InCognitus

Psalm 34:8 has always stood out to me. It says, "O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him." It is obviously poetic language, but the word "taste" stands out to me, because it is an experiential word. You can't explain the taste of a particular food to another person who has never experienced taste at all. They need to "taste" for themselves to know and understand. I included a note in my Gospel Library app attached to Psalm 34:8, with a quote from a Jewish commentary that I have that says: "'Taste', a significant word. More effective than theorizing about God’s goodness is the test of experience. Only by encountering it in one’s life can it be really known." (The Soncino Books of the Bible, The Psalms, 2nd Edition, p.100). There are similar verses elsewhere, like 1 Peter 2:3, "If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.", and in the Book of Mormon, in Mormon 1:15, "And I, being fifteen years of age and being somewhat of a sober mind, therefore I was visited of the Lord, and tasted and knew of the goodness of Jesus." Experience is required.

That would be nice to learn things instantaneously. But I get the idea that we need to learn things by experience, or otherwise why would we be having this mortal experience on earth? Or at least that's my basis for thinking that way. I mean, why couldn't we just have all the knowledge of this life and the experiences downloaded into our brains, the same as in the movie The Matrix when Neo "learned" jiu jitsu through a brain hookup? Experience has to be part of it, because even the Savior had to learn things in a similar way: "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered" (Hebrews 5:8), and "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." (Hebrews 2:17–18) There seems to be some big reason we need to go through the experience rather than just receiving head knowledge.

I don't read fiction much, and I feel like I miss out on a lot because of that, even though I really enjoy sci-fi and fantasy movies. I had to ask my wife about the book because she reads fiction a lot, especially Orson Scott Card. Hopefully my "Wayback Machine" idea in the afterlife won't have the same consequences .

Things I'd like to see in the life to come… A functioning Wayback Machine, or some mechanism of observing various periods of the history of the earth, that would allow us to view, hear, and fully understand the way events actually happened. I think this would require some kind of bullet point summary view of the past, and a method of drilling down deeper into the details if desired, because it would be extremely tedious to see every minute and second of past events. If this would be done through some form of multi-media experience (instead of being a fly on the wall observer of the events as they happened), it should be 3-D, surround sound in iMax format or better. A way of assimilating information about the way things work and the complex reality of created worlds and how they function. (I suspect this would involve several courses of study over several millennia of semesters, but I'm all in! ) Most importantly, all of us seeing others in the way that God sees them, not in the sense that we know all of their thoughts and intentions, but that we love the way God loves and recognize the potential in everyone in the family of God and all of God's creations.

The two expressions aren't contradictory. John distinguishes the Word from the God with whom the Word was, while simultaneously describing the Word as θεός. John 20:28 is different. Thomas says directly to Jesus "ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου" Here ὁ θεός has the article. Breaking it down: ὁ = the, θεός = God, μου = of me / my. So the literal construction is "the God of me". You miss the point of John 20:28 and what Thomas realized at that time. Back in John 14:8, Philip asked Jesus to “show us the Father”. Jesus responded: “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.” (John 14:9–11) And in John 20:28, Thomas finally realized what Jesus was saying to Philip back in John 14, that Jesus is the very image of God the Father, his representative, and to see Jesus is to see the Father (THE God). And when Thomas reacted to Jesus he acknowledges both Jesus and his Father (the God and Father of Jesus Christ) when he said, “My Lord [Jesus] and my God [THE God, God the Father]”. So, Thomas was not calling Jesus “the God”, he was recognizing that Jesus is Lord and acknowledging his representation of God the Father. He was referring to God the Father as “THE God”. We already know this relationship between the Father and the Son (God in human flesh). I was just showing that the phrase "THE God" is not always a reference to THE Father. Even the Book of Mormon shows this. But things get confusing when it refers to Jesus being both the Father and the Son – whereas Jesus did not teach that. Mosiah referring to Jesus as the Father shows a person can be a "father" without having spirit children or physical offspring in a biological (literal lineage) sense. We also become offspring (seed) of Abraham even though he is not our literal (biological) parent. That there are different meanings to the word “father” and “children” has been discussed over and over already. And Jesus can be called “the Father” for various reasons. Jesus is the “father” of creation. Therefore, Jesus is considered the "Father of the heavens and of the earth, and all things that in them are." (Ether 4:7.). And Jesus is the “father” of those who are spiritually “born again”, making him the “father” of salvation. In the Book of Mormon, King Benjamin said, "And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters." (Mosiah 5:7.) And in the Bible, "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will" (Ephesians 1:5). And, "Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me." (Hebrews 2:12-13) And probably most importantly, Jesus can be called the “Father” since he is the representative of God the Father, as I explained above regarding John 20:28. God the Father puts his own words into the mouth of Jesus (Deuteronomy 18:18, John 8:26-29, John 12:49-50, John 17:8), so sometimes Jesus speaks in the first person as if He were the Father. Jesus came in his Father’s name (John 5:48), so he can in fact be called “the Father” because of his unity with the Father. But none of this changes the fact that Jesus is not the “One God and Father of all, who is above all” (Ephesians 4:6). He is not the “only true God” (John 17:3), for Jesus is subject to the one God and Father of all, and God the Father is the very God of Jesus Christ. And finally, the fact that there are different meanings to the word “father” and “children” does not change the meaning of the Greek word génos in Acts 17:28-29, which literally refers to the “kind” of being that we all are. All of us are the génos of God, his “offspring” in a literal kind of way. But that’s just changing scripture to fit your doctrine again. If you reworded it that way then that statement would not be true, because Jesus is NOT “the God” according to Jesus himself. God the Father is the “only true God” according to Jesus (John 17:3), and God the Father is the very God and Father of Jesus Christ, and it’s not just from his earthly relationship to him, it goes back to “in the beginning” when he was God and was with “the God”. See above where I explained your misinterpretation of John 20:28. CFR where Joseph Smith taught anything about a “Grandfather God”. And since you already acknowledged that you can’t find anywhere that Joseph Smith taught that there are Gods “above” God the Father, then you really have nothing to support this idea of yours. But according to the Bible, Jesus had grandfathers (not his Gods) when he was born on earth, as would anyone born on an earth (including God the Father). There's a doctrine found in the Religion 430-431 seminary manual which teaches Jesus became (was ranked) a God when he reached some pinnacle of intelligence. Do you believe Jesus became a god or God by having a share of the Father? The quote from Origen is saying that “other beings besides the true God… have become gods by having a share of God”. He’s not just referring to Jesus. I believe that’s exactly what Jesus had in mind when he prayed for his disciples to be “one” in the very same way Jesus is one with the Father and shares his glory with others in John 17:11, 20-23, and what 2 Peter 1:4 has in mind when we become “partakers of the divine nature”, and what Jesus had in mind when he said that those who overcome will sit with God in his throne the same way Jesus overcame and sits with the Father on his throne. All those verses show that God shares his glory, power, his “divine nature”, and his throne with those who become “one” with him and his Son. In Against Celsus 8.12, Origen writes "We worship one God, the Father and the Son ... these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will". Origen explicitly distinguished the Father and the Son as two distinct "persons" or hypostases, while insisting that they are one God. He also acknowledged the biblical language of "many gods," but he did not mean that there are many supreme, independent Gods in the later LDS sense. https://ccel.org/ccel/origen/against_celsus/anf04.vi.ix.viii.xii.html This is a mischaracterization of Latter-day Saint belief because we do not believe that there are “many supreme, independent Gods”. All who become “Gods” are subject to the “Eternal God of all other gods”, the same way Jesus Christ is subject to the “Eternal God of all other gods”. All who become “gods” further the work of the one God and Father of all by being representatives of him. In the King Follet Discourse, Joseph Smith said, “Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you”. In other words, all who become “gods” are made “kings and priests to God”, the “head God” of all other gods. “He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.” (Revelation 21:7) And you also mischaracterize the way that Origen insisted that the Father and Son are “one God”. You make it sound like Origen is describing a trinitarian way that they are “one”, but he says: “We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely they are one, that he who has seen the Son, 'who is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person,' has seen in Him who is the image of God, God Himself". That sounds exactly like a Latter-day Saint description of how they are one, not a trinitarian view. And that is the exact same unity and oneness that Jesus prayed for on behalf of his disciples, even saying, “Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are…. That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.” (John 17:11, 21–23) The disciples will also be the “brightness of God’s glory” and the “express image of His person”, the images of God. And Origen’s depiction of “many gods” explicitly indicates that humans will become gods in the same sense. Notice that Origen refers to “God” as a title, a job description so to speak, and says that the Son of God was honored with that same title. Your analysis above is seriously flawed. The so called "Origenist crises" didn't start until the very late fourth and early fifth century AD, long after Origen’s death (Origen lived from c. 184 – c.253), and these controversies were primarily against the so called “Origenists” (not Origen himself) and it (according to the Catholic Encyclopedia article) is not to be understood to be so much about Origen’s theology and the body of his teachings, but against a “certain number of doctrines, rightly or wrongly attributed to him, and which by their novelty or their danger called forth at an early period a refutation from orthodox writers.” In other words, there were some people called “Origenists” that took some of Origen's writings beyond what he actually taught. Another huge flaw with your attempt at dismissing Origen using these later controversies is that Christian doctrines had evolved significantly between the time of the life of Origen and the early fifth century, so it is completely unfair to look back and judge the doctrines of Origen from the environment of the later developed teachings. Instead, you need to view Origen and his teachings as he was viewed by his contemporaries. Just think about it. Using your modern Protestant standard of monotheism and your doctrines of a “homoousious” Father and Son, all the early Christian Fathers would be viewed as heretics for teaching that other gods exist and that men become gods. And this is exactly like how you are using the fifth century (and later) Origenist crises to look back in time to judge Origen. I have made posts about this topic previously in response to claims that Origen should be dismissed based on his doctrine. But the truth is that Origen was never condemned on any of his doctrines during his lifetime and was considered to be quite orthodox. See my post on May 10, 2023 for a good example of this. I’m especially glad that you brought up St. Jerome. St. Jerome stated that during Origen’s lifetime, at the very time when Origen was writing his commentary on the gospel of John that we have been discussing, that Origen was not condemned on any point of his doctrine, as it says in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Origin: “St. Jerome declares expressly that he [Origen] was not condemned on a point of doctrine.” This was during a period of controversy where Origen was reviewed during his lifetime, not because of his doctrine, but because of the jealousy of Demetrius over his ordination. Jerome wrote, “having been ordained presbyter by Theoctistus and Alexander, bishops of Cæsarea and Jerusalem, he offended Demetrius, who was so wildly enraged at him that he wrote everywhere to injure his reputation.” (See Jerome: De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men, chapter 54) See also Jerome’s Letter 33 to Paula, where he wrote about this same controversy, saying (of Origen), “He stands condemned by his bishop, Demetrius, only the bishops of Palestine, Arabia, Phenicia, and Achaia dissenting. Imperial Rome consents to his condemnation, and even convenes a senate to censure him, not — as the rabid hounds who now pursue him cry — because of the novelty or heterodoxy of his doctrines, but because men could not tolerate the incomparable eloquence and knowledge which, when once he opened his lips, made others seem dumb.” But if we view the teachings of Origen among his contemporaries, we find other early Christians teaching the very same doctrines far and wide throughout the Christian world. I have talked about this previously. It wasn’t just Origen who taught that Jesus is the “second God”, it was also Lactantius (c. 240-c 320 AD). And Justin Martyr taught, speaking of Jesus (150 AD), that “there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things”. And when 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 all taught that men become gods and that other gods exist in no uncertain terms, then there is no question that those were widely accepted fundamental doctrines of early Christianity. They were church wide doctrines, and they were found in all parts of the Christian world at that time. So, trying to discredit Origen because of later disputes about his followers is futile, and it doesn’t make these teachings go away. They were fundamental Christian doctrines throughout all of early Christianity and were considered to be orthodox teaching of the time. Why do you think all the main early Christian fathers taught that men become gods and that other gods exist? Suppose there is only one God in existence anywhere and everywhere, and that God decides to take on human flesh. Would you then have 2 Gods? Of course not. But if that one God in existence anywhere and everywhere begot a son and gave him his glory and appointed him to be his heir and representative and sent him to a world to take on human flesh, then there would be at least two Gods, even though the first God would remain the “head God” and “God of gods”. A few comments on your bullet points: Becoming a God (2 Corinthians 3:18, 2 Peter 1:4, 1 John 3:2). 2 Corinthians 3:18, 2 Peter 1:4, 1 John 3:2 do not portray humans becoming Gods. The emphasis is on likeness to Christ as God's children, particularly in the resurrection/glorification. 2 Peter 1:4 says believers become "partakers of the divine nature," which is strong language for genuine participation in God's life and character. But the immediate context explains this primarily as escaping "the corruption that is in the world through lust" (v. 4), developing faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love (vv. 5–7). So the passage clearly teaches transformation into godliness, but it does not explicitly say humans become Gods. You say, “it does not explicitly say humans become Gods”. You sound like the people who try to claim that the trinity isn’t biblical because the word “trinity” isn’t in the Bible. Does the Bible need to say “humans become Gods” before you will believe that “humans become Gods”? The concepts are there, all throughout scripture. And the earliest Christians taught that “men become Gods” very explicitly. Why do you think they did that? Again, you are focused on specific terminology instead of the concepts being conveyed. What symbol in the Bible best represents God’s dominion, kingdoms, and powers? The Throne of God, obviously. Who gets to sit with God in his throne? Jesus, and those who overcome. You are just splitting hairs and arguing semantics. Top that off with the fact that the Bible already says we are all the same “kind” of being as God in Acts 17:28-29. So it’s all part of the plan. Again, you are focused on specific terminology instead of the concepts being conveyed. If neither the man or woman are without each other in the Lord then they are not without each other in the Lord, plain and simple. Did you read what you posted? Of course, the “children of this world” are not equal to God. The "children of this world" are those who are worldly, and do not know the scriptures or the "power" of God (as Jesus said to the unbelieving Sadducees in Matthew 22:29), so they would not be sealed by God’s priesthood power in their marriages. That's how Jesus says this in Luke. Jesus contrasted the "children of this world" with the "children of light" in Luke 16:8 "And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." Marriages performed by men by civil authority (the children of the world) have no power in the resurrection, but a marriage bound by the priesthood power of God is for time and eternity, and that's exactly why Jesus told those unbelieving Sadducees that in the resurrection, their brethren would not be married but would be "as the angels of heaven". This is EXACTLY how a Latter-day Saint would answer the same question to any marriages performed by the "children of this world" instead of by the “power of God”. Compare that to Doctrine and Covenants 132:15–17: “Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.” Those who "overcome" will “eat of the tree of life” (2:7), and will “not be hurt of the second death” (2:11), and will "eat of the hidden manna" (2:17), receive power over the nations (2:26), be clothed in white raiment (3:5), will have the name of God written upon them (which is “God”) and the "new name" of Jesus (3:12), will sit with Jesus and the Father in the throne of God (3:21), and will "inherit all things" (21:7). These are all the thrones, kingdoms, powers, and dominions that describe those who become “gods” and reign with God. They are given the name of “God” (Revelation 3:12). It's all right there in the Bible. You already know that what you said above is incorrect. There are two main divisions of the resurrection, the “first resurrection” which occurs prior to the millennial reign of Christ, and the “second resurrection” that occurs after the end of the millennium. Those in the terrestrial kingdom take part in the afternoon of the first resurrection. See our prior discussion on this topic in my post last year on 10/12/2025. I already addressed this by showing you how various Bible translations render it. See above. None of those translations dispute the literal meaning of the Hebrew word ʿôlām which means “age”. The bottom line is that the Bible doesn’t teach that God has existed as a God eternally. I agree that Isaiah 44 is addressed to Israel and is concerned with Israel's exclusive allegiance to Yahweh. But the actual claim goes beyond 'Israel has only one God.' He says, 'beside me there is no God' (Isaiah 44:6), and then asks, 'Is there a God beside me?' and answers, 'there is no God; I know not any' (44:8). So the question is whether 'no God beside me' means merely 'Israel must worship no other gods' or whether Isaiah is making the broader claim that no other deity exists. The latter is certainly a legitimate reading of the text, and many interpreters understand these chapters as expressing explicit monotheism. You can add other verses too: Isaiah 43:10, 45:5–6, 18, 21–22, and Deuteronomy 4:35, 39. I mistyped in my prior response; I was referring to Isaiah 43:10. But you quoted from both Isaiah 43:10 and Isaiah 44:6. To address Isaiah 44:8 as well as the other verses (as I have done many times before), the phrase, "none beside me" simply means there is none that can compare to the God of Israel, not that no other gods exist. Psalms 86:8 “Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works." Psalms 89:5-7: “And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O LORD: thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints. (6) For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD? (7) God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him." To say “none beside me” is a common way to express incomparability in ancient writings. This is evident from other verses of scripture where the phrase “none beside me” is used, such as Zephaniah 2:15 which says (of the city Nineveh): “This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.” Do you believe that no other cities exist besides Nineveh? You really need to believe that Nineveh is only city in existence if you are going to be consistent, otherwise you misconstrue the “beside me” phrases in Isaiah 43:11, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 44:8, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 47:10, and Hosea 13:4 to mean that the God of Israel is the only God that exists. Keep the Bible in its context. The “I am” terminology is also present in Ninevah’s statement of incomparability in Zephaniah 2:15, as noted above. And you really need to abandon your belief that God exists eternally if you think there is such a thing as “before me” and “after me” in that context. Those expressions (“before me” and “after me”) can only make sense in the immediate context of that chapter where God is saying to Israel, “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.” (Isaiah 43:12). Israel is God’s witness, and no other Gods are formed to be the God of Israel, either before or after God declared himself to be the God of Israel. John's theology is "The Father is the only true God and Jesus is also God". Therefore, "only true God" cannot mean "the Father is one God among several true Gods." John 17:3 does not provide support for the idea that the Father and Jesus are two separate true Gods. It presents the Father as the one true God while the same gospel identifies the Son with God. Correction, John’s theology is that The Father is “THE God”, the “only true God”, and Jesus is simply called “God”, as the image of God and representative of the Father. Jesus has been given the title “God” by the Father as he serves as the mediator between God and man. You need to consider all of what John says about the disciples. John 6:56, “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” In John 14:10, Jesus says “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?”, and then in verse 20 he says (to his disciples), “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” Note the structure: Jesus + disciples: “ye in me, and I in you”. They are “one” in the same way Jesus is “one” with his Father. Furthermore, you make the distinction that Jesus and his Father are two persons, but this also expresses that they are separate beings, and therefore separate Gods who are “one” in their relationship, glory, love, and indwelling, just as are the disciples. I see no distinction being made between the way Jesus is one with his Father and how the disciples are to be “one” with Jesus and the Father. Do you? Jesus says, "EVEN AS WE are one", clear as can be. Note also that this is nothing like the unbiblical notion of a “homoousious” Father and Son that was imposed into the Nicene Creed. I have never argued that modern Christians don’t see the Father and Son as separate persons. The problem is that they have come to understand the term “homoousious” to mean one being. That’s simply not like anything found in the Bible. Jesus and his Father are separate and distinct beings, making them separate and distinct Gods, and they are inviting those who unite with them to become “one” in the exact same covenantal way they are “one”, become Gods as well. Also, see Origen's explanation about what Jesus meant when he said "I and my Father are one", below. Being brought into the Father/Son relationship is exactly how they become additional Gods. They become “equal with God” as explained below. It’s exactly the same context as Jesus used in John 10. See below. The opponents of Jesus understood Jesus to be claiming deity when he referred to God as his Father, as noted earlier in John 5: “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.” (John 5:17–18) Also in John 19:7, “The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” The context of John 10:30 also has Jesus referring to God as “My Father” in verse 17, 18, 25, and 29. And Jesus affirmed this as the very reason for the Jews accusing him of blasphemy in verse 36 of John chapter 10 when he said, “Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” Notice that Jesus did NOT say, “Say ye of him… Thou blasphemest; because I said, I and my Father are one”. That is not the reason for their accusation of blasphemy. So, the Jews already had another reason to believe that Jesus was “making himself equal with God”, and Jesus saying “I and my Father are one” has little to do with it. Furthermore, Jesus elaborated on how he and his Father are one because of the works that he does, when he said, “believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him” (verse 38). This again is exactly like how Jesus said his disciples should be in John 14. In John 14:15, Jesus says, “If ye love me, keep my commandments”, and he explains how the Spirit of truth will dwell in his disciples and says, “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” This is the same exact indwelling of both Jesus and the disciples. We are “in him” and he is “in us”. The disciples become “Gods” just like Jesus and his Father. And what does John 1:12 teach us? “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name”. And what does it mean to be the “sons of God”? According to the gospel of John, it means to be “equal with God”. You may call that blasphemy, but John has Jesus affirming that it is true. Also, see Origen's explanation about what Jesus meant when he said, "I and my Father are one", below. Yes. Jesus is a distinct personage in the Godhead. One cannot view Jesus and the Holy Ghost as two separate true Gods, making three true Gods. Distinct person, distinct being, distinct God in the Godhead. There is no difference. Remember, according to Jesus in scripture there is only one “true God”, God the Father. So how are Jesus and the Holy Spirit “God”? They are the images of the one true God and represent the one true God. They are his agents and do the will of the Father. They are not “one being” as modern Christianity teaches. That’s not biblical. People cannot fathom the Trinity so they try to simplify it as three separate Gods. People cannot fathom the Trinity because it’s nonsensical and not biblical. You yourself have admitted that you can’t fathom it. But the Bible explains the unity and covenant relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in much better ways. Go with how Jesus explained how he and his Father are one and how the disciples can be one with them in the same way instead of making up some other way they are one that is not biblical. And the “homoousious” doctrine of the Father and Son is not only unbiblical, the word has its origin in Gnosticism and was introduced into the Nicene Creed by the Roman Emperor Constantine. It’s just plain wrong and contradicts the Bible. That’s just like how the early Christians taught it, with Jesus as the “second God” and “another God and Lord subject to the maker of all things”. So it started right in early Christianity but got off track as later Christians adopted the Nicene creed and evolved into modern monotheism. That may be your belief, but that’s not biblical, and the Bible actually contradicts that view (God is the “God of gods”, Deuteronomy 10:17 and elsewhere). And God didn’t need to come down in the form of a human for it to be two Gods, because John 1:1-3 teaches that there are two Gods (“the God” and God) in the beginning. And God the Father appointed Jesus to be his representative (giving him the title of “God”) before creation began. God the Father crowned him with glory and honor and set him over the works of his hands (Hebrews 2:7), and appointed him the heir of all things (Hebrews 1:2) and made him both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), and gave him power (Matthew 28:18, and was given authority (John 5:26-27), and he was given “glory” from the Father before the world was (John 17:5, 22, 1 Peter 1:21). And in all that, God the Father is still “the God” of Jesus Christ. That’s all biblical. I found his bio at https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/about/ Is he authoritative for the LDS Church? If no, can you give me one or two official LDS sources which indicate "many Deities" in the Old Testament? The Bible is authoritative. It says there is a council of gods and that other gods exist and the works of the God of Israel are compared to the works of other gods. Jesus is the exact representation of God the Father. He fully embodies the Supreme God’s nature, mind, love, and authority. Thus, we can see God the Father in Jesus and through Jesus. And God the Father wants each of us to be images of him in the exact same way, as we become one heart and mind with him and his Son. Other individuals in scripture are images of God as well. For example, when Jacob had his wrestle with God and said, “I have seen God face to face” (Genesis 32:30), he was really wrestling with an angel of God (Hosea 12:3-4). The same thing happened with Manoah and his wife in Judges 13:21-22, where Manoah knew he was communicating with an angel of the LORD, but he said, “We shall surely die, because we have seen God”. That is how images of God work, the same way that Jesus was the image of the Father when Thomas recognized that he was seeing both Jesus (“my Lord”) and God the Father (“and my God”) in John 20:28. As for the phrase “invisible God”, that doesn’t mean that God the Father is transparent or incapable of being seen. It simply means beyond our present view. The Bible also says, "By faith he [Moses] forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible." (Hebrews 11:27) So the “invisible” God can indeed be seen. This was your reply to my previous post: Who is the only true God in these Old Testament verses? Deuteronomy 4:35 - "the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him." Deuteronomy 6:4 - "The LORD our God is one LORD." Isaiah 43:10 - "Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." Isaiah 44:6 - "I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." Isaiah 45:5 - "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me." Isaiah 45:22 - "I am God, and there is none else." I assume you mean a second God (the Father) instead of Jesus (the Son) is being referenced in these Old Testament verses. Oddly enough, the Book of Mormon identifies Jesus as the God of Israel and the whole world in several places: "And the God of our fathers, who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, by Moses, who was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world, and all those who look upon the Son of God with faith, having a contrite spirit, shall live, even unto that life which is eternal" (1 Nephi 19:10). "Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world" (3 Nephi 11:14). Now, getting back to the Bible. Jesus is the first and the last according to the New Testament, echoing what Isaiah 44:6 says. "Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen..." (Revelation 1:17–18). "These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive..." (Revelation 2:8). "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last ... I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches..." (Revelation 22:12–13, 16). Do you believe Jesus is not regarding himself as truly God? Or do you believe he is not God, but just an agent of God standing in the place of God like, like the Septuagint said? There is no difference. Jesus is the “image” of God the Father, his agent and mediator, and thus has the full authority of the Father. And of course Jesus is truly God (God the Father gave him that title) but he is just not the same being as his God and Father, who is the “only true God” (as Jesus said). And it’s interesting that you would quote from Revelation to try to make a point, since that’s not really Jesus speaking in those verses, it is his “angel”, as it says in 22:16, “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches” (Revelation 22:16). The angel was speaking the words of Jesus to John in the first person, and John was so impressed that he fell down to worship the angel (and the angel corrected him). This shows how God and Jesus appoint others to bear their image and represent them. God the Father does the same thing with Jesus. “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18, compare with Acts 3:20-22). Jesus said, praying to the Father, “For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me” (John 17:8). “I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things” (John 8:28). “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak” (John 12:49-50). But Origen did teach “two Gods” and he in fact taught there are many “Gods” that become “one” with the one Supreme God (see my post on September 20 in this thread). Origen clearly did not teach the trinitarian formula of a “homoousious” Father and Son, he did not teach they are “one God” in being in that way. In the context of the same passage we are discussing, Origen explained what is meant by the statement from Jesus, “I and my Father are one”. I’m going to post the full context again but emphasize how Origen explains the Father and Son are “one” in the same way that a “multitude” of believers can be “one heart and of one soul” (as taught in Acts 4:32). I’m going to also color in blue the arguments of Celsus, the anti-Christian writer that Origen is countering, to avoid confusion: “Chapter XII. In what follows, some may imagine that he says something plausible against us. ‘If,’ says he, ‘these people worshipped one God alone, and no other, they would perhaps have some valid argument against the worship of others. But they pay excessive reverence to one who has but lately appeared among men, and they think it no offence against God if they worship also His servant.’ To this we reply, that if Celsus had known that saying, ‘I and My Father are one,’ and the words used in prayer by the Son of God, ‘As Thou and I are one,’ he would not have supposed that we worship any other besides Him who is the Supreme God. ‘For,’ says He, ‘My Father is in Me, and I in Him.’ And if any should from these words be afraid of our going over to the side of those who deny that the Father and the Son are two persons, let him weigh that passage, ‘And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul,” that he may understand the meaning of the saying, “I and My Father are one.’ We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not ‘reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared,’ as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, ‘Before Abraham was, I am.’ Again He says, ‘I am the truth;’ and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared. We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, ‘who is the brightness of God’s glory, and the express image of His person,’ has seen in Him who is the image of God, God Himself.” (Origen, Contra Celsum, Book 8 Ch. 12) Notice that when explaining to Celsus how Jesus and his Father are “one” Origen quotes Jesus’ own words in John 17:22, where Jesus is praying for his disciples, “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one”. And he also quotes Acts 4:32, referring to the multitude that were “of one heart and one soul” and says this is how we need to understand the words of Jesus in saying, “I and my Father are one” in John 10:30. All worship is to the one Supreme God, the one who is above all (God the Father) through those who bear his image and become “one” with him. Is that how you believe Jesus and his Father are “one God”? Do you believe the way that Jesus explained it? Or do you believe the way that the Emperor Constantine explained it in the Nicene creed? I’m glad to see that you finally recognize that the doctrine of the Trinity is a “later” formulation and did not originate from the Bible or the original Christian teachings. But the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. got into the weeds about trying to define how the Son was truly God. After the Roman Emperor Constantine added the word “homoousious” to the creed, the Christian historian Eusebius explained the discussion that followed. He wrote, “He [Constantine] gave his interpretation of this word, saying that ‘<the Son> was not ‘of the same being as’ according to what we experience in our bodies, as if the Son had come to be by a dividing or breaking off from the Father. For his nature could not be subjected to any bodily experiences, as it does not consist of matter, exists in a spiritual realm, has no body. Therefore such things must be thought of in divine, unspeakable concepts.’ Such were the theological remarks of our most wise and most pious Emperor; but they were intent on adding the word ‘of the same being as’” to the creed. And that’s how they came up with the creed that you have today. Eusebius also wrote about a lot of other discussions that followed concerning the meaning of the word “homoousious”, but I won’t quote it here. See Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to his church regarding the Nicene Creed. And in his talk, Elder Holland explained it as an evolution of doctrines as well. He said: “In the year a.d. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged ‘trinity in unity.’ What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils) as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted ‘mystery of the trinity.’ They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.” (October General Conference 2007, “The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent”). First of all, I have never said that God became a God “in the sense of Fatherhood only”. What I said is that’s how God became our God. But let’s explore the question. What does it mean to be a “God”? Let’s look at this from a modern Christian theology point of view. You have God existing eternally as “God”. But what does that mean? Since he is the only eternal being in existence, he was all alone before he began to create things and there was nothing but him. Prior to him creating anything, what was he God over? Who were his subjects? What was his dominion over? What did he rule over? What was his “glory” for? And why would he even need a throne? None of that makes any sense until he (as a beginner) started to create things and began to have dominion and ruling authority. So even from a modern Christian theological point of view, God progressed to become a “God” by his act of creation and didn’t really become “God” until he had something to rule over and have dominion. From a Latter-day Saint point of view, God the Father has always existed as the most intelligent of all other eternal beings. And, God the Father has been creating “worlds without number” for who knows how long. So, how would he “become” a God? The only way is by creating worlds and bringing others into his realm and plan of progression.

It's odd that the LDS Church would create a doctrine of a heavenly mother but then not pose any possible explanations for her origin. You already know the drill on this topic. See Liahona, March 2017, Why don’t we know much about our Heavenly Mother? “We know that we have both a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. This knowledge appears to have originated with Joseph Smith and has been repeatedly reinforced by inspired teachings of Church leaders over the years. However, beyond the existence of a Heavenly Mother and the role of our heavenly parents in working together for the salvation and exaltation of their children, no further details about Heavenly Mother have been revealed. For now, we know enough to understand that we are children of heavenly parents, who want us to become like them. This understanding helps us see who we are and what we can become. It shows us that gender is part of our eternal identity and that men and women cannot be exalted without each other. And those are rare and precious truths in themselves.” Later in part 1 of your reply, you said that it is not defined what is meant by "we are the offspring of heavenly parents". You seem not to know yourself what literal "offspring" means, even though you claim to believe in eternal increase. God has not revealed what literal “offspring” means. It’s taught in the Bible to be literal given what the Greek word génos in Acts 17:28-29 literally means (referring to the “kind” of being that we all are). But no further details are given. Do you believe people (as eternal, uncreated intelligences) were divine in origin and nature before becoming spirit children of heavenly parents or did these eternal core elements only become present upon their spirit birth? The word “origin” implies a beginning, and spirits or intelligences are eternal and don’t have a beginning. Therefore, having a “divine origin” suggests that God (the “God of gods”, the one Supreme divine being above all) simply organized some kind of change in our eternal existence that brought us in alignment with him, which constitutes our “divine origin”. I find no ambiguity in any of the statements you quoted. An embryo is a very early developmental stage of any type of being, and lacks many of the attributes of a mature version of that being. Furthermore, your view of the definition of the word “God” is limited by your tradition similar to how you view angelic beings. For angels, you tried to assert that there is such a thing as a “nature of angels” when the Bible just uses the word “angel” as a job description. And it’s not me that says that we are the same kind of being that God is, the Bible says that in Acts 17:28-29 when it teaches that we are all the very génos of God, and the Greek word “génos” refers to the “kind” of being. We need to go with what the Bible says on that. I will withdraw my statement until I can find something more conclusive. You say that you withdraw your statement, yet you continue to misconstrue the things that Joseph Smith taught with the underlying assertion that he did teach that “many Father Gods existed before a being becomes the Father of our Earth”. If you are going to continue that assertion, then you need to support it by quoting Joseph Smith teaching such a thing. And as explained previously, Joseph Smith taught God had a “father” in the sense of his mortal experience, which means that his mortal body was begotten by a “father”. That “father” would not be his “God”, because God the Father is the “head God” and “the Eternal God of all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32). So, all your other speculation on this issue is meaningless. And the fact that various worlds are in different stages of progression doesn’t prove anything. As said above, God the Father is “the Eternal God of all other gods”, and God the Father has created “worlds without number”. So, there is no reason for you to use the fact that there are many worlds that God has created in support of your speculation that there are Gods above “the Eternal God of all other gods”. You started out with the King Follet Discourse, then you switched to the Sermon in the Grove in between, and that’s the discourse that has only one primary source for most of it, from the incomplete notes of Thomas Bullock. The King Follet Discourse is on pages 342-361 of the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and the Sermon in the Grove is on pages 369-376. Don’t confuse the two. Obviously, that would be Jesus Christ. “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”. (1 Timothy 2:5) God the Father appointed Jesus Christ to be his image bearer and mediator. In your reply on September 20 2026, you said you don't know how we are "offspring" of heavenly parents. The fact that we are the “offspring” of God (the same “kind” of being as God) is biblical. And you are the one who said how Paul’s audience would have understood the term. Why do you keep trying to get away from what Paul taught in the Bible? The key question here is this: What did Paul’s audience understand Paul to be teaching them? What about "literal father of the flesh" (which only seems to have applied to Jesus) and literal father of the spirit (which applies to all)? Hebrews 12:7-9 isn’t saying that the literal “fathers of our flesh” only applies to Jesus. It uses the word “our”, which is plural. So why would you try to say that only applies to Jesus? The verses compare the literal fathers of “our” flesh with the “Father of spirits”. It’s a direct comparison. We all have fathers of our flesh, and we all have a Father of our spirits, God the Father. The verse is teaching that God is the Father of spirits in a way similar how our earthly fathers are the fathers of our flesh, and that’s why God chastens us at times, for the same reasons why our earthly fathers may do the same. Do you believe the angels (not to be confused with spirit offspring) created by God are the same kind of being as He is? You already know that there is no such thing as the “nature of angels” in the Bible. An “angel” is just a job description in the Bible. See our prior discussion on this topic in my post on 05/26/2025 (and others). To have that job description doesn't change the individual's nature or "status", because even Jesus is described as the “angel of the LORD”. You also already know that the Bible does not teach that God created angels. And again, you still are attempting to get around the clear meaning of the word génos in Acts 17:28-29, which teaches that we are the same “kind” of being that God is. That we are the same “kind” of being as God is not something that can be explained away by attempting to divert attention to other meanings of “Father”. Focus on what the word génos means. It’s in the Bible. As for our prior discussion on the nature of angels, see the topic, “Differentiating between gods and angels”. In some way, yes. But let me clarify what I mean. Paul's use of Greek poets in Acts 17 does not mean that he was endorsing pagan theology as true revelation about God. Paul was addressing a pagan audience and used ideas familiar to them as a starting point, but he then radically redirected those ideas toward the biblical God. In Acts 17:24–31, Paul describes God as the Creator of the world, the Lord of heaven and earth, the One who needs nothing from humanity, the Judge of the world, and the One who raised Jesus from the dead. He explicitly rejects the pagan conception of deities [Zeus and others] represented by images of gold, silver, and stone. Even if Epimenides originally applied the statement ("For in him we live, and move, and have our being ") to Zeus, Paul's quotation does not mean that Paul accepted Zeus as the true God. Paul regularly used concepts and language familiar to his audience without endorsing the religious system from which they came. The other part, "for we are also his offspring" is not attributed to Epimenides. It is attributed to Aratus of Soli, from his Phaenomena. "From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed; full of Zeus are all the streets and all the market-places of men; full is the sea and the havens thereof; always we all have need of Zeus. For we are also his offspring; and he in his kindness unto men giveth favourable signs and wakeneth the people to work, reminding them of livelihood. He tells what time the soil is best for the labour of the ox and for the mattock, and what time the seasons are favourable both for the planting of trees and for casting all manner of seeds. For himself it was who set the signs in heaven, and marked out the constellations, and for the year devised what stars chiefly should give to men right signs of the seasons, to the end that all things might grow unfailingly. Wherefore him do men ever worship first and last. Hail, O Father, mighty marvel, mighty blessing unto men. Hail to thee and to the Elder Race! Hail, ye Muses, right kindly, every one! But for me, too, in answer to my prayer direct all my lay, even as is meet, to tell the stars". https://intertextual.bible/text/aratus-phaenomena-5/acts-17.28 https://netbible.org/bible/Acts+17 Paul takes language originally used of Zeus and applies it to the God he is proclaiming-without implying that Paul regarded Zeus as the true God. Good, you’re coming around. This is exactly what I said in my prior post, and what the intertextualbible reference I posted said. So, the question remains, since Paul was applying the phrases from the Greek poets to the true God of the Bible, the phrases that say, “for in him we live, and move, and have our being " (from Epimenides), and “for we are also his offspring” (from Aratus), why don’t you believe what Paul was teaching the Athenians, that we are all the very génos of God, the “kind” of being that God is? Why do you reject that teaching? John 8 provides a clear example where fatherhood language describes moral/relational affiliation rather than biological generation. No, no, and no. You keep trying to ignore and avoid the literal biological generation which is plainly displayed in the text of John 8:33-44, a passage which describes both a literal biological generation and a moral/relational affiliation. And Jesus affirmed both. Jesus said (paraphrasing), “Yes, I know you are Abraham’s seed [literal biological generation] but because you want to kill me you aren’t Abraham’s children, you have for your ‘father’ the devil” (behaviorally speaking). Do you acknowledge that there is a literal biological generation meaning of a “child” or “father” presented in the text of John 8:33-44 as well as the behavioral meaning of the same? Similarly, the Bible teaches that we are both literal “offspring” of God (génos, the very kind of being as God) and that we need to “become” his children in the moral/relational and behavioral affiliation by receiving Jesus Christ. And just like you keep trying to ignore and avoid the literal offspring of Abraham in John 8:33-44, you do the same for Acts 17:28-29 and Hebrews 12:9. Both meanings of “child” and “father” are clearly there in the text of the Bible. Jesus had both of these meanings in mind in Matthew 5:43-45 when he taught that we need to love our enemies and bless them that hate you so that you “may be” the children of our literal “Father” in heaven. According to your way of thinking, Jesus shouldn’t have said that. He should have said that we need to love our enemies and bless them that hate us, so “that you may be the children of God”, because we can only become children of God through adoption (according to you). Why did Jesus not explain it your way when he was teaching the multitude in the sermon on the mount? Why did Jesus say to the multitude that God was “your Father which is in heaven” but we “may be” his children in some other way? That is simply not true and you know it. God creating and sustaining humanity is only the beginning of Paul’s connection with his audience, not his emphasis. That omits the essential logical argument that Paul was making, without which Paul’s entire argument falls apart. The final emphasis of Paul’s sermon is the fact that we are all the very génos of God, the very kind of being as God, and since we are the very génos of God it is completely illogical to worship gods of gold, silver, or stone, because we are not gold or silver or stone (and gold or silver or stone are also creations of God that he sustains). If Paul’s only emphasis was on God creating humanity, then it puts humanity in the same box as the objects that they are worshipping and makes his argument completely meaningless, because it gives his audience no recognizable frame of reference for them to understand what God is like. But by Paul teaching that we are all the same kind of being as God, it gives his audience a perfect way of coming to understand what God is like and why it is illogical to worship gods of gold or silver or stone. We can relate to God because we are the same kind of being that he is, and without that connection Paul's argument is worthless. Come to terms with what the text is actually teaching there, and stop trying to get around the fact that Paul taught that we are all the very génos of God. The claim that Smith's statement was "only with regard to creation" is not quite right. The "worlds coming into existence" statement is certainly about creation, but Joseph Smith connects the Father's experience with working out a kingdom, obtaining kingdom upon kingdom, and receiving further exaltation. He did not provide a detailed account of the Father's earthly life. In the King Follett Discourse, however, he taught that the Father was once a man, dwelt on an earth as Jesus did, laid down His life and took it up again, and worked out His own kingdom. Joseph Smith also said that the Father obtained 'kingdom upon kingdom' and that Jesus was following in His Father's tracks ("The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power-to do what? Why, what the Father did"). I didn’t say Joseph Smith said “only with regard to creation” alone. That statement was made at the beginning of a longer sentence that included other things regarding “God the Father’s earthly experience”. I was referring to the Father’s earthly experience. And the Father obtaining “kingdom upon kingdom” and thus getting a “higher exaltation” is right in line with God the Father, the “head God” who is “the Eternal God of all other gods” having created worlds without number. So of course Jesus was following in his Father’s example. And none of this supports the mistaken idea that you are trying to portray, which is that God the Father has a God above him. It’s simply not in anything Joseph Smith taught. However, their God was Zeus – a pagan deity, like all the gods in the Greek pantheon. But the Greeks, through their own poetry and philosophy, had already stumbled onto “something real about God”, and Paul recognized that fact and used it to teach the reality of the true God of the Bible, that we are indeed his “offspring”. The fact that Zeus was a pagan deity didn’t stop Paul from using the statement from their poets to teach the truth that we are all the offspring of God of the true God of the Bible, and we are all the same kind of being as God. Why don’t you believe what Paul teaches us about God in the Bible? Before I show you Bible translations where "eternity" is used instead of everlasting for Proverbs 8:23 and Psalm 90:2, I’ll quote what a previous LDS President taught. From eternity to eternity is the same thing as from everlasting to everlasting. "... and he is the literal and personal father of the spirits of all men. He is omnipotent and omniscient; he has all power and all wisdom; and his perfections consist in the possession of all knowledge, all faith or power, all justice, all judgment, all mercy, all truth, and the fullness of all godly attributes ... If we are to have that perfect faith by which we can lay hold upon eternal life, we must believe in God as the possessor of the fullness of all these characteristics and attributes. I say also that he is an infinite and eternal being, and as an unchangeable being, he possesses these perfected powers and attributes from everlasting to everlasting, which means from eternity to eternity". The same wording is mentioned in the May 1971 Ensign article titled "The Most Important Knowledge". The same equating of the terms is also taught in the "New Testament Teacher Resource Manual". "Christ is the Great I AM, the I AM, the I AM THAT I AM, meaning that he is the Eternal One, the One ‘who is from all eternity to all eternity’ (D. & C. 39:1; Ex. 3:14), the God who is ‘from everlasting to everlasting’ (Ps. 90:2)". There are at least two big problems with your response above. First of all, whether or not some English speaking people interpret the word “everlasting” to be the same as “eternity” does nothing to disprove the original meaning of the Hebrew word ʿôlām in Proverbs 8:23 and Psalm 90:2, which Young’s Literal Translation translates (literally) as “age”. Second, you are mixing up contexts in the statements that are made in your quotes above. Saying that God “is an infinite and eternal being, and as an unchangeable being, he possesses these perfected powers and attributes from everlasting to everlasting, which means from eternity to eternity" is a completely different statement than saying he is God from eternity to eternity, which is what you misconstrue Psalm 90:2 to be saying. Latter day scripture actually uses the phrase “eternity to eternity” to say that God has specific attributes eternally. “From eternity to eternity he is the same, and his years never fail.” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:4), and “Hearken and listen to the voice of him who is from all eternity to all eternity, the Great I Am, even Jesus Christ” (Doctrine and Covenants 39:1). God the Father and Jesus Christ have existed from all eternity to all eternity, there’s no question about that. You should have also included the New World Translation of these verses, for all its worth. As with the New World Translation, translators often lean toward a translation that promotes their personal biases and theology such as those you present above. The fact of the matter remains, Hebrew word ʿôlām means “age”, and Young’s Literal Translation translates these verses literally as: “From the age I was anointed, from the first, From former states of the earth.” “Before mountains were brought forth, And Thou dost form the earth and the world, Even from age unto age Thou art God.” And the problem with Proverbs 8:23 is that you have God “setting up” and “bringing forth” something in the context of those verses. It’s not “from eternity”. You said, "The bolded portion above in the quote from Brigham Young is the only part of his address that is referenced in Nielson's article (pertaining to the presumption that "every earth has its redeemer"). And you'll notice that there is nothing in the quote from Brigham Young (above) that is remotely like anything you are attributing to Brigham Young. Maybe there is some other reference to Brigham Young saying those things? But here you only have Kent Nielson's interpretation and speculation on the items in his article". Yes. I understood your point in your reply. That's why I acknowledged your correction of me and introduced how the two statements differed. "One among these, it is presumed, was a savior for them, and through him they obtained a resurrection and an exaltation on an eternal, celestial world". That statement is a presumption. It's open to speculation. Brigham Young's statement is not a presumption. There is no speculation. "Consequently every earth has its redeemer, and every earth has its tempter; and every earth, and the people thereof ...". That statement doesn’t support what you want it to say. That statement comes from Brigham Young’s reasoning that sin is upon every earth and therefore every earth has to have a Redeemer, so that “people can be exalted to become sons of God, and enjoy a fulness of glory with the Redeemer”. It’s just as easy to read it to mean that every earth has to be redeemed by the Savior (Jesus Christ) because “sins is upon every earth that ever was created”. It's easy to see here that he is firstborn of his earthly mother. Ah, so you do acknowledge that there are also literal meanings of "firstborn" in scripture. But when it's not that "easy to see" it's easier for you to try to make it mean something else like you do below. "Begotten" does not necessarily mean "made", as in being born of heavenly parents. Several good articles explain it: https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-does-begotten-not-made-mean/ https://nickcady.org/2026/04/11/what-does-it-mean-that-jesus-is-the-begotten-son-of-god/ The New Testament connects "begotten" with Jesus being "firstborn from the dead". Acts 13:33 - Paul applies Psalm 2:7 to Jesus ("Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee"). Immediately afterward, Paul speaks of Jesus being raised from the dead ("And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption"). This is significant because Paul connects "begotten" (Psalm 2:7) with Christ's resurrection. There are others: "He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence" (Colossians 1:18). "Jesus Christ... the first begotten of the dead..." (Revelation 1:5). The Greek in Revelation 1:5 is ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν (ho prōtotokos tōn nekrōn), literally "the firstborn of the dead." So there are two closely related expressions: "Begotten" → resurrection" and "Firstborn from/of the dead" → resurrection Various Bible translations render Revelation 1:5, using either firstborn or first begotten. Here are a few examples: "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth" (KJV) "...and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth." (New King James Version). https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Revelation 1%3A5 You are doing the same thing here as you keep trying to do with the “offspring of God” teaching in Acts 17:28-29. Just because there are multiple meanings of “firstborn” does not negate the fact that Jesus is the “firstbegotten” of the Father before the world, and God brought his “firstbegotten into the world”. Even the Nicene Creed states: "We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made". Acts 13:33, which is quoting Psalm 2:7, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." The Greek word which is translated as "begotten" in that verse is the same as that used in the Nicene Creed. It is "gennao", which means "to procreate (prop. of the father, but by extens. of the mother); fig. to regenerate:--bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring". On July 26 2026, you said something similar: "And God the Father would have also had an earthly father and mother when he dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ did. And that's exactly the way Joseph Smith taught it". When the LDS Heavenly Father was born of his father and mother on that earth, which of his parents was a God at that time? Nobody was the God of God the Father. God the Father is the God of all other gods, as scripture says. And the only “grandfather” he ever had would be the like the grandfathers that Jesus had while he was on earth, as I posted on July 26, where I said, “As for the identity of Jesus’ grandfather, it depends on which genealogy is correct. According to the gospel of Matthew, his grandfather was Jacob (Matthew 1:16). According to the gospel of Luke, his grandfather was Heli (Luke 3:23). Some say this is the genealogy of Mary, but that works too. And whichever one you want to pick, God the Father is still the God of all others and has no God over him. And God the Father would have also had an earthly father and mother when he dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ did. And that’s exactly the way Joseph Smith taught it.” Do you believe Satan was evil before being born to his heavenly parents, when he supposedly existed as an eternal, uncreated intelligence? If yes, then God did not create evil. If no, then the LDS Heavenly Father knew he would become evil and used him to cause the Fall. Satan is an eternal being and as such he has had his own agency eternally. To be “evil” suggests that he always intended to bring about deliberate harm to others, but as far as I know that didn’t come about until Satan rejected God’s plan and sought to destroy God’s plan and bring others down with him. But of course the God of the Bible knew what Satan would do. The God of the Bible placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil right in the middle of the garden, and the God of the Bible cast Satan down to earth and allowed him to tempt Adam and Eve. The God of the Bible knew how it would turn out, which is why he prepared Jesus to be the “lamb” slain from before the foundations of the world (Revelation 13:8, 1 Peter 1:19-20, 2 Timothy 1:9). So, unlike your view, where you have Jesus creating Satan from nothing and bringing evil into existence by his intentional act of creation (even though the Bible says no such thing), the true God did not create Satan from nothing, and simply used the evil that came about by Satan’s rebellion as part of his plan to provide an environment for others to be able to choose between good from evil, with redemption and salvation coming through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Yes. This reminds me of the fortunate and necessary Fall in LDS theology. It's taught that people even celebrate Eve's act. Good, I’m glad that you see that LDS theology resembles early Christian doctrines. Christian doctrines have changed through time, which is why there was a need for a restoration.

What scholars may have argued may be different than what was believed at the time of Jesus. According to The One Volume Bible Commentary, Edited by The Rev. J.R. Dummelow, M.A., Queens' College Cambridge, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1936, p. 698. This is commentary on Matthew 22:28: "There was some division of opinion among the rabbis as to whether resurrection would be to a natural or to a supernatural (spiritual) life. A few took the spiritual view, e.g. Rabbi Raf is reported to have often said, 'In the world to come they shall neither eat, nor drink, nor beget children, nor trade. There is neither envy nor strife, but the just shall sit with crowns on their heads, and shall enjoy the splendour of the Divine Majesty.' But the majority inclined to a materialistic view of the resurrection. The pre-Christian book of Enoch says that the righteous after the resurrection shall live so long that they shall beget thousands. The received doctrine is laid down by Rabbi Saadia, who says, 'As the son of the widow of Sarepton, and the son of the Shunamite, ate and drank, and doubtless married wives, so shall it be in the resurrection'; and by Maimonides, who says, 'Men after the resurrection will use meat and drink and will beget children, because since the Wise Architect makes nothing in vain, it follows of necessity that the members of the body are not useless, but fulfil their functions.' The point raised by the Sadducees was often debated by the Jewish doctors, who decided that 'a woman who married two husbands in this world is restored to the first in the next.'"

I've been in Arizona for a couple of weeks and haven't read all the posts here yet (I have a lot of catching up to do). But I coincidently listened to that entire episode of Joe Rogan's podcast on part of my 10.5 hour drive between Arizona and Utah, and I really don't understand the big controversy over Dan. I have heard Dan speak highly of the church in many of his videos, and nothing he said in that interview seemed controversial. I haven't listened to Jacob Hansen's take on that interview yet (I don't have time - I need to drive to Arizona and back again to have that kind of time to listen to podcasts ). Jacob is an apologist for the church. That's his YouTube focus. And I like Jacob's approach most of the time, particularly as he testifies of Christ. But I don't think he understands Dan's YouTube focus and why the two are different. But taking potshots at fellow Latter-day Saints just doesn't seem to be in line with what the church represents in my opinion, or even for what Jacob's channel is supposed to represent. I just don't get it.

Thank you. By the way, I have no desire to do it, I was just curious about how someone could train to do it the way it is done in the opening post video. I understand why it would be exciting to do. That way makes a lot more sense than what they did in the opening post video.

I have a question. How do you go about learning to do that? It seems like a situation where the mother bird pushes her chicks out of the nest and wishes the best for them as they fall to the ground Is there a way to train for the falling with wings part of the dive without killing yourself?

It is when God the Father (the God of gods) appoints you to rule and reign with him, correlating with what it says in Revelation 3:21 and others.

A couple of weeks ago I saw this video posted by Dan McClellan: In the video Dan Beecher and Rainn Wilson said they would join the LDS church if they could "be in the Tabernacle Choir". This doesn't quite count as being "in" the Tabernacle Choir, but yesterday KSL news had the following article headline: 'My dream has come true': Rainn Wilson sings with the Tabernacle Choir Rainn Wilson is working on a documentary exploring what God means in the modern world and is meeting with people from different faiths as part of the project. He joined the choir and orchestra for a practice last week and watched their Music and the Spoken Word performance on Sunday. The KSL article mention's Dan McClellan's video and posts a link to it: I presume the video mentioned in the last paragraph of the quote above is this one, posted in July of 2025: There may be a different original source to this video, as this one is framed with a Book of Mormon quote from Enos 1:3. But I thought it was interesting that Dan McClellan got mentioned in a KSL news article as well.

I was given the DJI Avata 360 Fly More Combo. It's a lot of fun. I've taken some really fun videos, but I haven't prepared any for uploading to YouTube. I may do that at some point (probably after I retire, which may be in a few months). Awesome videos, by the way!

I can understand the thrill of doing something like this, but it's also insane. Especially considering this recent news item in Utah that happened last Sunday morning: BASE jumper dies after wingsuit failure in Cache County I was recently given a drone as a gift of appreciation from the company I work for. I had never considered buying a drone myself, but I have really enjoyed it. I definitely prefer taking videos of high places from the safety of my RC controller screen instead of dropping from the sky myself.

Right on.

I’ve “proven” that several times already. See my post on 08/30/2025 for example where I’ve “proven” that the Greek word génos refers to the “kind” of being. The word génos is the same Greek word from which we get our English word “genes”. Look up the word yourself if you don’t believe me. The Greek word translated as “offspring” in Acts 17:28-29 is génos, which Thayer’s Lexicon defines as follows: The word génos would be understood by Paul and his Greek audience in the same way the word is used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), where it is translated from the Hebrew word miyn which means species or kind, in verses like the following (referring to the Septuagint): Gen 1:21 (LXX): “And God made great whales, and every living reptile, which the waters brought forth according to their kinds [génos], and every creature that flies with wings according to its kind [génos], and God saw that they were good.” Gen 1:24 (LXX): “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature [Greek: psychen - soul] according to its kind [génos], quadrupeds and reptiles and wild beasts of the earth according to their kind [génos], and it was so.” Gen 1:25 (LXX): “And God made the wild beasts of the earth according to their kind [génos], and cattle according to their kind [génos], and all the reptiles of the earth according to their kind [génos], and God saw that they were good.” For all references above, see also the interlinear LXX here. Or where the word génos is used in the Septuagint for a family relationship, like in this verse (this reads a little differently in the Hebrew text so I don’t know the Hebrew word it was translated from here): Gen 19:38 (LXX) “And the younger also bore a son, and called his name Amman, saying, The son of my family [génos]. This is the father of the Ammanites to this present day.” And this is how Acts 17:28-29 is translated in the Latin Vulgate, translating the Greek word génos as “genus”, a word that refers to a taxonomical ranking as to the “kind” of being: “28 In ipso enim vivimus, et movemur, et sumus: sicut et quidam vestrorum poëtarum dixerunt: Ipsius enim et genus sumus. 29 Genus ergo cum simus Dei, non debemus æstimare auro, aut argento, aut lapidi, sculpturæ artis, et cogitationis hominis, divinum esse simile.” So when Paul says, “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring [génos] 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”, he’s referring to the “kind” of being that God is, which is why it makes no sense to think of divinity like unto gold, or silver, or stone, because WE are not like gold, or silver or stone. His argument absolutely does require that. See above. You are completely ignoring the meaning of the Greek word génos in making that claim and not considering how Paul’s audience would have understood the word given the meaning of the word as I explained above. You are making your theology determine what the Bible must say instead of letting the Bible speak for itself. His point is that since we are the same kind of being as God (his génos), we should not think of divinity as gold or silver or stone because WE are not gold or silver or stone. He doesn't say, “Therefore, we are gods” because there is more to being “gods” than simply being the same kind of being as God. He doesn't say, “Therefore, we possess God's divine nature”, because there is more to possessing the divine nature than being the same kind of being as God. The divine nature is something we partake of as we grow to become like our Heavenly Father (like virtue, diligence, knowledge, temperance, patience, and godliness – see 2 Peter 1:3-8). He doesn't say, “Therefore, humans can become gods” in these verses, but it is certainly part of their potential since he says we are the same “kind” of being as God. He DOES say, “Therefore, humans are the same kind of being as God.” That’s what the Greek word génos means! Wrong, you are the one reading your theology into the passage instead of letting the words (as they were used anciently) speak for themselves. Look up the Greek word génos and its Latin translation, genus. There is no way that Paul was saying that God merely created us in those verses, and the fact that we are the same kind of being as God is essential to his argument that it is illogical to worship gods of gold or silver or stone, because WE are not gold or silver or stone (we are his "offspring", his génos).

Do you really think that Paul's audience understood their Greek poets to be saying that all humans are literally Gods when they wrote, "we are his offspring"? Can you show that the Greek philosophers understood themselves to be "Gods"? I think your definition of "God" is hindered by your modern ontological definition. Jesus is the brother to all of us, the Bible says so (Hebrews 2:16-18) As stated above, I think your definition of "God" is hindered by your modern ontological definition. Have you considered the possibility that there are attributes of being called "God" that can be acquired? You said as much in the other folder. Attributes like perfect goodness, wisdom, power, or holiness? Are humans born with those attributes? And obviously it's more than being a human, since it is our spirits that come from God. Our bodies are from the dust of this earth and are created by our earthly parents. As for what Paul was teaching in Acts 17:28-29, how can your interpretation make any sense given what Paul was teaching his audience? Paul's core argument is this: "if humanity is God’s offspring, then the divine cannot be captured in images of gold, silver, or stone" (see Paul and Zeus, A Universalizing Thread in Acts). Paul was teaching them that we are all the same kind of being that God is. You said that Paul just meant we are created beings. How does your interpretation make any sense in that context?

Key word: “sometimes”. I’m familiar with these verses, and they are often used to try to divert attention away from the literal meaning of the word “offspring” (translated from génos) in Acts 17:28-29. But none of those verses have any bearing on the context of Acts 17:28-29. First, none of the examples you gave use the Greek word génos. The Greek word génos refers to the "kind" of being in this context and has a kinship meaning. There is simply no way that the Greek word génos in Acts 17:28-29 can be misconstrued to mean that we are merely created by God. It’s totally foreign to the core meaning of the word. Second, if you reimagine the meaning of the Greek word génos in this context to be non-literal, it invalidates Paul’s entire argument. Paul's core argument is this: "if humanity is God’s offspring, then the divine cannot be captured in images of gold, silver, or stone" (see Paul and Zeus, A Universalizing Thread in Acts). Your changing of the meaning of the word génos to be about God creating humanity out of nothing (which is an impossible definition of the word) totally destroys Paul's entire argument, because if humanity is merely a creation of God and gold, silver, or stone are also creations of God, then there's no difference (so why not assume that god is gold, silver, or stone?) "What Acts 17 reveals is that early Christian thinking could treat non-Jewish, non-Christian sources as real witnesses to God, even while arguing against Greek religious practice. If humanity is truly God’s offspring, as Aratus wrote about Zeus, then representing God through statues and images misses the point of that relationship entirely. The argument only works if the Greek poets were right about something essential, and that is a significant move for understanding how early Christianity saw itself within its intellectual world. What Paul is depicted describing in Athens is not a rejection of Greek thinking about God but a universalizing claim that it was always, without knowing it, about the creator God." ( Paul and Zeus, A Universalizing Thread in Acts) And finally, you haven't considered how Paul's Greek audience would have understood his teaching. Do you think they would have thought Paul was only teaching them that God created us out of nothing? There's no possible way that they would get that message out of what Paul was saying and what he quoted from their poets. And you didn't answer the question. Given what Paul was teaching in those verses do you believe that Paul meant that we are all literal Gods right now?

That is the point. In John 1:1, God the Father is referred to as “THE God”, while Jesus (the Word) is only referred to as “God” (without the article). Jesus is not “the God” in this context, he is just “God”. Jesus is not God the Father, and God the Father is “THE God” of Jesus Christ. I didn’t say it was. The point of John 1:1 is to show the subordinate relationship of Jesus to his God, God the Father, the “only true God”. John 1:1 it distinguishes “The God” (God the Father) from Jesus (“God”), and it shows that God the Father is “THE God” of Jesus Christ. Look closely at what you just said. You wrote, “John is saying that everything that was created came into existence through the Word. Nothing that was made came into existence independently of him.” Then you say, “That is why I believe Jesus created Satan”. But that is just circular reasoning. You must first presuppose that Satan “was created” or “was made”, and then you use that verse to try to prove what you already presupposed, that Jesus created Satan. But nowhere does scripture say that Satan “was created” or “was made”. The same is true for the spirits of men, because the biblical teaching is that we are all the very “génos” of God, the “kind” of being that God is. That’s not two definite articles. What you are claiming to be “two definite articles” above are the phrases “the Lord” (ὁ κύριός) and “the God” (ὁ θεός), both of which use the one and the same definite article in the Greek for two different name titles for God. A definite article is a word placed before a noun to show that the noun refers to a specific, known person, place, or thing. In English, the only definite article is "the", and Greek has only one definite article (meaning "the"), but it changes its form depending on the noun's gender, number, and grammatical case (see here). Here’s a quote from the early Christian Father Origen (185-254 AD), from his commentary on John 1:1. This is relevant to my point above about John 1:1, and to your claim that Origen didn’t teach that “the Father and the Son are two separate Gods” down below: There is no question at all that Origen considered God the Father and Jesus Christ to be two distinct Gods, as well as affirming the existence of many other Gods. If you're comparing traditional Christianity with LDS theology, these verses raise the question of how Jesus can be called God while simultaneously having God as his God and remaining subject to the Father. Traditional Christianity generally answers this through the distinction between the persons of the Father and Son while maintaining that both share the one divine nature. Right, and it’s the “share the one divine nature” part of your explanation that’s not biblical at all, and why these verses are such a problem to traditional Christianity. The verses are plainly saying that Jesus, who is God, has a God above him, and separating them into separate persons still makes two persons and two Gods. The Bible has no problem saying that God is the God of other gods, or that Jesus (who is God) has a God. There are “gods many, and lords many, but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him”. Several LDS teachings portray this "God" you refer to above as achieving godhood. Yes, he may have been a God before he became God in relation to us, but he has not always been God. A being who needs to achieve godhood has not always been God. In your July 13 2026 post, you said "I don't think anyone denies that God the Father is an "exalted man". He has "achieved Godhood" and "progressed to Godhood" in that he was once a man who is now exalted. But that's not the same thing as him "becoming God". God the Father received exaltation (his body was exalted)". From what I know of LDS theology, exaltation involves much more than getting an exalted body: • Becoming a heavenly father or mother (D&C 132:19; D&C 131:2–4). • Becoming a God (D&C 76:58–60; D&C 132:20). • Receiving a fulness of glory (D&C 76:56, 70; D&C 93:28). • Receiving a fulness of joy (D&C 138:17; D&C 93:33–35). • Being made equal in power, might, and dominion (D&C 76:95). • Receiving thrones, kingdoms, powers, and dominions (D&C 132:19–20; D&C 121:29). • Having eternal families (D&C 132:19; D&C 131:1–4). • Having a continuation of posterity / "seeds" (D&C 132:19). • Living in God's presence (D&C 76:62; D&C 130:3). This is all biblical theology as well. • Becoming a heavenly father or mother (1 Corinthians 11:11, 1 Peter 3:7). • Becoming a God (2 Corinthians 3:18, 2 Peter 1:4, 1 John 3:2). • Receiving a fulness of glory (John 17:20-23, 2 Corinthians 3:18, Colossians 3:4, 1 Thessalonians 2:12, 2 Thessalonians 2:14, 2 Timothy 2:10, Hebrews 2:10, 1 Peter 5:1-4, 2 Peter 1:3). • Receiving a fulness of joy (Psalms 16:11). • Being made equal in power, might, and dominion (Revelation 3:21). • Receiving thrones, kingdoms, powers, and dominions (Matthew 25:21, 23, Revelation 2:26, Revelation 3:21, Revelation 21:7). • Having eternal families (1 Corinthians 11:11, 1 Peter 3:7). • Having a continuation of posterity / "seeds" (Isaiah 55:3-5). • Living in God's presence (Revelation 21:3). But these things that pertain to us for how we can become like God is now, and they don’t all define what “exaltation” fully means or what it is entailed in becoming “God”. For example, Jesus didn’t have God’s “glory” until God the Father gave it to him in the beginning (John 17:5, 22, 24, 1 Peter 1:21), nor had he received a resurrected body, and Jesus was still considered to be God in the beginning. And God’s “glory” increases eternally, as God continues to create worlds and brings to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. So, there is no end to the glory and dominion that God receives. Given the fact that God the Father has always been the most advanced, most intelligent, supreme being above all others (as Joseph Smith taught), he has always possessed thrones, kingdoms, powers, and dominions. He created worlds before he dwelt on one of them. It is only in his relationship to us that he became our God. Psalm 90:2 says nothing about Christ (that’s another circular reasoning issue you have with that verse), nor does it say God is “eternally God” as you well know (“from age to age” is not the same as “eternally God”). We’ve been over that and you know better. And you also know that from Proverbs 8:22-25, where it is clear that the phrase “from everlasting” does NOT mean “eternally”, which contradicts your belief and misconstruing of scripture. That is a false interpretation of Isaiah 44:6 as the context shows. In LDS theology, no other Gods are formed to be the God of Israel, either before or after God declared himself to be the God of Israel, as Isaiah 44:6 is teaching in its context. John 17:3 says, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent". Trying to comprehend that in simple fashion would lead one to conclude that Jesus is not a true God. Or it means that Jesus was saying that God the Father is indeed the only true God and Jesus is the agent and representative, the “image” of the one true God (God the Father). This is the message all throughout the gospel of John. And, as John 17 continues to show, all those who follow Jesus can also become agents of the one true God, his representatives and images of God, becoming “one” with Jesus and his Father in the same way Jesus is one with his Father, and receiving his full glory. You are the one changing what the Bible says. When Paul says, “there is one God” in 1 Corinthians 8:4, he adds “and one Lord Jesus Christ”, showing that Jesus is considered separate and distinct from the one God that Jesus represents. And elsewhere, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). The Bible explains it perfectly. As Jesus said, God the Father is the “only true God”, but Jesus went on to explain in the same chapter how he and his Father and all the believers can become “one”, or “one God” in representing the one true God who is above all. What really creates the tension is inventing some other non-biblical way that Jesus and his Father are “one God” by combining them into one being. It’s not only non-biblical, it is also nonsensical and contradicts scripture that teaches that God is the “God of gods”. The “homoousious” doctrinal invention creates more problems than it tries to solve. Not really, not when you understand the context, how the “one God” rhetoric works, and how divine images of God work in Old Testament times. And without that understanding you come away with a lot of Bible contradictions, such as all the verses that say God is the God of gods (Deuteronomy 10:17, Joshua 22:22, Psalms 136:2-3), and that God is compared to these other gods in heaven (Psalm 89:5-7, Exodus 15:11, Psalm 97:9, Psalm 135:5). See this post in the topic thread “Many Gods in the Bible”. As for how images of God work in Old Testament times, here’s an example from the Septuagint version of Genesis 31:13: "I am God that appeared to thee in the place of God, where thou anointedst a pillar to me, and vowedst to me there a vow; now then arise and depart out of this land, depart into the land of thy nativity, and I will be with thee." The same God who is the “only true God” as Jesus said in the New Testament, obviously. I read that link. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04165.htm It does not portray Origen teaching the Father and the Son are two separate Gods. Actually, it does. See the other quote I posted from Origen, above, and my further comments, below. Don’t you even see what Origen said in the quote you posted above? God the Father and Jesus Christ are “two… persons or substances”. In other words, they are not one substance, which is what the word “homoousious” means that the Roman Emperor Constantine added to the Nicene creed from which modern Christians get this teaching today (it’s not from the Bible). And Origen goes on to describe how Jesus and his Father are “one” in the exact same way Latter-day Saints teach it and the way that Jesus himself defined it in John 17:11 and 20-23. Origin said they are “one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will.” Compare what Origen said above to this statement from the Church Newsroom article, Latter-day Saints 101: What Church Members Believe: “Do Latter-day Saints believe in the Trinity? Latter-day Saints most commonly use the term ‘Godhead’ to refer to the Trinity. The first article of faith for the Latter-day Saints reads, ‘We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.’ Latter-day Saints believe God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are separate personages, but one in will and purpose — not literally the same being or substance, as conceptions of the Holy Trinity commonly imply.” How clear can it get? Compare the two again: Origen said, “they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will”. The Church website says they “are separate personages, but one in will and purpose — not literally the same being or substance”. That’s what the earliest Christians taught and believed.

Joseph Smith taught, "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. He was once a man like us; God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did". He was not alone on his earth. He apparently lived with a woman, who would later become his wife, and with millions or billions of other people. How did Heavenly Father become a God in relation to "her" and "them"? Was she and the others offspring of Heavenly Father (the God of our Earth), or were they the offspring of some God who came before Him? I already addressed this nonsense speculation of yours last time. I’m not going to entertain your speculative meanderings. It’s pointless to discuss things that have not been revealed. Furthermore, you know there are no answers to those questions, and by asking them over and over it is an indication that you are simply trying to provoke, mock, or ridicule rather than engage in fruitful discussion. So, prepare to be ignored. It seems you are trying to cloud what the term "offspring" means. Perhaps only for what you think “offspring” means, but otherwise, no. See below. Yes, and the “Becoming Like God” Gospel Topic essay says that too, but it also says: “Latter-day Saints see all people as children of God in a full and complete sense; they consider every person divine in origin, nature, and potential. Each has an eternal core and is ‘a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents.’ Each possesses seeds of divinity and must choose whether to live in harmony or tension with that divinity.” In other words, the fact that we are the same kind of being as God (as Acts 17:28-29 teaches) is our “eternal core” (we have existed eternally), AND (note the word “and”) each of us is “a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents”. Not defined. And of course, you know that Joseph Smith didn’t teach that “many Father Gods existed before a being becomes the Father of our Earth”. You already know that, because you have never been able to show that he did. Do you want me to issue this as a CFR? You need to show where Joseph Smith taught that or quit posting this nonsense. And don’t post the same quotes that I’ve already discussed and shown that they don’t teach what you are claiming. I agree that Hebrews 12:9 calls God the "Father of spirits," but I don't think that necessarily means that our spirits are literally offspring of God in the sense of being spiritually procreated by him and a his spouse. In the biblical context, "Father" can describe God as our Creator, source, and rightful Father without implying that He physically or biologically fathered our individual spirits. The verse itself doesn't say that God and a heavenly wife produced us as spirit children. I realize you are forced to take this interpretation given that you were taught by your tradition to believe that God created all things, including human spirits, out of nothing (even though the Bible never says any such things and contradicts this teaching in Acts 17:28-29). But “in the biblical context” the meaning of Hebrews 12:9 can be perfectly understood by the surrounding verses and in the light of Acts 17:28-29, which is a clear teaching from the apostle Paul that we are the same kind of being that God is, we are his “offspring”. Look at the context. When Hebrews 12:7-9 talks about the chastening of a father to his sons, it compares the “fathers of our flesh” to the “Father of spirits”. It is talking about literal “fathers of our flesh” on the one hand as compared to the “Father of spirits” on the other hand. This is a direct comparison. But you want to change the latter meaning to be only that God created us and he is only our “Father” in a figurative sense. God also created rocks. Is God also the father of rocks and he chastens them too? Your interpretation breaks the meaning of the comparison and diminishes the impact of what is being taught there. Again, your rationalization above is an attempt to dodge the clear meaning of the word génos in Acts 17:28-29, which teaches that we are the same “kind” of being that God is. That we are the same “kind” of being as God is not something that can be explained away by attempting to divert attention to other meanings of “Father”. Focus on what the word génos means. It’s in the Bible. You can’t make it say what you are trying to make it say. Do you? I don’t. What Paul was doing was teaching his pagan audience about the true God of the Bible, and he used quotes from the Greek poets to help communicate true teachings about the God of the Bible. Even the phrase “For in him we live, and move, and have our being" is a direct quote from Epimenides (Cretica), writing about the Greek god Zeus. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides). Do you think Paul was talking about Zeus? That would mean all non-exalted beings (those who don't become Gods) are not children of the New Covenant. They are not the "sons of God". Whose sons are they? They are of the devil (John 8:44; 1 John 3:10). See my post on 02/09/2022 for a complete explanation of John 8:33-44 and how the different meanings of “child” or “father” are used in those verses and in the Bible. If you read John 8:33-44 carefully, you can see that Jesus recognized and used multiple meanings of the words “children”, “seed”, and “father”. A person can be the literal seed or “offspring” of someone but not be their “child” in a behavioral sense because they don’t follow the example that was set by that individual, like the Jews in those verses that were the literal seed of Abraham but because they didn’t do the works of Abraham they did not have Abraham as their “father”. You are latching on to a single meaning of these words without consideration of the context or allowance for the other meanings and it is wresting of scripture. Joseph Smith said, "Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner, to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life, as my Father did, and take it up again". As said before, Joseph Smith was using the "Jesus did what he saw the Father do" statement in that sermon only with regard to creation (“I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence”), and that God the Father dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ did and he had the power to lay down his life and take it up again (as you quoted above). There is no other information about God the Father's earthly experience other than that. See my post to you when you were posting as telnetd, here, here, and here. It seems you believe Paul was equating Heavenly Father with Zeus and omitted mention of Heavenly Mother; the goddess Hera. You’ve got that backwards. It seems you believe Paul was equating Heavenly Father with Zeus and Hera. Remember, you are the one who said how his audience would have understood Paul, as you said in your post on 01/02/2025: “The pagans understood ‘offspring’ in the sexual case of literal reproduction for the Greek gods; like that which occurs between male and female.” Is that why you don’t believe Paul’s teachings in those verses? Do you think Paul was talking about Zeus and Hera? I don’t believe that’s what Paul had in mind. Paul was using the language that his audience would understand to teach the true doctrine of the God of the Bible, that we are all the same “kind” of being that God is, and that we are all his “offspring”. Do you think that Paul didn’t realize what he was teaching them? I think Paul knew exactly what he was saying. The question is, why don’t you believe him? I think you need to read this article on the intertextual.bible website: Paul and Zeus - A Universalizing Thread in Acts. I would love to quote the entire article here, but that would be inappropriate. The whole article is worth reading. But I'll quote a couple of paragraphs here. After quoting from Acts 17:26-31, the article says: "Paul’s speech names the borrowing openly, referring to 'your own poets' before quoting the line. The speech describes a God who made the world and everything in it, who does not live in temples and is not served by human hands, and who placed every nation on earth so that people might 'search for God and perhaps grope around for him.' Into this description of the God of Israel, Paul drops a reference from a hymn to Zeus, not to argue against it, nor even to make a sarcastic reference, but to underline his point. The quotation works as evidence that Greek poets had already said something true about the God Paul is talking about, and the speech then draws a practical conclusion from that shared idea: if humanity is God’s offspring, then the divine cannot be captured in images of gold, silver, or stone." "Paul does not argue that Aratus was wrong about Zeus or that the Greek poets were talking about a false god. He takes what was said about Zeus and applies it directly to the God of Israel, suggesting that the Greeks, through their own poetry and philosophy, had already stumbled onto something real about God. The implication is that genuine theological knowledge is not limited to Jewish scripture but can be found in other cultures and their ways of thinking about the divine. The speech accepts that Greek thinkers recognized and described real truths and insists that those truths point towards a universalizing theme, claiming the best of Greek thought while arguing it only makes full sense in the context of what Paul is preaching." The article concludes as follows: "The verse in Acts therefore contains not one but two echoes of Greek poetry about Zeus, both repurposed to describe the God of Israel. Two separate poetic traditions about Zeus are folded into a single verse about the Christian God, and neither is dismissed or corrected, with the text treating both borrowings as honest expressions of a truth the Greek poets had grasped independently. What Acts 17 reveals is that early Christian thinking could treat non-Jewish, non-Christian sources as real witnesses to God, even while arguing against Greek religious practice. If humanity is truly God’s offspring, as Aratus wrote about Zeus, then representing God through statues and images misses the point of that relationship entirely. The argument only works if the Greek poets were right about something essential, and that is a significant move for understanding how early Christianity saw itself within its intellectual world. What Paul is depicted describing in Athens is not a rejection of Greek thinking about God but a universalizing claim that it was always, without knowing it, about the creator God." What the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe is irrelevant and a diversion away from the point of what is evident in Proverbs 8:22-25, which is that the phrase “from everlasting” does NOT mean “eternally”, which contradicts your belief and misconstruing of scripture. In the 1844 discourse, Joseph Smith taught God the Father had a Father. "If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also". Joseph Fielding Smith explicitly interpreted Joseph Smith's teaching as meaning that Heavenly Father had a Father, and that this continued backward. In Doctrines of Salvation, 2:47, he wrote "Our Father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a Father, and since there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father, until we come to a stop where we cannot go further, because of our limited capacity to understand" (Doctrines of Salvation). Do you believe these teachings? Joseph Fielding Smith was interpreting Joseph Smith based on a later published interpolation of the notes taken by Thomas Bullock, and Bullock’s notes are incomplete and are contradictory to one of the sources that Joseph Smith referenced. As I explained in my post on 05/26/2025, the original notes of Thomas Bullock indicate some confusion over the quote from Abraham 3:19, and Bullock’s notes contradict the book of Abraham. So, it’s not an entirely accurate source for Joseph Smith’s sermon, and consequently some people may misinterpret what Joseph Smith was teaching by using the published source alone, as was the case for Joseph Fielding Smith. Noted. In that April 1971 New Era article, then one could attribute the following statement to Kent Nielsen: "One among these, it is presumed, was a savior for them, and through him they obtained a resurrection and an exaltation on an eternal, celestial world". Nielsen's statement is a presumption. Yes, and if you had read my post on 05/26/2025 you would have realized that a long time ago, because that’s exactly what I said in that post, and you would have seen that I posted the entire context of Brigham Young remarks relating to the context of that statement. Firstborn does not necessarily mean first born or first created. It depends on the context. Of course. Based on the context of those three biblical verses above plus the one from D&C. That’s funny, because only the D&C verse is about Jesus, the others are not. You hand pick a few verses that have a different meaning of firstborn and apply that meaning to all other applications of the word firstborn, and you claim that “the context of those three biblical verses” (which are not about Jesus) prove that Jesus is really not “firstborn” in any other way? You can’t be serious. What about Matthew 1:25, where it says, “And [Joseph] knew her [Mary] not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS”? Does your picking and choosing of verses apply to that meaning of “firstborn” too? Why not use real biblical verses that apply to Jesus? Like: Hebrews 1:5–6: “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” The Bible's creation account does not describe God creating mankind as the offspring of a heavenly father and heavenly mother. It describes God Himself as the Creator of both male and female. The Bible’s creation account describes God forming man from the “dust of the earth” and then God placed into the man his spirit (the “breath” of life), and man became a “living soul” (Genesis 2:7). Man’s spirit came from God, for it is the “kind” of being that God is, the very génos of God, as the Bible teaches. And these teachings coincide with what the Bible teaches in Acts 17:28-29 (we are the kind of being that God is) and how God created man in Genesis 2:7, with man’s spirit coming from God. What does Joseph Smith's teaching God the Father (of Earth) having a Father mean to you? In what way is that Father the father of Heavenly Father? Do you EVER read my posts? I’ve explained that many times already, including in my last post right within the context of the quote you clipped from it above. You edited out the answer to this very question. See my post on 09/07/2026, as well as my post on 05/26/2025. Here's part of what I said: Saying that God had a father is not the same as saying that God has a God above him, because he would have had an earthly father when he dwelt on an earth, just like Joseph Smith was teaching. I’ll quote from one portion of my post on 05/26/2025 so you can find it easily if and when you go to read it. Part of what I said is this: “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.” In other words, Joseph Smith was not teaching that God the Father has a God above or before him, and he was consistent in teaching that God the Father was the “head God”, the most high God. See my post earlier in this thread on 07/26/2026. Already explained. It seems you use the terms "head God" and "most high God" in the context of only Heavenly Father and his spirit children. You’ve tried this “sphere of influence or realm” approach previously (you have several times). I realize that this is your only way out of the corner you are in, but you already know that it doesn’t work because I have responded to your attempt at this many times before. And it’s not just me, it was Joseph Smith that taught this. Joseph Smith was clear in teaching that God the Father is the “the Eternal God of all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32). This is what Joseph Smith said in the King Follet Sermon: “I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of the creation in the Bible—Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith—in, by through, and everything else. Rosh—the head. Sheit—grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, ‘The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods.’ That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council.” Joseph Smith emphasized that God is the “head God” at least eight times in the King Follet Sermon, calling him “the head, the Father of the Gods”. He was very consistent in teaching that God the Father is the Most High God. Do you believe Satan is a powerful angelic being? What I believe about Satan is irrelevant to the context and interpretation Colossians 1:15-17 and Titus 3:1. People believe all kinds of things that they read into scripture instead of letting scripture speak for itself (like the idea that Jesus created Satan). If I'm not mistaken, LDS theology puts the cause on Heavenly Father. It was part of his plan – no fall, no progression. No, you are mistaken. In LDS theology Satan is an eternal spirit that has his own agency, and Satan was not created out of nothing as you believe Jesus did in creating Satan. So, the fact that Satan existed already and God used Satan in his plan is not the same as Jesus causing the existence of all evil by creating Satan, as you believe. That sounds a lot like the early Christian notion of a “fortunate fall” (the felix culpa). St. Thomas Aquinas writes: "But there is no reason why human nature should not have been raised to something greater after sin. For God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom; hence it is written (Romans 5:20): “Where sin abounded, grace did more abound.” Hence, too, in the blessing of the Paschal candle, we say: “O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!” (Summa Theologica, III, 1, 3, ad 3; see also Catechism, 412.) Does that remind you of anything? God knew Satan would become evil when God created him. Did God make a mistake? I would say no. Obviously, it’s not a mistake if God knew Satan would become evil when God created him, it was an intentional act and it makes God the source of all evil.

I wanted to add one more thing: The apostle Paul taught that we are all literal offspring of God in Acts 17:28-29 (the Greek word translated as offspring in those verses refers to the "kind" of being, in a literal way), and given the context of his remarks that word cannot be misconstrued to mean that we are merely created by God (as that would totally destroy Paul's main point about not worshipping gods of gold or silver or stone, which are also created things). Given what Paul was teaching in those verses are you saying you believe he meant that we are all literal Gods right now? And remember, this is a Bible teaching, so if you are mocking and ridiculing Paul's teaching that we are all the offspring of God then you are just mocking and ridiculing this Bible teaching.

Not according to you (posting as theplains): We currently don't have all those attributes, even though we all are (as the Bible says) the same kind of being as God (Acts 17:28-29). Those are attributes that can be obtained through the cleansing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ and by our willingness to follow and emulate him.

Strawman indeed (same as what Pyreaux said). The other thing that will never make sense under your dichotomy are how the Hebrew superlatives work. The Bible speaks of the Holy of holies, Heaven of heavens, Sabbath of sabbaths, servant of servants, vanity of vanities, song of songs, King of kings, Lord of lords. This Hebrew grammatic construction requires that the two words connected in the expression are in the same category, but one is the "most" or "supreme" over the others. We never suppose that "holies" of the "Holy of holies" are not truly holy, rather the one is the holiest of all others. The same thing with "King of kings". There is one "King" that is supreme, one that rules over all other "kings". The same thing with "Lord of lords". There is one "Lord" that is supreme', the highest Lord over all other "lords". But when we get to the "God of gods" (Deuteronomy 10:17), the modern Christian view can't handle that. So we start hearing excuses and exceptions that these other "gods" must be idols, false gods, corrupt human judges, demons, or some other category of being that totally breaks the Hebrew superlative. It's either that God is the "God of gods", or he is: The False God of false gods The Idol of idols The Corrupt Human Judge of corrupt human judges The Devil of devils The Hebrew superlatives don't work any other way.

It was a Tuesday morning and I was with a co-worker in a car travelling from Phoenix to a client's office in California (near the Arizona / California border). I don't recall if we first heard the news on the car radio or if someone called us on a cell phone, but it was fortunate that we were travelling by car and not by plane that day. It was hard to work with the client that day because everyone was distracted by the news, and it was eerie to see no air traffic in the sky on the drive back home.

Will do.