InCognitus

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

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

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

Obviously not the same glory that God the Father "gave" to Jesus, as Jesus says in John 17:5, 22 and 24. The early Christians spoke of Jesus receiving these things only after he was begotten by the Father, i.e. "the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him" (Origen's Commentary on John, book 2 chapter 3).

"O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (John 17:5) And, "the glory which thou gavest me I have given them" (John 17:22), and "Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." (John 17:24)

The spirits of men and women (which are sometimes called "souls") are the "kind" of being that God is, all the time. What it means to be "gods" is relative to that, and obviously not clearly defined as it was shown in that quote from the early Christian writings of Clementine Homilies.

I thought of another teaching in early Christianity that is relevant to your disagreement with the early Christian views on deity (as you say above). This is from Clementine Homilies, which is an anonymous third-century literary narrative that contains an account of a debate between the apostle Peter, and Simon Magus. In answering Simon's claim that Christ is not God but the Son of God, Peter responds with this: “Learn this also: The bodies of men have immortal souls, which have been clothed with the breath of God; and having come forth from God, they are of the same substance, but they are not gods. But if they are gods, then in this way the souls of all men, both those who have died, and those who are alive, and those who shall come into being, are gods. But if in a spirit of controversy you maintain that these also are gods, what great matter is it, then, for Christ to be called God? for He has only what all have.” (Clementine Homily 16, chapter 16)

I don't think anyone is saying the Holy Spirit was totally out of the picture during the period following the death of the apostles. The Book of Mormon says that the Holy Spirit was active in bringing about many of the purposes of God during this period of time (i.e. "And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man", and "I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles" - 1 Nephi 13:12-13). But I see this similar to how God led Cyrus to cause the Jews to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity. I see God's hand in the creation of the Septuagint and in other factors that facilitated the spread of Christianity throughout the world. These are seeds being planted, but I don't think these things can be used to make claims about God preventing an apostasy from taking place. But they laid the groundwork for other things to happen later on.

See the response above from teddyaware.

I think the Pearl of Great Price is a great place to start, since the Joseph Smith History is in the Pearl of Great Price and it provides some essential background for the establishment of the church and the origin of the Book of Mormon. The Pearl of Great Price also includes doctrinal background for some of our unique doctrines like the council in heaven and Jesus being the Chosen one to redeem mankind from the beginning and Satan's rebellion (Moses 4:1-4, Abraham 3:27-28) and man's preexistence with God and Him providing the plan for others to progress (Abraham 3:22-26). Besides, it's the only book that has pictures too

I wanted to add one thing that struck me as I was reading the next paragraph of Origen's commentary on John 1:1. He said: "Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God. " (Origen's commentary on John 1, Book II, paragraph 3). Some may dislike it? It seems like most of the modern Christians dislike it. Now I'm not saying that all the earliest Christian Fathers had beliefs exactly the same as Latter-day Saints (I don't believe that). But the vast difference between their teachings and modern Christian teachings cannot go unnoticed. This underscores the reason for the need to restore the Church of Jesus Christ to the earth (and this being posted in a folder named "Great Apostasy Revisited").

Again, that's your modern definition. From an early Christian point of view there is obviously a difference in how this works. Look carefully at this teaching from Origen (185-254 AD), from Origen's commentary on John 1:1, and notice how he says Jesus is "the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity": "2. IN WHAT WAY THE LOGOS IS GOD. ERRORS TO BE AVOIDED ON THIS QUESTION. "We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God. Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so "the Logos" is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father." So being eternal isn't the definition of deity, or otherwise how did Jesus "attract to Himself divinity" according to these Christian teachings? (SO many teachings have changed through the years!)

I don’t see how understanding there being only one true God is connected with your belief we are the same kind of being God is. It's not just my belief that we are the same kind of being as God is, it was the apostle Paul's belief and teaching that we are the same kind of being as God. It's a Bible teaching. The "only true God" is God the Father as Jesus said in John 17:3. Since we are (as the Bible teaches) the same kind of being as God, it teaches us that we have a relationship with him and that he can relate to us. And Jesus provides the way for us to connect with him and come to know him. All are subject to him. All who become gods are subject to him. And Jesus is eternally subject to him as the Bible teaches: "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all". (1 Corinthians 15:28). Jesus prayed, "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are", and: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 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, 20-23) You can reason out the answer to the question you asked based on what Jesus said there.

You have never been able to demonstrate where the Bible teaches what you say above.

Ok, so you do reject the Bible teaching that we are the same "kind" of being as God. I don't think you have a good definition of what is a "God", however, at least not from how they viewed it in Bible times. You denied the same thing when posting as theplains. But, remember, you also posted this: In Acts 17:28-29 Paul was speaking to a Greek pagan audience (the Athenians). So why in the world would Paul use a term (génos) that his Greek audience would understand in the way you described it if Paul did not mean it to be understood that way? How did Paul's audience understand what Paul was teaching them? Paul meant what he said. He wouldn't lie to them. He didn't use vague references to trick them into converting to Christianity, he had a specific purpose. Paul chose that quote using that specific word for a specific purpose, and he meant it. He used it to teach his Greek audience that we (all humans) are the same kind of being as God, and therefore we shouldn't think of deity to be like gold or silver or stone, because WE are not gold or silver or stone. God created gold and silver and stone. And God created humans too, but we are different because we are the same kind of being as God. It's right there in the Bible as clear as day, and you reject this biblical teaching. This changes the whole trajectory on our relationship to God. This is why the later development of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo around 170 AD is so damaging to our relationship with God and why it contradicts the Bible. To quote Joseph Smith, "If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, we may go wrong, and it be a hard matter to get right". The Bible teaches us that we are the same kind of being as God, and later on people rejected that and started to push God further and further away. And Paul's reasoning was this: “Therefore, since we are the offspring [génos] of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising.” That is, since we are related to God (we are the same genus as he is, we are his offspring), it is illogical to even consider that God is stone, or gold, or silver, because we are not stone, or gold, or silver. If Paul was only saying that we are merely God’s creations, then Paul’s audience could easily reason that a god of any kind (gold, silver, or stone) could “create” anything it desires, and Paul’s point would be meaningless. But the strength of Paul’s argument is in the fact that we have a relationship to God as his offspring, we are the same kind of being as God, and thus to conceive of a god of any other kind is unreasonable. God is an eternal being, we are, at our core (our spirit) eternal beings (since we are the same kind of being as God). We don't currently have all the same attributes of God the Father, but we are the same kind of being going back eternally.

My heart goes out to you. I would love to hear your thoughts and point of view, but I understand. (Crazy technology sometimes - I just got off a call with someone trying to help them with a database server crash).

Is that what you believe? That the God of the Bible was not God before he created this earth? This all has to do with how we define "God". It has become popular these days to define God as anything that exists eternally, which is why later Christians (sometime after 170 AD) rejected the earlier Christian teachings that matter is eternal (because then it would be "God" according to their new definition of "God"). But the Bible indicates that there were other beings with God before creation began, so that can't be a valid definition of what is "God". It has to do with a lot more than just being eternal.

Did the Father work with others to create his world like Jesus did with Earth (who did what he saw the Father do)? Since God the Father is the most high God, he likely directed others in the work of creation of the world he dwelt on.

God the Father is not an exalted human man from another world. Being created in the image of God does not make us underdeveloped Gods. You didn't answer the question about what the Bible says in Acts 17:28-29. Do you reject that Bible teaching that we are the same "kind" of being as God? Those verses have nothing to do with being created in the image of God, they say we are the same "kind" of being as God, which is why it's foolish to worship a god of gold or silver or stone (other created things). We are not like the rest of creation because we are the same kind of being as God.

It says we are the same "kind" of being as God whether you believe the Bible or not. Doesn't that tell us a little about how we should understand "the only true God"? Did you read the verse? Remember, this is Jesus speaking: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." Who is "the only true God" in that verse? Jesus is talking to God the Father. All other Gods are subject to the "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Ephesians 4:6), and Jesus is included in that just as the Bible teaches. They have God's name put upon them. Jesus is "one" with the Father in the same way that Jesus prayed for all his disciples to be "one" with him and the Father.

That gives some weight to the idea that Bullock misheard or miswrote what was said. Exactly right.

First of all, that is a quote from a sermon that has some accuracy issues. Unlike the King Follet Sermon, our published text of the Sermon in the Grove relies primarily on the account of only one person, Thomas Bullock. And to top things off, the sermon was given during bad weather (it was raining and the sermon had to be cut short due to the rain). See my post on 05/26/2025 where I discuss some of the accuracy issues. 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.

Who made that earth where God the Father lived on? You've seen me answer that question dozens of time, so why ask questions that you already know the answer to? Who made the earth where Jesus lived on? Obviously God the Father made the earth that he lived on. Joseph Smith taught that in the King Follet Discourse: "What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence".

They taught that Jesus became God. It sounds like they did. They didn't get into the means of how he was begotten any more than we do. We have no doctrine on the process by which God is the Father of spirits (Hebrews 12:9). Only that he is just that. Right, we all have all power and all authority and rule and reign over worlds and create worlds. You should see the one I created last night (not!). Is that what you mean by being "God" now? So it really depends on your definition of "God". Do you reject the Bible teaching that we are the same kind of being as God? It sounds like you do reject it.

It's really not sola scriptura, but paying attention to what scripture says and applying what it says. And it's not that we are the "offspring" of God, even though that's a respectable translation, but that's a word that might be taken figuratively or explained away some other way. The Greek word translated as "offspring" in those verses refers to the very "kind" of being that God is (which is what the Greek word génos means at its core). We are the génos of God. That's a word that has a family relationship meaning and isn't used figuratively. That same word is translated as "genus" in the Latin translations, which is a word that has taxonomical implications. How can we be the genus of God, the same "kind" of being that he is, and be created out of nothing? That has to refer to our spirit which came from God and wasn't created by God. I really appreciate you perspective, and I understand how our view might appear to your point of view. And I understand the appeal of your view. But I have a hard time accepting that view given what I described above along with other information I have discovered about the evolution of doctrine in Christian history. I say this to you with respect and care, because I really value your presence on this board.