InCognitus

The thing that puzzles me is how many people were surprised to find out he's LDS. I don't watch every single video that Dan puts out, but there are numerous times in interviews and in the Data Over Dogma podcast where his membership in the church comes up, and he's constantly being bashed in the comments about being a member of the church. In many of the interviews with him that I have watched (I think in a couple of them they were interviewing him about his book, The Bible Says So) he speaks fondly of his conversion to the church and how that led him to read the Bible for the first time prior to serving a mission, and how that got him started in Biblical scholarship. He discusses the church to some degree in this Data Over Dogma episode, for example: At about the 13:16 minute mark he discusses debates he had on his blog with James White about whether "Mormons" are Christians, and that comes up again around the 18:00 minute mark (where they are discussing the name of the church) and a little later he says, "you will find a lot of people who insist that I probably can't even call myself a Mormon anymore and shouldn't call myself a Mormon for multiple reasons. One of them being that you're not supposed to use that word." There's a lot more from there.

I don't mean any such designation other than that they are "gods" and are with God in the heavenly council.

I don't quite understand the problems, honestly. This is the YouTube version in case anyone prefers that:

He also posted that on YouTube and this other one too: Apparently he's getting a lot of questions on this lately and he's addressing them.

Has this been posted here yet? Apparently the Pentagon (or someone) has revised the list due to the complaints about the removal of "Christian" from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And now the designation as "Christian" has been removed completely from all of the classifications except for the Non-Denominational "Christian" classification: It says, "The Pentagon’s job is not to adjudicate theological debates, but instead to ensure sincerely-held faith is respected and encouraged in our ranks." And here is the new list: Unfortunately this doesn't confirm or deny my theory about the field size in the database, since everything on the list is shortened from what it was before! ETA: Oops, I missed "Christian Science" (sic) and "Orthodox Christian" that both have the word Christian in it (but that's part of their name). ETA AGAIN! Another Oops, I see that @bsjkki already posted this here earlier in the thread (6 hours ago). Obviously I'm not up to date on reading the thread.

As a database designer and software consultant myself, I understand this as well (about the separate index code for the "CJ"). And I also understand that the full name would not be assigned each servicemember's record number (just the index value or primary key). I just think that it's possible that they made the max length value of the religious group name in the table of religious groups to be only 50 characters in size, thinking that it should work for most cases. Normally they limit those sizes because they are thinking of how it has to fit on reports and other ways of presenting the information. And in my database experience, a lot of text fields are limited to between 30 and 60 characters for names, company names, vendor names (etc.) And there are always exceptions to the expectations, and in those situations you just have to get creative in how you abbreviate the name or you need to continue the name into an additional field (like the address 1 field or something like that). I realize in today's world the application designers aren't as concerned about hard drive space and memory usage and efficiency as they used to be in the early days of computers, but some of the same thinking still persists, probably more for presentation (reporting) reasons than anything else.

Is that supposed to make us ignore the fact that the man of sin was "already at work" in Paul's day, as it says in verse 7?

Maybe you need to define "Evangelicals" for us so I can answer this question better, but I have loads of experience with Christians that identify as "evangelical" that have denigrated me and my faith. My neighbor when I lived in Tempe, Arizona (in the 2000's), found out that I am a Latter-day Saints and invited me to a meeting at "Concerned Christians" (in Mesa, Arizona), a group whose web page (currently) says they are "Bringing the Biblical Jesus to the Latter-day Saints". I went to a couple of their meetings with my neighbor (that was very entertaining). Their entire mission is to preach the bad news (non-gospel) to Latter-day Saints. And I had multiple experiences at the Easter Pageant at the Mesa, Arizona temple, year after year, of people from Alpha and Omega Ministries bashing my faith (they align with Evangelical and Reformed Protestant theology), and also people from MRM and others.

Thanks for your post, Rory. And thank YOU for YOUR patience. I've had a really busy week and very little sleep (I'm trying to catch up). I was trying very hard to simply provide what the early Christians taught on the subject and what the Bible says about the other gods that exist without interpreting it from a modern point of view. GoCeltics asked, "When did the idea arise that the Godhead consists of three separate Gods?” and I provided early sources that showed that that idea came from very early on in Judaism and Christianity, and the existence of other gods as well. I was simply documenting some of the earliest sources on that subject. I don't think God expects us to reinterpret everything we read in the Old or New Testaments to fit into our modern theological and cultural understandings. The people of that time had a drastically different culture and world view than we have today. While it is worthwhile for us to try to understand how the original authors of the Bible and their contemporaries understood the things that are written in the Bible, I think the real benefit to us is to learn from the principles taught in the scriptures and try to apply those principles to our lives today. Nephi says in the Book of Mormon that "I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning” (1 Nephi 19:23). I think he had the right approach. We are not expected to do a systematic theology of every verse we read, we just need to compare and apply the scriptures to our personal lives so we can profit and learn from them. This is an important question, and I suppose it depends on what you mean by "kind". The "most high God" is definitely beyond comparison in many of his attributes, but the fact that he IS compared to the other gods in scripture seems to point the idea that the other gods are of the same or similar "kind" of being. Otherwise, the comparisons are nonsensical. For example, the song of Moses in Exodus 15:11 says, "Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?" This describes God's holiness and his works as greater than these other "gods". If these are intended to be false gods then why would Moses, a prophet of God, give credence to false gods by comparing them to the God of Israel? Or Psalm 86:8, "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works". In my opinion, Psalm 86:8 and Exodus 15:11 cannot make any reasonable sense unless the comparison is made to actual “gods” that are real and are the same classification of beings that God is, and are capable of works that are similar to his, although their works are certainly not as great or have the same magnitude of his. To compare God to any created or non-existent thing (idols?) or corrupt human judges, or any other class of being is insulting and disrespectful (in my view). It’s like comparing a human to a squirrel or a chicken or a cat. Exodus 21:6 and 22:7-9 are sometimes translated as "judges", but that is a mistranslation. These are verses that I think have a deeper meaning in an ancient context. As an example, the Septuagint translates Exodus 21:6 (the Brenton English translation) as follows, "his master shall bring him to the judgment-seat of God". Dan McClellan has a good article (from 2009) on these verses that explores the ancient context a little bit. See "אלהים Does Not Mean “Judges” Referring to the attempts to translate the "gods" in these verses as "judges", McClellan says, "The rationale behind these translations is no longer an acceptable excuse for seeking out an alternative translation. To begin with, the presence of numerous gods throughout the Hebrew Bible that exist with God’s approbation and even act under his authority is unquestionable. Divine Council ideology pervades every historical layer of biblical literature, from the monarchy (and before) to the late Second Temple Period. This council acted in an administrative capacity, but also in a juridical one." I don't see how this verse is inferring that the other "gods" of the heavenly council takes bribes or has respect of persons, but it is only speaking to the integrity of the God who is above all other gods. Besides, this is a Hebrew superlative statement. The phrases God of gods, Holy of Holies, Heaven of heavens, Sabbath of sabbaths, servant of servants, vanity of vanities, song of songs, King of kings, Lord of lords, etc. are all Hebrew superlatives. These kinds of Hebrew superlatives are always stated as the greatest example over other versions of the same thing. When the Bible refers to the "Holy of holies" it's talking about the place that is the most holy of all other holy places. When the Bible refers to the "Heaven of heavens" it is referring to the highest and the greatest of all other heavens. Same with "King of kings", etc. So I don't see how civil magistrates fits in as a comparison to God in this kind of Hebrew superlative. God is not "the Civil Magistrate of civil magistrates", he is the "God of gods". Again, I don't see how Deuteronomy 10:17 is saying anything about the possibility of the lesser gods as doing things for personal gain. But you are right about the existence of "strange gods", which were the idols of the nations. But none of those false gods could be compared to the one true God. I think this goes back to some early understandings of the promises given to Abraham in Genesis 15:5, which says, "And he [the LORD] brought him [Abraham] forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be." David A. Burnett published a paper on Paul's use of Genesis 15:5 in Romans 4:18 in the Journal for the Study of Paul and HIs Letters (Vol. 5, No. 2 - Fall, 2015). It is titled: “So Shall Your Seed Be”: Paul’s Use of Genesis 15:5 in Romans 4:18 in Light of Early Jewish Deification Traditions (available online on Academia). His opening abstract is as follows (with my emphasis): The idea is that the people of Old Testament and New Testament times viewed the "stars" as representations of the "gods" or divine beings, and that the promise given to Abraham that his seed would be as the "stars" is an expression of their ascension as "gods", and not merely a reference to their number. David Burnett even discusses Origen's commentary on Romans 4 in support of his position on the topic. On page 235 of the journal (page 27 of the PDF linked above), he quotes Origen as follows: "Thus Abraham ‘against hope believed in hope that he would become the father of many nations,’ (Rom 4:18) which in the future would be like the stars of heaven, not only in terms of the greatness of number but also in splendor.” It's an interesting article. This is another interesting topic. I wish I had more time to get into it tonight (it's getting late). Maybe I'll get some time to write something up on it tomorrow. Interesting thoughts, thanks for writing!

Yes, but would you click on it? lol

I was only referring to the "gods" of the heavenly council as described in the Bible, the "gods" who are with God in the heavens as was taught and understood in early Judaism and early Christianity. I was referring to how they understood those "gods" and why they originally considered Jesus to be the "second God". They had no problem with the idea that other gods exist in heaven with God.

Let me review the chain of discussion I was having in this folder: Your Post on 05/12/2026: You (posting as GoCeltics) asked the question, “When did the idea arise that the Godhead consists of three separate Gods?” My Post on 05/12/2026: My response to the post from you (posting as GoCeltics), where I answered this question by providing quotes from the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (20 BC to 50 AD), and the early Christians Justin Martyr (150 AD), Origen (185-254 AD), and Lactantius (240-320 AD), where they all taught that either the Logos (Philo) or Jesus (the early Christians) is the “second God” or “another God”. This was in direct response to the question, “When did the idea arise that the Godhead consists of three separate Gods?” It was an “idea” that existed a long time ago in Judaism and early Christianity. Your Post on 05/14/2026: You (posting as GoCeltics) posted the following question in response to the quotes I provided from Philo, Justin Martyr, Origen, and Lactantius where they taught about “another God” or the “second God”: “What of biblical verses which speak of only God one?” My Post on 05/23/2026: I responded to the question above by first asking, “Do you think the early Christians were ignorant of those verses? They were not ignorant of them at all, but they understood them in their original context and in relation to other Bible verses that teach that God is the God over other gods. They viewed the 'only one God' as the most high God, the one who is above all others, and they understood that Jesus and his Father are "one" with each other in a way that invites others to participate in the glory of God together with them.” I also posted a quote from Origen (circa AD 185-254) where he discussed how the Father and Son are "one" in unity, and not "one in being". Your Post on 05/25/2026: You (posting as GoCeltics) responded to my post above, where I referred to the Bible verses teaching us that God is "the God over other gods", by asking, “Which gods?” Post on 05/25/2026: I responded to your question, “Which gods?” by saying, “Obviously those who become gods (as the early Christians taught) and the gods who are with God in the heavenly council that he rules over, as scripture says.” And I provided scriptural references from Psalm 89:5-7, Exodus 15:11, Psalm 86:8, Psalm 135:5, Psalm 97:9, Exodus 18:11, and Deuteronomy 10:17, all supporting the Biblical teaching that there other gods. Your Post on 05/27/2026: You (posting as GoCeltics), asking: “Do you mean he ruled over the heavenly council, he rules over other exalted beings which are not part of the family he formed during his married life, or both?” My Post on 05/31/2026: I responded directly to the question above by explaining exactly what I meant. I said, “I mean what scripture clearly teach us, which is that God is the God over a heavenly council of gods that exist with him in heaven”, and I reposted the verses from the Bible that show that to be true. Then finally, you said (above): On the contrary, as you can see I directly answered the question posted by you posting as GoCeltics. I explained exactly what I meant.

I hope I'm right because it would make more sense to me. But since I work with software and databases for a living, that's the first thing that came to my mind, THE DUMMIES PROBABLY DIDN'T LEAVE ENOUGH ROOM FOR LONGER NAMES!

I recently came across this interesting video from Michael Heiser which I hadn't seen previously. And even though Heiser sadly passed away early in 2023, this video was just posted 11 days ago. What is interesting is how Heiser says that in Romans 11:25, when the apostle Paul discusses the "fulness of the Gentiles" coming in, he says Paul is connecting that with the blessing that Jacob gave to Ephraim in Genesis 48:19, which says that Ephraim would become a "multitude of nations", and he says Paul is drawing that from the Septuagint Old Testament passages. Heiser also links this to the promises made to Abraham, where God tells him that he will be made "a great nation" in Genesis 12:1-3. Heiser has a few technical difficulties in this video, which is unfortunate because it causes him to ramble around a bit and in some places it's hard to follow his line of thought because of that. And there is an annoying "preview" at the beginning of the video which plays a portion of the presentation from later in the video which I presume is intended to get your attention (and it's not extremely clear where the preview stops and the actual presentation begins). But the relevant portion starts at about the 6:21 minute mark. Here's the video: You’ve Been Reading ‘Fullness of the Gentiles’ Wrong This Whole Time | Michael Heiser – Part 1 I'll try to summarize a few things he says here: The word translated as "multitude" in Genesis 48:19, where Ephraim is told he will become "a multitude of nations" also means "fulness". What he doesn't say in the video is that the word translated as "nations" in that same verse in the Septuagint is the exact same Greek word that is translated as "Gentiles" in Romans 11:25, for the "fulness of the Gentiles" (ἐθνῶν - Strongs G1484). He also quotes Genesis 17:4, where God says to Abraham, "Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations." He points out that Abraham is not just the father of Israel, but that he is the father of many nations. He says that God doesn't come to Abraham so that he can create a nation called Israel, and then that's the story. He says, that God is creating a people through Abraham "for the express purpose of regathering the nations and going back to the Edenic vision. The Edenic vision doesn't have Jew and Gentile in it". It "has one family of God". He says what Paul is doing in Romans 11 is thinking about Genesis 17 and Genesis 48:19, he is thinking about the fulness of nations (Gentiles). And "From him there will be a fulness, a multitude of nations". The "new Eden" (as he calls it) is about one people, with no divisions, like it was originally. "What God wants is what he told you he wanted back in Genesis, that Abraham would be the father of... would extend not only to Genesis 48:16... the ethnic, you know, descendants of... Jacob, but also Genesis 48:19 to those who have gentile blood.... this is what [God] is angling for."

Maybe the issue is much more basic than we are making it out to be. Is it possible that some short-sighted software designer created the new database with a limit of only 50 characters for the name of each religion? There just isn't enough room to fit "Christian" in front of "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (CJ)". Besides, Jesus Christ is already part of the name, and fortunately the abbreviation code accounts for that as well (i.e. CJ = Church [of] Jesus). I think that's better.

And, "The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies" (Titus 1:12), which is a quote from Epimenides of Knossos, from the work Cretica.

I wanted to add something to what I said earlier, because the context of the original question asked of me also had to do with the early Christian understanding of the scriptures and how they viewed the passages that there is one God along side all the other passages that say that God is the God of gods and the council of gods that God rules over in heaven, and with the early Christian teaching that men become gods. My focus was more about how the early Christians interpreted scripture, and not so much about how Latter-day Saints interpret it. There's a great example of this in Origen's Contra Celsum (Against Celsus) in defense of the Christian faith, in Book VII chapters 3 and 4, because he refers to many of the passages I listed: This shows how the early Christians used the scriptures to support the teachings they had handed down to them from Jesus and the apostles. This post is not necessarily for your benefit, but to support the point I was trying to make to GoCeltics, above.

He can probably get at least 20 of them in Utah alone, and another 5 or so each in Idaho and Arizona. But you are right, it's an ambitious project.

Thanks for your comments. You make a fair point. But I wasn't really trying to say that the LDS interpretation is the only clear one, but those verses I listed do "clearly teach" that other gods exist in the heavens and that God is greater than all those other "gods", and none of those "gods" are comparable to him. I think they clearly say what they say. How we make them fit into our own interpretation of the rest of scripture is a different matter altogether. And in reality I don't think that the full meaning of what those verses are saying have really been addressed in Latter-day Saint doctrine at all other than the fact that we acknowledge that other gods exist. I agree 150%! It's obvious that what you say above is true because even the people who believe in so called "sola scriptura" can't agree with each other on most doctrinal controversies. But do you agree that a verse (standing alone) can clearly say something totally independently of how it might fit (or not fit) with our own interpretations? For example, a verse like "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord", doesn't that indicate that "among the gods" there is none like the Lord? Is that clear or not? And my statement that these verses teach "that God is the God over a heavenly council of gods that exist with him in heaven" is actually a modern scholarly view, not just a doctrinal interpretation. That's how modern scholars view them despite how Latter-day Saints (or anyone else) might view them. What do you think?

Of course you would reword it, but an official position of "the church" would truly need to be made official.

He now has this one which might qualify: 52 Temples in 52 Weeks

Awesome list, I didn't notice this thread prior to today (I have a lot going on). Thank you for compiling it. I didn't realize that this board will let you edit a post so many months after posting it. How does it let you do that? My experience has been that it generally removes the ability to edit a post after 24 hours.

No. A God who was once a man as Joseph Smith taught (and no thinking Christian today believes in a God who was once a man, right?), the same as Jesus Christ was once a man. And he "became" our God when we accepted his plan for us in the beginning.

Yes, you have said this many times before, but this interpretation contradicts Paul's statement in verse 7 of 2 Thessalonians, which is that the man of sin was "already at work" in his day.

I mean what scripture clearly teach us, which is that God is the God over a heavenly council of gods that exist with him in heaven: "Let the heavens [שמים; šāmaîm] praise your wonders, O Lord, your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones [קהל קדשים; qĕhal qĕdôshîm]. For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord? Who among the heavenly beings [אלים בני; bĕnê ’ēlîm] is like the Lord, a God feared in the council of the holy ones [סוד-קדשים; sôd qĕdôshîm], great and awesome above all that are around him?" (Psalm 89:5–7) "Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?" (Exodus 15:11) "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works." (Psalm 86:8) "For I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord is above all gods." (Psalm 135:5) "For thou, Lord, art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all gods." (Psalm 97:9). "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them." (Exodus 18:11) "For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward" (Deuteronomy 10:17) And this explains why Philo and the early Christians taught that the Logos or Jesus was the "second God".