed eternally. He “was God” and was “with God” the Father in the beginning. “Therefore, the Word is understood as eternally divine, rather than a creature”. This is where your logic breaks down, because this is based on the false assumption that anything that is eternal is divine, which was a later idea that was derived from the development of creation ex-nihilo. From the outset this contradicts the Biblical teaching that all mankind are the génos of God, the same “kind” of being as God. And since we are all the same kind of being that God is (as the Bible teaches), then the idea that anything that is eternal is divine goes out the window. Also you said, "John isn't saying merely that Christ created some things or that He helped God create the earth". But John did say Jesus only made the things "that were made", and the Bible has numerous passages indicated that God the Father created all things through Jesus Christ (see my next post for more details). As stated previously, Colossians 1:15-17 doesn’t say anything about Jesus creating Satan. The “visible and invisible” things are explained in the verse, “whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers”. This is not talking about the creation of beings, but of the establishment of order and governments, as Paul explains elsewhere, where he says: “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work” (Titus 3:1) Furthermore, I think this is a really odd doctrine for you to cling to, since if Jesus really created Satan, an evil being that Jesus foreknew would be the cause of all evil and would bring about the fall of mankind and introduce sin and destruction throughout the world, then wouldn’t that be an evil choice for him to make? Are you seriously comfortable with this non-biblical idea that Jesus created Satan, making Jesus is the source of all evil?

Every time I think of this verse it causes me to remember a time when my wife and I were staying at my in-laws on their farm property while helping my father-in-law recover from an injury. They had a rooster named "Darkly", and he used to come up to the glass sliding door that opened out to the back patio to let us know that the chickens needed to be fed. And I would say, "For now we see through a glass, Darkly".

I don't think there is any theological view that is free from problems to be solved. I look forward to the day when we can come face to face with God and get all of our questions answered. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:12)

I agree, to a point. Where creation ex-nihilo creates problems (out of nothing?) in my opinion, is that it introduces a total separation between God and man, one that I think contradicts Paul's teachings in Acts 17:28-29. In doing so it distorts God's relationship to mankind and introduces a boat load of theological problems, such as exacerbating the problems of evil. It also changes the ideas about monotheism (as I just posted in a separate thread).

I thought I would provide some links to the sources where some of this comes from. First, for Michael Heiser: Michael Heiser, Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible, Liberty University, 2008. Michael Heiser, Should the Plural אלהים of Psalm 82 Be Understood as Men or Divine Beings?, Annual Meeting, Evangelical Theological Society, 2010. Michael Heiser, Jesus’ Quotation of Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34: A Different View of John‘s Theological Strategy, 2012 SBL regional. And I'll add this one, because I think it is very important to the background of all of this: Peter Hayman, "Monotheism-- A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?", as found in Journal of Jewish Studies, Vol. XLII, No 1 (Spring 1991), pp. 1-15. Peter Hayman's article is important to me because I read it back in the 90's not long after it was published, and it influenced me to dig deeper into this topic. But the thing that really puzzled me (at first) about Hayman's article is that early on in his article he brought up the development of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo. Hayman quotes Sefer Yesira (2:6), which the Sefaria Library website describes as follows: "Composed: c.200 BCE – c.200 CE. Sefer Yetzirah (the 'Book of Creation') is the title of the earliest extant book of Jewish esotericism." He says, "The Sefer Yesira has in [2:6] the following statement about how God created the world: 'He formed substance from chaos and made it with fire and it exists, and he hewed out great columns from intangible air'". Hayman continues: "This statement is entirely congruous with what we find in Bereshit Rabba: 'R. Huna said, in the name of Bar Qappara: 'If it were not written explicitly in Scripture, it would not be possible to say it: God created the heaven and the earth. From what? From the earth was chaos (תֹהוּ), etc.'" (Hayman, p. 2, italics in the original). The quote above is from Bereshit Rabba 1:5. The Sefaria Library website describes Bereshit Rabba as follows: "Composed: Talmudic Israel, 400 CE. Bereshit Rabbah is a talmudic-era midrash on the book of Genesis." Hayman continues, "The position represented here by Sefer Yesira and Rab Huna represents no advance whatsoever on Genesis chapter one. God creates order out of a pre-existing chaos; he does not create from nothing. Nearly all recent studies on the origin of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo have come to the conclusion that this doctrine is not native to Judaism, is nowhere attested in the Hebrew Bible, and probably arose in Christianity in the second century C.E. in the course of its fierce battle with Gnosticism." He notes that the idea of creation ex-nihilo "came into Judaism from Christianity and Islam at the beginning of the Middle Ages and that even then it never really succeeded in establishing itself as the accepted Jewish doctrine on creation" (Hayman, p. 3). As I said above, it was puzzling to me at first what any of this had to do with the development of monotheism. But I have since learned that the late second century AD development of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo (in Christian circles and later introduced into Judaism and Islam) has everything to do with the development of monotheism. The development of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo led to the idea that God "is so completely other in character"[1], making the journey to monotheism more complete. Footnote [1] Hayman quoting from T. C. Vriezen on page 1 of his article. Other studies have been published on the development of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo since Hayman's article was published (the one by Gerhard May predated Hayman's article by over a decade, but it wasn't translated into English until 1994). The scholarly consensus today is that the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo was first introduced at around 177 AD by Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch. And this teaching is contrary to the earliest teachings from Christians (and Jews) that matter is eternal and that God created all things from unformed matter. In addition , the development of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo flips the biblical teaching that all humans are the same "kind" of being as God (Acts 17:28-29) on its head, because if humans are truly the “offspring [génos] of God” then the notion that there are other gods that coexist with God is evident, and the modern idea of monotheism can't be true in that environment. And this is why modern Christian commentaries on Acts 17:28-29 try to come up with creative ways (no pun intended) to get around the true meaning of the text by claiming that Paul was only talking about God creating humans in those verses, and they never address what the text actually says.

Yes, I didn't realize that he lived outside the state of Utah (or outside of the Salt Lake City area) and he was only here for the FAIR conference. This makes his accident more tragic to me, partly because of the confusing roads and bad drivers in Utah that we were discussing earlier. I'm not saying that the other drivers involved in the accident were bad drivers, but when a person is in an unfamiliar area with crazy traffic it is a lot easier to make a driving mistake.

KSL posted this article today about vigil that was held for him by his family: Family, followers honor man who was dedicated to defending his faith online I didn't know where he was from, but this article says he lived in Idaho.

It was early Christian doctrine too, that men can become Gods, not just LDS doctrine. Christian doctrine has changed since then. God is the "God of gods and Lord of lords", as the Bible says.

Me too!

Doesn't matter. What matters is how your interpretation goes totally contrary to the context of the verse. ETA: If you are asking how our theology fits with the "before" or "after" of Isaiah 43:10, then it should be obvious from what I said above about the context. The "before" and "after" is referring to the context of Israel as God's witnesses, as it says in verse 12: "I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God." No other God or gods will be declared to be the God of Israel.

And what scripture would this be? I can't count myself as well-read in scripture as many others, but I don't believe I've ever read anything that corresponds to what you are saying here. He takes Isaiah 43:10 out of its context of decrying idol worship and thinks there is a "before" and "after" to an eternal God, where it says "before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me". What does "before" or "after" mean to an eternal God? Obviously that's referring to the context of Israel as God's witnesses, as it says in verse 12: "I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God." When God declared himself to Israel at a time "when there was no strange god" among them, there is no other god formed to be the God of Israel either before or after that time. It says nothing against other gods existing, nor does it contradict God's plan for others to become like he is. God gives his glory to those who follow him (John 17:20-23) and has them sit with him on his throne (as you pointed out) in Revelation 3:21.

"From age to age" he is God, at the very least anyway, as the Bible says. Other than that the Bible is silent, except for the supposition that "Eternal God" means something different than "Eternal Life".

I live in Utah now (I used to live in Arizona), and one thing that keeps popping up on my YouTube feed suggestion is the Utah "Collision Cam" channel. It's really scary to watch it. They have monthly compilations. Distracted driving is a serious issue, not just in Utah. But I think the road designs lend to more serious crashes because of speed and visibility and odd intersection configurations.

Same here. I had to look up the RestoredTruth channel to learn who he was, and I recognized him instantly once I did that.

It makes me wonder if there was a medical issue or some other major distraction. The seatbelt choice was dumb which didn't help, but zooming right through a red light? I know it can happen, but it seems odd to me for someone that young.

I was wondering about that. Thanks for posting that.

But all are the offspring of God. All humans. The Bible says so, you know the verses. And we must “love our enemies” and “do good” to them that hate us, so "that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven", as Jesus said. We're all children of God, but we must become his children by entering a covenant with him and follow him.

I just posted this in the News section, but it is sad that we just lost a Pro LDS YouTube channel content provider on Friday. It was Chandler David Hendry, the founder of the Restored Truth podcast on YouTube: Religious podcaster dies in Lehi multi-vehicle crash It's sad to see any young life taken away like that. This is the Restored Truth channel: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Restored+Truth+podcast

KSL carried this story yesterday: Religious podcaster dies in Lehi multi-vehicle crash "Chandler David Hendry, 27, was the sole victim of a three-vehicle crash that happened at 8:25 a.m., Lehi police spokesperson Jeanteil Livingston said. The crash happened at the intersection of Timpanogos Highway and Morning Vista road." "Hendry was the founder of the Restored Truth podcast, which explores interfaith dialog, scripture, Christian history and the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, according to a Restored Truth YouTube video." This is his YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@RESTORED_TRUTH/shorts And the community section is mourning his loss: https://www.youtube.com/@RESTORED_TRUTH/community This is sad news.

All terrestrial and telestial inhabitants do not receive a fulness of joy even though their spirit and body are joined together eternally – not even those in the two lower divisions of the celestial kingdom have it. "Fulness of joy" and "eternal life" seem to be different things, and it's only reserved for exalted beings. "Neither is it enough to be a good, solid citizen, contributing to charities, serving on community boards, and in general living a good Christian life. Although commendable, this is not sufficient to entitle one to the fulness of joy and the eternal life that our Father in heaven has promised to those who love him and keep his commandments" (January 1975, New Era, Just for Today, President N. Eldon Tanner). Becoming a god (God) precedes obtaining a fulness of joy. Both Father and Mother obtained their fulness of joy. The LDS Father did not have a fulness of joy until he passed all his tests and became a God. "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 … We can be exalted as God is and receive a fulness of joy … If we passed our tests, we would receive the fulness of joy that our heavenly parents have received … Blessings of Exaltation: They will become gods. They will receive a fulness of joy" (Gospel Principles, 1997). The LDS Father is not always a God (in a state of godhood) before he fully progresses. "The progression of our Father in heaven to godhood, or exaltation, was strictly in accordance with eternal principles" (Achieving a Celestial Marriage manual). And none of this has anything to do with what I said in my last post about exaltation, which is that it is “the kind of life God lives”. But you reject the idea that some being progressed beyond what he was before and became a God then Father. This all goes back to how you define “God”. God the Father has always been the most advanced, the most intelligent, the “most high” of all other spirits regardless of the other things he did that were like what Jesus did. What I reject is the idea that this does not make him “God” in some sense, for no other being could compare to him. Yes. God the Father is above all the gods of the Greeks, Romans, Hindus, etc. What about Jesus? I asked about Jesus. According to the Bible, God the Father is the very God and Father of Jesus Christ (John 20:17, Romans 15:6, 1 Corinthians 11:3, 2 Corinthians 11:31, Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians 1:17; Hebrews 1:8-9, 1 Peter 1:3, Revelation 3:12), and Jesus is even said to be eternally subject to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28). Do you believe that Heavenly Father is a higher God than Jesus like the Bible teaches? Or do you reject those Bible teachings too? As for the gods of the Greeks and Romans, those are false gods. They are “nothing” (according to the Bible). God is not a God of “nothing”. He is not a God of fictional characters. That would be like saying God is the God of the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause. It is demeaning and disrespectful to God to classify him that way, because anyone (me, you, or your dog) can be the “god” to fictional characters that don’t exist. But the Bible truth is that God is the God of other “gods” that exist in reality, “God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible” (Deuteronomy 10:17). A God of fictional characters is not mighty or terrible.

I checked your links but I see no place where you address the fact that you believe Joseph Smith, in his King Follett discourse, was really saying that "God was not OUR God (OUR Father) from all eternity" as opposed to "God was not God from all eternity". Remember, your question to me was this: In every one of the posts I linked above, I quoted the portion of the King Follet Discourse that addresses that question. Here’s a quote from my post on 10/30/2022: “Joseph Smith taught "what kind of being God is" and how he got to be the way he is, a being who created worlds, a being who created man in his own image. He described it this way: "The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits." Here’s a quote from my post on 11/10/2022: “And God the Father has always been above all others. How he came to be our God is explained in the statement from Joseph Smith that I quoted just a few posts ago (here) : “The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 354) "That is how God came to be our God.” And in my post on 11/11/2022 I reposted what I said above, and added: “Repeating what I said above, ‘God the Father has always been above all others.’ How he came to be our God was in our relationship to him, and him providing a way for us to advance and become like him. That is the way Joseph Smith taught it in his sermon.” I could post the same thing from the other posts (and others). This was all in direct response to the same question you asked me above. The God of the Bible has eternal increase, so why wouldn’t you accept that? Otherwise, what is God’s point in creating the earth? The “how God came to be our God” part is all contained in the same sermon. It was the focus of Joseph Smith’s overall teaching. Read or listen to the entire sermon in context. Joseph Smith explained it right within the same sermon. Do I need to quote it again? Let me break it down for you, phrase by phrase: “The first principles of man are self-existent with God” : Our spirits are self-existent with God. We were with God in the beginning of his plan. “God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory…” : God had more glory than others and he implemented a plan for the other spirits. “because he was more intelligent” : God was the most intelligent of all others, eternally so. This puts him in the position to be the “most high” of all others, always and forever. He has always been “God” in that sense. “saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself” : God the Father instituted the laws, nobody else did that. God the Father didn’t inherit those laws from some other God, he is the lawgiver. “The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge” : We entered a relationship with God, this is where God became “our God”. “He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits." : Because God is love, he wanted others to have the same knowledge and experiences that he has. God offered this plan to the spirits that were self-existent with him. It’s perfectly clear to me anyway. I understand that to be your belief, but believing that only God is self-existent is a doctrine that contradicts the Bible teaching that we are all the same “kind” of being as God (Acts 17:28-29). I prefer to believe the Bible doctrine rather than traditions that were developed later. That's self serving – a being, eternally existing as maybe intelligence, without a spirit or physical body, institutes laws by which he advances into becoming a God. You never show from scripture where some being instituted laws to become a God before he becomes a Father. How is it “self serving” for a God who loves others so much that he wants them to have the same experiences that he has and provides a way for them to receive everything that he has? And can you show me from the Bible what God the Father did before he created this earth? You can’t. The Bible doesn’t talk about that. No doubt you have some belief that you hold about what he was doing, but you can’t demonstrate any of it from scripture. We’ve already been through the verses that say, “from age to age thou art God” (like Psalm 90:2), but those don’t prove what you are thinking. I can show you from Latter-day Saint scripture where God has been creating “worlds without number”, but other than that we aren’t given any other details. Nor can you ever claim to receive “eternal life” that Jesus is offering us by the same line of reasoning. It’s really not “eternal life” because (as you believe) you didn’t have it eternally. But this shouldn't be an issue to you, since the Bible never refers to Jesus as the "Eternal God". The Book of Mormon does in several places, however. The fact that some taught that men could become gods or Gods doesn't make it true It wasn’t just “some men” who taught that men can become gods or Gods, it was the “heavy hitters” like St. Clement of Rome, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Theophilus of Antioch, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Hippolytus of Rome, Origen (Highly regarded as one of the most influential Christian theologians), St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Augustine of Hippo, that all taught that men become gods in no uncertain terms. This is the widespread foundation of the teachings of the early Christian Fathers. The bottom line? “Christian” doctrine has changed through the years. It used to be one thing, now it’s something completely different. The difference here is that the earliest Christians taught that men become “Gods” far and wide, independently of one another. They didn’t get it from interpreting the words of one person in different ways, they received it as part of their basic teachings from the earliest time. Latter-day Saint leaders, on the other hand, were often trying to interpret some things that one scribe recorded (incorrectly in some respects) of a sermon that Joseph Smith gave without access to the original source, and with the assumption that what was first published of the sermon was an accurate account of what Joseph Smith said. This was not the case for the early Christian Fathers teaching that men can become gods. See above where I explained the difference. I believe they misinterpreted what these verses mean: Of course you do. Christian teachings have changed drastically since the first three centuries AD, and they have needed to reinterpret scripture to fit the modern teachings and ignore others, like the Biblical teaching that we are all the same “kind” of being as God (we are the very génos of God - Acts 17:28-29). They might say that you are the one misinterpreting what those verses mean. Is God the Father (the Father of the Gods as you say above) also the Father of Heavenly Mother (believed to be a God herself)? You didn’t answer the question I asked last time. I’ll ask it again: I quoted Joseph Smith directly. Joseph Smith emphasized that God the Father is the “head God” at least eight times in the King Follet Sermon, calling him “the head, the Father of the Gods”. He taught that he was “more intelligent” and “saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself”. Where is there any room in those statements for the idea that God has a God above him like you are asserting? I already addressed that sermon in great detail, and you didn’t even bother to read my responses, so why should I bother repeating myself again? I’ll just cut and paste things all over again. But I’m getting tired of the fact that you ignore my responses and pretend like we didn’t ever discuss this. Why should I respond to you at all in the future? See my recent post on 07/27/2026 where you quoted the same thing while posting as telnetd, which refers back to my post on 05/26/2025 where I addressed that sermon in detail. During the Sermon in the Grove, Thomas Bullock recorded Joseph Smith saying the following (right before the part that you quoted above): “I want to reason— I learned it by translating the papyrus now in my house—I learned a test. concerning Abraham & he reasoned concerng. the God of Heaven— in order to do that s[ai]d. he— suppose we have two facts that supposes that anor. fact may exist two men on the earth— one wiser that the other— wod. shew that anor. who is wiser than the wisest may exist— intelligences exist one above anor. that there is no end to it” The problem with this record is that it directly contradicts the source that Joseph Smith is said to be referencing. Bullock records that the “two facts” are that there may always be one that is wiser than the wisest (which is logically impossible, or otherwise the wisest is not really the wisest). And he also says that there is no end to intelligences existing one above another. But Abraham 3:18–22 says the following: 18 … if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal. 19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all. …. 21 I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to declare unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen. So, the “two facts” stated in the book of Abraham are that there is one who is the wisest and the most intelligent than all others, and that being is the Lord God. And it is the eternal existence of intelligences that have “no end”, because they have no beginning and no end, not that there is no end to them existing one above another as the Bullock notes indicate. So, Thomas Bullock gets it wrong. Furthermore, to re-quote what I said to you posting as telned: I see from Thomas Bullock’s notes of that sermon that the discussion of God the Father having a father was in the context of God the Father’s mortal experience on an earth. His notes show that the statements about God the Father having a “father” are immediately followed by “I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him”. In other words, Bullock’s notes indicate that God the Father’s “father” would have been either his earthly father when he was born into mortality, or that God the Father (as the head of all other Gods) would have appointed some other God to produce him in the same way that Jesus came into mortality. But Bullock also seems to have repeated himself in part of those notes, so it’s hard to tell if Joseph Smith was restating something for emphasis, or if Bullock recorded it incorrectly, or if he did get it correct, we need further information and context to draw any conclusions with certainty. Joseph Smith referred to him as the “head of the Gods”, not me. I was quoting Joseph Smith. I’ll respond to these questions as soon as you answer this question: What exactly was God the Father doing on August 9, 100 billion B.C.? Be specific. (And it wasn't a Sabbath day). I don't agree with Lactantius teaching Jesus Christ is the "Second God". Of course you don’t. Christian teachings have changed drastically since then, and you go with the modern interpretations. Neither of those verses say that Jesus created Satan. And John 1:3 includes the stipulation that without Jesus “was not anything made that was made.” In other words, Jesus didn’t make anything that was not “made”, like the spirits that existed with God in the beginning (they are called the “sons of God” and “morning stars” in Job 38:7), and the Bible teaches us that humans are the same “kind” of being as God (the génos of God - Acts 17:28-29). We need to include all the Bible teachings on this topic, not just a few here or there.

Depends on your point of view. Jesus called men gods in John 10:34-35, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken." But many of the early Christians considered it a process of "becoming", like what St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD) taught in is work Refutation Book 10 Ch. 29: "For if He had willed to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou hast the example of the Logos. His will, however, was, that you should be a man, and He has made thee a man. But if thou art desirous of also becoming a god, obey Him that has created thee, and resist not now, in order that, being found faithful in that which is small, you may be enabled to have entrusted to you also that which is great." And in Chapter 30 (of the same reference linked above) he indicates that this is not fully realized until we receive immortality (with a resurrected body): "And thou shalt possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven, thou who, whilst thou didst sojourn in this life, didst know the Celestial King. And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God: for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a man, these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon thee, because thou hast been deified, and begotten unto immortality."