InCognitus

2 hours ago, Tony uk said:

I am know expert on this, but I thought I would contribute the following.

I have heard of some works, known as The Didache. These early are supposedly connected with the early days of Christianity. A modern interpretation can still be obtained in book form.

The Didache is interesting, as there are similarities between it and some of the chapters that Moroni included in the Book of Mormon.

See for example:  Book of Mormon Evidence: Didache and Moroni 2–6

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

In what time frame is the "book" considered to be of great worth unto the Gentiles?

From the time that they receive it and from that time forward.

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

After the twelve apostles of the Lamb delivered the covenants and prophecies to the 
Gentiles, how much time passed before Satan established this great and abominable 
church?

It happened concurrently.  The church of the Lamb of God was attacked immediately.  The great and abominable church consists of "he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God."  (2 Nephi 10:16)  

Whenever God's work on earth intensifies, so does the opposition against it.  The exact same situation is described in Revelation chapter 12, where "the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born" (v 4), and "when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child." (v 13)  And "the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood." (v 15).  And "the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (v 17)

The war hasn't ended.

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Is there a specific historical event that marks the formation of this church?

Maybe the war in heaven in the beginning?  Otherwise, nope.  It's been around for a long time.

The "formation" of that great and abominable church described in 1 Nephi 13 just happens in direct contrast to the formation of the church of the Lamb of God.  The devil ramped up his opposition to counter the establishment of Christ's church.

If we want to go the parallelomania route with this Julius Caesar thing, why not also have Joseph Smith using the death of Julius Caesar as the model for how Amalickiah plotted and executed the death of the king in Alma 47?  Certainly nobody could have come up with doing a death by stabbing in any other way, right?

Multiple discovery, or simultaneous inventions (inventions are made independently and more or less simultaneously by multiple scientists and inventors), is a thing.  It happens all the time.  People have known about this phenomena for years.  So what's the big deal?

22 hours ago, Devobah said:

To be considered Christian by the Body of Christ, you must hold to this belief as stated in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. My studies mainly wanted to focus on what regular people understood about this doctrine.

I think even the non-regular people don't really understand it.  Athanasius should be an authority on the matter (one would think).  He wrote the following about his efforts to understand "the Divinity of the Word", in his First Letter to Monks. (Written 358-360):

"In compliance with your affectionate request, which you have frequently urged upon me, I have written a short account of the sufferings which ourselves and the Church have undergone, refuting, according to my ability, the accursed heresy of the Arian madmen, and proving how entirely it is alien from the Truth. And I thought it needful to represent to your Piety what pains the writing of these things has cost me, in order that you may understand thereby how truly the blessed Apostle has said, 'O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God Romans 11:33;' and may kindly bear with a weak man such as I am by nature. For the more I desired to write, and endeavored to force myself to understand the Divinity of the Word, so much the more did the knowledge thereof withdraw itself from me; and in proportion as I thought that I apprehended it, in so much I perceived myself to fail of doing so. Moreover also I was unable to express in writing even what I seemed to myself to understand; and that which I wrote was unequal to the imperfect shadow of the truth which existed in my conception."

He goes on to say:  "Accordingly I have written as well as I was able; and you, dearly beloved, receive these communications not as containing a perfect exposition of the Godhead of the Word, but as being merely a refutation of the impiety of the enemies of Christ, and as containing and affording to those who desire it, suggestions for arriving at a pious and sound faith in Christ."  

In other words, "I can't explain what we believe, but at least we have refuted the enemies of Christ" (because that's what is most important, right?)

45 minutes ago, webbles said:

They actually didn't make up a new word in the Council of Nicaea.  The word "homoousious" had been around since at least the 2nd century.  Gnostics used it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoousion#Pre-Nicene_usage.  They used it to describe the "emanations" from God.  At some point, the church fathers came across it and then used it in the Nicene Creed.

According to Eusebius of Caesarea, in his letter to his church regarding the Nicene Creed, he says it was the Emperor Constantine that requested that the word “homoousios” be added to the creed.  (Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to his church regarding the Nicene Creed, see also here).  And that's the word that seems to be responsible for the modern Christian understanding of how the Father and Son are "one".

It's clear that Christians prior to the formulation of that creed didn't think of the Father and Son being "one" in the way modern Trinitarians explain it.  They taught that Jesus is a "second God" or "another God", and had no problem with the existence of other gods that exist in reality.  It's interesting to me how it all evolved into the way it is explained today, and it seems so totally foreign to the way the relationship between the Father and Son was explained previously.

1 hour ago, Devobah said:

Those who try to use analogies will usually fall into heresy.

I came across this video recently while reading an old (2014) thread on this board (i.e. What's Your Analogy Of The Trinity).  Maybe you've seen it already, but the video does a great job of presenting the analogy problem in a very humorous way, and it's relevant to the points you made in your opening post:

 

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

nonscientific methodologies…like ‘woo’.

What's 'woo'?

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

You too. I do hope 2925 is a good year for me 

You people remind me too much of my clients this time of year  

(I'm a consultant for a major construction accounting software package, and I can't count the number of calls that I get to help fix bad entry dates at this time of year.)

35 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Not sure if you are or not. I am just trying to guess at why the church leaders back then did not use qualifiers like Marineland wanted. Whenever they spoke they hoped that they were led by the spirit so they could speak with confidence in what they were saying. I agree Elder Pratt was often usually speaking by the spirit, but he did seem to agree that sometimes he did not. He did learn the difference like you say but did his audience know the difference? 

I was adding an addendum to my post at the same time you were responding to it, so you may have missed that part.

I see what you were trying to get at now (based on how I found that quote had been used), but I take issue with your statement that, "They felt that teaching by the spirit means whatever they say is the will of God", because Orson Pratt explained that he recognized the clear difference between his early experience(s) and actually speaking by the Spirit.

I think it's more accurate to say that they felt that speaking extemporaneously was the best way that would lead them to teach by the Spirit, but sometimes they struggled with the latter.

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

The early Saints felt that they should preach strictly by the Spirit. Elder Orson Pratt said, sometimes he – and probably other speakers – gave sermons when their “mind[s] seemed to be entirely closed up....” Recalling such an incident, Pratt remarked, “What few words I could stammer forth before a congregation, were altogether unsatisfactory to my own mind, and I presume to those who heard me.”

They felt that teaching by the spirit means whatever they say is the will of God.  So therefore no qualifiers. Of course the issue is they may not have been teaching by the spirt sometimes. 

Either I am misunderstanding what you are saying here, or I don't think you are reading that quotation accurately given the context.  At least I don't find the generalization you make that "early Saints" (as you put it) "felt that teaching by the spirit means whatever they say is the will of God" is correct, and I certainly don't get that at all from the full context of Orson Pratt's talk that you quoted.  He makes a very clear contrast between the experience he had in the portion of his talk that you quoted, and what he later described as being able to teach by the power and gift of the Holy Ghost.  Here's a more complete context of his remarks (with the portion you quoted shown in blue italics):

Quote

I have, through upwards of forty years' experience in the public ministry, learned some few lessons in regard to public speaking.  In the first place I know that the wisdom of man avails but very little, and that our own judgment, thoughts and reflections are not what the Lord requires; but he does require, and has required, ever since the rise of this Church, that his servants should speak by the power of the Holy Ghost.  A revelation given to the Elders of this Church in the year 1831, says, "My servants shall be sent forth to the east and to the west, and to the north and to the south, and they shall lift up their voices and speak and prophecy, as seemeth me good; but if you receive not the Spirit you shall not teach."  This is a commandment that the Lord gave to his servants over forty years ago.  I have seen a few times from the commencement of my ministry, when my mind seemed to be entirely closed up, and when what few words I could stammer forth before a congregation, were altogether unsatisfactory to my own mind, and I presume to those who heard me.  But I do feel thankful to God that latterly, from year to year, he has favored me with a liberty of utterance and with the power and gift of the Holy Ghost.  I acknowledge his hand in this, for I know it has come from him, and having experienced the two conditions of mind I know the difference.  I know that, not only as public speakers, but as individual members of the Church of the living God, there are many things pertaining to our everyday duties, which if we clearly understood by the light of the Spirit, we would escape many things which cause unhappiness.  It is the want of clearly understanding the will of the Lord under all circumstances that causes us to fall into many of the evils that we pass through in life.  I can look back on my past life and can speak from experience in these matters.  I can remember many times when, if I had been guided by the Spirit of the Lord in regard to temporal matters, it would have been well with me; but not altogether understanding what the mind of the Spirit was, the course I have taken at times has been very disadvantageous to me.   (Journal of Discourses, Vol.15, p.230 - p.231, Orson Pratt, November 24, 1972)

So in other words, the portion you quoted was Elder Pratt's example of NOT teaching by the Spirit, whereas he later had many experiences by which he clearly knew he was teaching by the power and gift of the Holy Ghost.

I think it's also important to point out that he also makes a clear distinction between the "wisdom of man... our own judgement, thoughts and reflections" and speaking "by the power of the Holy Ghost", which (again, if I understood you correctly) is exactly the opposite of the way you used the quotation.

Am I misunderstanding you?

ETA:  I did some googling, and I see how the quote you used has been utilized to explain that the early Saints felt that they should preach strictly by the Spirit and thus they rarely gave memorized or pre-written sermons (nearly all sermons were given extemporaneously), and that the quote you used demonstrates Elder Pratt's early attempts at trying to do that.  But I think it's important to recognize the difference between his early attempts and his later experiences in teaching by the Spirit.

44 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I read all those books. I was rooting for the AntiChrist. Then I realized that in the series that Christ and the AntiChrist were sort of on the same side. God had a bigger body count than Satan. It is not the story of the Lamb defeating the Horny Beast of Revelation. It is more the Hornier Beast of God beating up the Horny Beast of the Dragon.

Also the misogyny and pride and arrogance and callousness of the heroes of those novels is just disgusting. Add in that no one in the novels reacts like a human. Every child on Earth and a substantial number of adults all vanish and it seems like most everyone mostly forgets about it a few weeks later. Somehow it gets a “Pacifist” into power. Wouldn’t it be more likely to lead to autocrats promising to find the missing kids or to get revenge on whoever or whatever took them? The “hero” journalist finds out about all kinds of dark dealings but makes deals with evil people to squash the stories for protection. Later he just refuses to share the truth for no good reason. Every nation on Earth suddenly surrenders their sovereignty to the UN for no reason.

Cause and effect don’t seem to matter at all. Very badly written books written by bad people with bad ideas.

And there is the reason I made that book series the butt of my end times joke.

18 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

What exactly does "end times" mean? What is it the end of? 

I often thought that the Left Behind book series (and movies) would get the "end" times right if first sequel had been named:  Right Behind: Turning the Other Cheek

45 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

What are some different ways to understand Brigham’s teaching that Adam is God our Father? Which of them is true and which are false?

That's impossible to know without having more information on what Brigham Young meant.  We will know when we meet God.

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

Were people who perceived Brigham's teaching of Adam being God our Father as truth deceiving themselves if that teaching is actually false?

As I was saying, it's not always that simple.  People misunderstand teachings all the time.  All of us have incomplete understandings of the things of God.  But where it can become a false doctrine is when a person takes their own interpretation of a doctrine and teaches it to others as the one and only way to understand a particular teaching.  

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

For example, consider this graph showing an increase in political violence in the U.S.:

Very troubling stuff, this.  And it appears to be rising across the political spectrum. 

It's interesting that you bring this up, because the polarization of views and the attacks between two opposing groups (as illustrated in resent trends in the United States as illustrated above) was the focus of our Gospel Doctrine lessons yesterday (at least in my own ward and in my mom's ward - I spoke with her on the phone about it last night).  

The last chapters of the Book or Mormon has Mormon having to deal with two opposing groups that want to kill each other off, and the mentality that goes a long with that.  And knowing his time is short, Mormon passes the record keeping duties to his son, Moroni, who in one of his first "endings" to the Book of Mormon (Mormon chapter eight) laments the death of his father and recounts the extreme bloodshed and hatred between the two groups, and he says his people have been hunted by the Lamanites and he is alone and fears for his own life.  Moroni lacks confidence because of his own weaknesses and the burden of the record keeping task, a task that he performs out of duty to his father's commandment to him.

But as time goes on Moroni finds himself still alive and has time to review the records and add more to them.  In Ether 12 he has a conversation with the Lord and comes to grips with grace and charity and what that means relative to his own weaknesses and his acceptance by the Lord.  Moroni's view of the Lamanites changes from them being the enemy (even though he says they are still trying to destroy him - Moroni chapter 1), to him having a desire to write things that "may be of worth unto my brethren, the Lamanites, in some future day" (Moroni 1:4).  His motive in his record keeping changes from duty to love of his brethren.  He sees the Lamanites through the eyes of God instead of through the crosshairs of his weapon (this is a figure of speech, I don't really think Moroni had a weapon with crosshairs). 

As a result, charity becomes a big topic in the last chapters Moroni includes in the book, including the letters he quotes from his father Mormon (Moroni chapters seven and eight).  

So the moral of the story is, unless we want to have an ending similar to the Jaredites or the Nephites, we better be working on charity and seeing our brethren through the eyes of God instead of through some other label that society puts upon them.

9 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

Everyone has the freedom to choose to believe in false teachings, but I don’t know anyone who consciously chooses to accept something they know is false and then willingly follows it. People are misled by deception.

It's not always that simple.

Humans tend to want things to make sense to them, and people will interpret teachings to fit their own way of thinking.  In that way it doesn't start out as a dishonest approach or even deception, but eventually some of those interpretations get passed down as actual doctrines (even though some of it may be false doctrines), and people many generations later simply accept the teachings based on tradition.

In addition to the above, humans also tend to react in extreme ways to teachings they perceive as false doctrine, and in their extreme reaction to the false teachings they establish ways of reinterpreting their prior teachings so that the perceived false teachings are counteracted completely.  And in doing this they sometimes err in the opposite direction (and thus create false doctrines of their own).  Again, this is not because someone is trying to deceive them, but they are deceiving themselves by their own desire to be right and counteract the teaching they perceive to be false.

4 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Okay who's drones do you think these are flying over New Jersey and Pennsylvania? I guess a group of them followed a coast guard vessel too.

I think they are either our own military drones or they are Chinese spy drones being flown by private citizens or residents. I'm surprised some redneck hasn't shot one down already.

I think they are excommunicated drones from the 1950 hymnal version of the hymn "Have I Done Any Good?"

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

Prior to getting to go to Jerusalem, where are they gathering to?

Why to Jerusalem instead of Salt Lake City, Utah or Independence, Missouri?

We have already discussed this, over and over again.  Reread this entire thread, and keep in mind the way that the Lord gathered his people the first time (at the Exodus out of Egypt and gathering at the temple of Mount Sinai to make covenants) prior to them being led into the lands promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  And now we are experiencing when “the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people”.  There is no reason to expect that the gathering the second time would follow a different pattern than the first time.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

The purification which Paul and some other men undertook was an isolated case and not a model 
for all Christians. Acts 21:24 seems to relate to the purification ritual for those four Israelite 
men who had taken a Nazarite vow. It was also applicable to women (Numbers 6:2, 18-21). 

This involved them shaving their heads. Paul was advised by the elders in Jerusalem to participate.  
This was suggested to counter rumors that Paul was teaching Jews to abandon the Law of Moses. By 
joining these men in their rites and paying for their expenses, Paul would publicly show that he 
still observed Jewish laws and customs.

There is no indication Paul performed all the abstinence entailed by the Nazarite vow (like bringing
a lamb for a trespass offering – Numbers 6:12), followed by shaving his head.

In your post on 11/05/2024, you asked me “What sacred purposes do you believe the temple served for Christians prior to it being destroyed by the Romans?”   Your question was about the Jewish temple at Jerusalem (obviously) since it was the one destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.

I gave you a synopsis of how Christians used the Jerusalem temple very much like you are describing above.  So we are in agreement on these things.  The point is that Christians still revered the temple as a sacred place for the things of God even after the coming of Christ.  It was not something that they discarded as no longer relevant as you insinuated; they continued “daily with one accord in the temple”, it was still important to them.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

Christians did not go to the temple for marriage and proxy baptism.  The font was being used by 
the Levitical priests for ceremonial washing before and after the animal sacrifices.

Not to the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, no.  I never said they did (nor do I believe they did).

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

You never did mention what ordinances you believe they were performing in the temple.  

You never did ask me what ordinances I believe they were performing in the temple.  I don’t believe they were performing any ordinances in the Jewish temple at Jerusalem.  That does not mean they did not perform those ordinances elsewhere, because it is obvious that they did.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

The LDS seminary manual includes women as becoming priests.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual-2017/chapter-28-doctrine-and-covenants-76-50-119?lang=eng#p21

"Those who achieve their eternal potential and receive an inheritance in the celestial kingdom 
will become priests and kings, priestesses and queens, and their exaltation includes the promise 
that they are gods".

That happens to those in the future in the celestial kingdom, yes.  But currently only men are ordained to priesthood offices in this life.  

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

Where does the New Testament say that?  Or are you just stating what you believe again?

See above. I included comments on how Gentiles and Israelites interacted with the temple.

You included lots of comments on how Gentiles and Israelites interacted with the Jewish temple at Jerusalem, but you didn’t answer the question.  Remember, my question was in response to your assertion as quoted below:

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

No temple ordinances were required for the Gentile and Israelite Christians.

In response to the above, I asked you, “Where does the New Testament say that?”  Meaning, where does it say, “no temple ordinances were required for Gentile and Israelite Christians”?   (It doesn’t).

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

“Most likely”, you say.  But however you try to frame it, it is still evidence of God’s recognition of the importance of temples after the time of Christ and in New Testament Christianity.  In other words, temples are still important to God.

And after all of this, you still didn’t answer the question.  I’ll restate it here:

It is obvious in the New Testament that God’s temples are intended to continue, because it is not until the earth is renewed and becomes celestialized and the holy city new Jerusalem comes out of heaven that it finally becomes noteworthy that there will be “no temple therein for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it” (Revelation 21:22).  Why would the biblical text draw attention to the absence of a temple in that city if temples were done away at Christ’s first coming as you suppose?

There is one temple in the Book of Revelation, in heaven (Revelation 7:13-15; 11:19). There is 
no temple in the city of New Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven to earth. Outside of that 
city and on earth, there is no temple in the Millennium or afterwards.  Christians do not need 
the Old Testament system of things involving the temple.  Christian ordinances were not impacted 
by the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.

And you still didn’t answer the question that I was asking about Revelation 21:22.

Before I get back to that, let me address each of your comments in the paragraph above as follows:

• There is one temple in the Book of Revelation, in heaven (Revelation 7:13-15; 11:19). 

You forgot about Revelation 3:12, where Jesus says that those who overcome are made to be a “pillar in in the temple of my God” and they will “go no more out”.  A person who is a “pillar” is regarded as reliable or essential to the support of something.  For example, Peter, James, and John were considered to be “pillars” in the church (Galatians 2:9), and the church itself was called “the pillar and ground of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15)   

So Revelation 3:12 is confirmation of the continued importance of the temple and those who serve in it as it pertains to New Testament Christianity.

• There is no temple in the city of New Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven to earth. 

Yes, and you still didn’t answer the question on why that was so noteworthy!  (I’ll ask the question again below). 

• Outside of that city and on earth, there is no temple in the Millennium or afterwards.  

The city of New Jerusalem comes down from heaven after the Millennium (compare Revelation 20 to 21).  It is only then that the lack of a temple in that city is noteworthy.  Why would that be so noteworthy if there is no temple in the Millennium as you imagine?  

• Christians do not need the Old Testament system of things involving the temple.  

That is correct.  The system of things involving the temple was changed at the coming of Christ.

• Christian ordinances were not impacted by the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.

I agree, Christian temple ordinances were done elsewhere.

But here we are, back to the question that you still haven’t answered.  In your post on 10/02/2024 you said, “We don't build temples because our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost.”  In that statement you imply that temples no longer serve any purpose in New Testament Christianity “because our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost”.  Yet when we compare what you say to Christian behavior in New Testament times, they were “continuing daily with one accord in the temple” (Acts 2:46), and those Christians who “overcome” are “pillars” in the temple of the God of Jesus Christ (Revelation 3:12).   

So if temples no longer serve any purpose in Christianity and you no longer “build temples because our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost” (as you suppose), then why does the biblical text go out of its way to point out the fact that the city of new Jerusalem that comes down from heaven after the earth is celestialized has no temple in it?  (Revelation 21:22).  Why is that even noteworthy if temples were done away since the time of Christ as you seem to think?

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, now you are getting it.  The Israelites will have the entire earth as their land of inheritance.  That’s what the Bible says.  The “meek” includes Israelites and it also includes the Gentiles who become “Israel” (the people of God) in the covenant with Christ.  The people of God inherit the earth, and all others are “cut off” from that inheritance.  And the land promised to Abraham will also be theirs and they will be able to inhabit those lands in fulfillment of that covenant.

"Spiritual Israel" is another term for those Gentiles and Israelites who become "Israel" (the 
people of God).

Or, they are literal Gentiles who are literal Israelites (as discussed in my last post).

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

Ether 13:8 says, "Wherefore, the remnant of the house of Joseph shall be built upon this land; 
and it shall be a land of their inheritance; and they shall build up a holy city unto the Lord, 
like unto the Jerusalem of old; and they shall no more be confounded, until the end come when 
the earth shall pass away".

Do you believe some Gentiles, who make up "spiritual Israel", also inherit the land or do you 
believe that the land is reserved primarily for the remnant of the house of Joseph like Ether 13 
says?  

Is the "land" only the United States or does it encompass all of the Americas?

Why would only the house of Joseph build up that holy city?

The Lord doesn’t distinguish between “spiritual Israel” (as you call it) and the remnant of the house of Joseph.  Joseph was to become a “multitude of Gentiles” (nations) as the scripture says, and it is to that promise from God that the inheritance is given.

Why would the house of Joseph be the ones building up that holy city?  For the same reason as the topic of this entire thread.  Go back and read it from the beginning.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

Of course not, the Bible was written from the viewpoint of the Jews centered around Judaea in the land of Israel, and it covers a portion of their history and the words of their prophets.  Why would you think that anything specifically about America would be considered relevant to them?

That's the relevant question.  Why? Because America is not what their prophets are teaching the 
literal Israelites about their lands of inheritance.

You forget that “their prophets” (in a major part of the Bible) were prophets pertaining only to Judea, not the northern tribes.  So “their prophets” would have no concern about Ephraim and Manasseh and any inheritance of theirs in the Americas.  “Their prophets” had their hands full with problems of their own in their part of the world.

But the prophets pertaining to the northern tribes were disbursed throughout the world, and their writings aren’t contained in the Bible.  And God doesn’t forget his people.

And the initial prophecies about the land of Canaan as promised to Abraham and his seed still symbolizes the initial covenant made with Abraham.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

But the lands promised to Abraham are reaffirmed frequently in the Bible because those lands are tied to the original covenant that God made with Abraham.

That's what I've been saying about the land covenant with Abraham and his literal, saved 
descendants.  This land covenant is not for Gentile members who become "spiritual Israel" 
when they accept Christ as Savior.

Who are the “seed of Abraham” or “children of Abraham” according to the Bible?   

God told Abraham, “Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:  For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.  And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered”?  (Genesis 13:14–16)

Who do you think God had in mind when he said to Abraham that “thy seed” shall inherit that land forever, and also “thy seed” shall be numbered as the dust of the earth?  

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

How do you believe Jacob 5:21, 23, 25, 43 applies to Israel?

Jacob 5:21, 23, and 25 refers back to verses 8 and 13-14, where the Lord (Jesus) of the vineyard (the world) cut off branches from the tame olive tree (Israel) and “hid the natural branches of the tame olive tree in the nethermost part of the vineyard”.  They represent unnamed tribes of scattered Israel to various parts of the world, in all different conditions, and the Lord goes to visit them (Jesus was sent only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”). 

Verse 43 likely refers to the Nephites and Lamanites in their fallen and apostate condition.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

Actually, the “hand” in the verse you quoted belongs to the Lord, not Ezekiel (Ezekiel is speaking the words of the Lord in the first person).  And it can’t be Ezekiel for the fulfillment anyway, since the realization of the events described in the prophecy happen far into the future from the time of Ezekiel when the Lord shall take the children of Israel from among the heathen and gather them on every side, and then bring them into their own land.  But we’ve already discussed all of this.

You're right to some degree. I should have been more precise.

15:  The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, 

16:  Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the 
children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the 
stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: 

17:  And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. 

18:  And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us 
what thou meanest by these? 

19:  Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is 
in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even 
with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand. 

20:  And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes. 

In verse 16, Ezekiel initially has the sticks in his hand and writes upon them. Ezekiel does not 
write books.  In verse 17, the two sticks become one stick in Ezekiel's hand. He has no Bible or 
Book of Mormon.  In verse 19, God says the stick (the two nations) will now be one in His hand.  
In verse 20, the sticks are back in Ezekiel's hand.  Verse 22 identifies the two sticks as two 
nations.

We have already discussed this previously, over and over.  I already explained that the two writing tablets (as it is translated in the New English Bible) symbolize the two nations (northern and southern kingdoms) and their records (they are not the records themselves).  See specifically my post on 04/19/2024.  Reread the thread.  

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

This is what I’ve been saying all along (although clearly the “general sense” includes both saved Israelites and Gentiles).  I’m glad you finally agree.  

But God doesn’t see them as “Jews and Gentiles”.  In Romans 9-11, Paul explains that the Gentiles (the wild branches) are grafted in to the “olive tree” which is Israel. The Gentiles become part of that “tree”, and they belong to Israel.

But this is separate from the land inheritance God promised to literal Israel.  Unless you believe 
the Old Testament promises to Israel have been usurped by the Church.

I believe the Old Testament promises to Abraham apply to all the faithful of Abraham’s seed.  Nothing is usurped by the Church, they are one in the same.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

Where are the "meek" inhabitants of the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms?

Those who inherit the celestialized earth are the meek.    

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

What other people groups (non-Israelites) was Nephi aware of?  

How do you speculate he knew he was on a continent instead of an island?

The Jaredites, for one.  

As for the “island” comment, see our prior discussions on that topic.  

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

Now for the calculation:  Rough estimates of the total number of people who have ever lived on the earth range from 100 billion to 117 billion (and I’d be surprised if those estimates include the infants who died in their first year of life, but we’ll still go with this).  Let’s take the lower estimate of 100 billion for this example to keep it simple. 

Eight percent of 100 billion is 8 billion people.  The current population of the earth is roughly 8 billion.  And that pretty much covers it (pun intended).

So the bottom line is that your arguments above don’t add up.

You assume ALL (saved and unsaved) literal descendants of Abraham will be squashed into the land 
of Israel for their inheritance.  And don't forget … D&C says the earth will be celestialized, so 
the telestials and terrestrials are eliminated from inheriting Earth.

I assume no such thing.  Did you not even read what I wrote last time at all?   Or are you just ignoring my arguments just so you can repeat what you believe over and over?  Go back and reread what I said in that section.

I clearly said “the celestializing of the earth occurs after the final resurrection (Revelation 21), and the people that will inherit the earth are all those who inherit the celestial kingdom [i.e. “the saved”] that lived and died from the beginning of creation.”  

The 8 billion people I calculated are for “the saved” who inherit the celestial kingdom and inherit the earth, and that number is very conservative given that on average that 27% of newborn babies died in their first year of life (prior to modern times), and little children are heirs of the celestial kingdom.  

As for the seed of Abraham, in the book of Ecclesiasticus (in the Apocrypha), it is says of Abraham: “Abraham was a great father of many people: in glory was there none like unto him; who kept the law of the most High, and was in covenant with him: he established the covenant in his flesh; and when he was proved, he was found faithful. Therefore he assured him by an oath, that he would bless the nations in his seed, and that he would multiply him as the dust of the earth, and exalt his seed as the stars, and cause them to inherit from sea to sea, and from the river unto the utmost part of the land.”  (Ecclesiasticus 44:19–21)

In Genesis 13:14-15, God promised Abraham that his seed would be given the land “forever”.  Therefore, God’s promises to Abraham about his seed being multiplied as the dust of the earth and exalted as the stars are pertaining to the faithful seed of Abraham (i.e. “the saved”), the only ones who are given the land “forever”. 

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

We don't know much of what Jesus taught them in that 40-day period.

But we do know that Jesus couldn’t have possibly taught them to go to the Gentiles during that forty-day period, or otherwise why didn’t any of the apostles know that they should be going to the Gentiles until God revealed it to Peter in Acts 10?

Don’t you think that at least one of the eleven apostles would have remembered that Jesus said “Go to all the world – meaning the Gentiles”?  Obviously he couldn’t have possibly meant for them to do that until Acts 10.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

During his mortal ministry, 
I believe Jesus gave them a glimpse of the Gentiles coming into the fold by referring to the 
other sheep (John 10:16) but they would not yet understand this. 

They wouldn’t have understood that he meant the Gentiles because clearly that’s not what Jesus meant, since the Gentiles would not “hear [his] voice” and Jesus did not “bring” them personally, because Jesus clearly said that he was only sent “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”.  

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

Why wasn't Peter given the vision to go among the Gentiles shortly after Pentecost?  I don't 
know.

I do.  Jesus didn’t tell them they could even consider going to the Gentiles until Acts 10.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

The scriptures I mentioned earlier give an ample explanation of why the Gentiles perfectly fit 
the "other sheep".  The original sheep pen are the Israelites but they do not make up the entire 
sheep fold.

The scriptures you mentioned give an explanation on how the Gentiles were adopted into the fold later (after Acts 10).  But the original sheep are the Israelites that make up the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” that Jesus said would hear his voice and he would go to personally.

The Gentiles were not adopted into the fold until later and Jesus did not go to them personally (he sent his apostles to do that).

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

There are many-a-scholar too in the LDS Church that have their opinions.

But opinions are different from what God has revealed to us in his scripture:

“16 This much did the Father command me, that I should tell unto them:  17 That other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 18 And now, because of stiffneckedness and unbelief they understood not my word; therefore I was commanded to say no more of the Father concerning this thing unto them. 19 But, verily, I say unto you that the Father hath commanded me, and I tell it unto you, that ye were separated from among them because of their iniquity; therefore it is because of their iniquity that they know not of you.  20 And verily, I say unto you again that the other tribes hath the Father separated from them; and it is because of their iniquity that they know not of them. 21 And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 22 And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching.  23 And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost.  24 But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me.

“1 And verily, verily, I say unto you that I have other sheep, which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any parts of that land round about whither I have been to minister.   2 For they of whom I speak are they who have not as yet heard my voice; neither have I at any time manifested myself unto them.  3 But I have received a commandment of the Father that I shall go unto them, and that they shall hear my voice, and shall be numbered among my sheep, that there may be one fold and one shepherd; therefore I go to show myself unto them.”  (3 Nephi 15:16–16:3)

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

Jesus, during his mortal ministry, went to the house of Israel.  Afterwards, he would go to the 
Gentiles through evangelists.

Afterwards he did not go to the Gentiles, he sent his apostles.  The Gentiles did not “hear his voice”, they heard the message through his apostles.  This is among the many reasons your interpretation of John 10:16 doesn’t work.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

"For he [Christ] is our peace, who hath made both [Israelites and Gentiles] one [one fold], and 
hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, 
even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, 
so making peace; And that he might reconcile [Israelites and Gentiles] both unto God in one body 
[one fold] by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And [Jesus] came and preached peace to 
you [the Gentiles] which were afar off, and to them that were nigh" (Ephesians 2:14-17). 

It's really easy to believe the scripture when you put aside the LDS teaching.

This is just cherry-picking verses to support your presupposed interpretation.  There is no question that the Gentiles are adopted into the fold later by being grafted into the olive tree of Israel (Romans 11).   But we are talking about what Jesus meant when he said there were “other sheep” that he would personally bring and they would “hear his voice” and follow the good shepherd and become part of his fold, and there would be “one fold” and “one shepherd”.  

And Jesus always said that he was only sent to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”.   And yes, it’s really easy to believe scripture when you look at all of the relevant verses and not ignore what Jesus said and keep things in context.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you believe that the apostles and prophets in Bible times were infallible?  Do you believe they never taught or believed anything that turned out to be false?

Maybe if you give provide 1 or 2 key examples each from the Book of Mormon, Bible, Pearl of Great 
Price, the Doctrine and Covenants, or General Conference, or LDS Church seminary manuals, then I 
could address it more appropriately.

Examples aren’t necessary for you to say what you believe on this matter.  Either you believe it or you don’t.

Do you believe that the apostles and prophets in Bible times were infallible?  

Do you believe they [the apostles and prophets in the Bible] never taught or believed anything that turned out to be false?

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you think what you said above also applies to activities on a message board?  What if a person creates multiple usernames and sets up a false identity and claims to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when they really are not, just to try to cause confusion on doctrinal matters and to use the username as a tool for misleading others and manipulating the conversation in a message thread?

I am not a member of the LDS Church. I never was. 

Not when logged in as theplains perhaps, but when logged in as TheTanakas the claim was made to being a member of the church, and that username was used as a tool for manipulating discussions on the board and posted content from identical sources as you from your webpage on these message boards.  As I have said before, the evidence speaks for itself (see post here, here, and here).

And now you’ve added GoCeltics to your list of usernames.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

My life is too busy to spend time on a message board and pretend to be different people.

We are all busy (especially me these last two plus weeks), yet somehow we still make time for the message boards.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

Caleb A. Shreeve, Sr. wasn’t the first person to make such a claim.  But unfortunately for him (and the others), there isn’t any historical support for those claims.  Elijah Abel’s priesthood ordination was never rescinded, and he continued to be accepted as a member of the Third Quorum of the Seventies as late as 1883 (according to church records).

I saw from an earlier version of your reply, you had the following in it.

And at the time of the restoration in the early 1800's, the curse of Cain and the curse of Ham doctrines were at the height of Protestant 
acceptance in North America.  And even though Joseph Smith had accepted and ordained black individuals to the priesthood, the popular Protestant 
doctrine of that era made its way into church doctrine, primarily through Brigham Young.  It's an unfortunate thing.

I had based my reply on that inclusion, which it appears you edited it out.

What you posted in bold above came from my post on 10/20/2024, not my last post on 11/14/2024 (the one you are responding to now).  You even quoted that portion of my post in your post on 11/05/2024, so clearly, you were fully aware of that portion of my post and I did not “edited it out”, since it is still in my original post.   And, what I said there is true.  

So why do you now claim I “edited it out” when you obviously knew about it and commented on that very part of my post in your prior post?

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

The Apostle Paul prophesied that "in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving 
heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils".

Yes. It's unfortunate that the same apostasy affected the LDS Church, all the way to 1978.  Many 
Latter-day Saints were lead into error by following the teachings of their leaders.

Believing or teaching some incorrect doctrines does not constitute apostasy.  I am quite certain that both you and I believe in some incorrect doctrines or interpretations of scripture, because our understanding is incomplete.  But that doesn’t mean we are in apostasy.  The same goes for the church teaching a doctrine that is false and corrected by the Lord later on.  The church did not go into apostasy, the doctrine was corrected.

As Elder Bednar said in the October 2024 General Conference:   

“Apostasy can occur at two basic levels—institutional and individual. At the institutional level, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not be lost through apostasy or taken from the earth.”

“The Prophet Joseph Smith proclaimed: ‘The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing … ; the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.’”

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

For your comment about Caleb A. Shreeve, see above.  The ban was called a doctrine, several times.

Now you are twisting my comment about Caleb A. Shreeve, Sr.  Do you really need to do this?

Remember, I said:

On 10/20/2024 at 5:57 PM, InCognitus said:

And at the time of the restoration in the early 1800’s, the curse of Cain and the curse of Ham doctrines were at the height of Protestant acceptance in North America.  And even though Joseph Smith had accepted and ordained black individuals to the priesthood, the popular Protestant doctrine of that era made its way into church doctrine, primarily through Brigham Young.  It’s an unfortunate thing.

To which you claimed: “Those ordinations were done before Joseph Smith was supposedly corrected by God”, and you posted a link to the claim made by Shreeve.  

Then I posted the following:

“Caleb A. Shreeve, Sr. wasn’t the first person to make such a claim.  But unfortunately for him (and the others), there isn’t any historical support for those claims.  Elijah Abel’s priesthood ordination was never rescinded, and he continued to be accepted as a member of the Third Quorum of the Seventies as late as 1883 (according to church records).”

So what you said about my “comment about Caleb A. Shreeve” has nothing to do with what I actually said about Shreeve.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

The color of one's skin will also be an issue of one's spiritual purity on Judgment Day (Jacob 
3:8-9). This is taught by the LDS Church in its "Book of Mormon - Seminary - Teacher Manual".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/book-of-mormon-seminary-teacher-manual-2024/23-mosiah-29-alma-4/233-teacher?lang=eng

"Mormon prophets and modern prophets have taught it is wrong to revile or look down upon people 
because of the color of their skin (see Jacob 3:9)."  

The manual omits verse 8.  Adding it makes the LDS teaching more clear.

"O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter 
than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. Therefore, a commandment 
I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the 
darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye 
shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their 
fathers".

You have totally misconstrued what that section is teaching, as it has nothing to do with the literal color of their skin on judgement day.  The “whiteness” is a metaphor for their purity and righteousness, and not the literal color of their skin.  

As it says in context: “O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.  Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.”   (Jacob 3:8–9)

In other words the verse is saying, forget your prejudices against them because of their behavior that you associate with their “skin” color, and remember that everyone is judged according to their own deeds (not their skin color).

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

This is not in harmony with the Bible.

Actually, the white/purity metaphor is perfectly in harmony with the Bible:

Psalm 51:7:  “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.”

Daniel 11:35: “And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed."

Daniel 12:10: “Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand."

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

... and it was a general apostasy that included a departure from or corruption of some key doctrines (like redefining the relationship between the Father and the Son).

What do you mean by a departure from or corruption in redefining the relationship between the 
Father and the Son?

I’m referring to the insertion of the word “homoousious” by the emperor Constantine into the Nicene Creed, which redefined how the Father and Son are “one”, making them to be one substance or one being.  This is a great departure from what was taught in Christianity prior to that time, since the early Christians taught that Jesus is “the second God” or “another God”, and that Jesus and his Father are one in unity of will.  And the “homoousious” idea can’t be found anywhere in the Bible.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

I said these scriptures are in harmony with the Holy Bible, not that they all contain the same revealed truths.

How are the LDS teachings of Heavenly Father being a man who became a God and Jesus being the 
first spirit son born of heavenly parents, who also became a God, in harmony with any LDS 
scripture?

The concepts are completely in harmony with scripture and nothing in scripture contradicts those teachings.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

I believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one God, not three Gods. I am not a polytheist.

The early Christians believed Jesus is the second God or “another God”, and that other gods exist just as the Bible teaches, and Latter-day Saints believe that other gods exist, just as the Bible teaches, and neither group is polytheist. 

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

I don't believe in the existence of Gods before or after Heavenly Father.

Neither do we.  God is an eternal being, therefore, nothing can exist “before” or “after” him.  He has existed eternally.  

Think about numbers on a number line stretching out in both directions to infinity.  What number comes before infinity?  What number comes after infinity?   It’s meaningless.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

You continue to misconstrue “what Joseph Smith affirmed” and reject how the Bible uses the phrase “everlasting to everlasting” (which does not mean “from all eternity”) as I demonstrated in our prior discussions.  Joseph Smith’s teachings are completely consistent with all of scripture.

From everlasting to everlasting is synonymous with from eternity to eternity. Some translations 
even use "everlasting life" as opposed to "eternal life" in John 3, but they mean the same thing.

Joseph Smith taught, "I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of 
a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? ... God himself was once as we 
are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! ... In order to understand 
the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is 
necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am 
going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all 
eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see ... These ideas 
are incomprehensible to some, but they are simple".

This is not consistent with any scripture.

This totally consistent with scripture, including LDS scripture.  

I already explained to you how your interpretation of “everlasting to everlasting” in the Bible is flawed, and the problem is not because of what “everlasting” means in English.  The problem is because of what the Hebrew word ‘ôlām means in Hebrew.  The Hebrew word ‘ôlām just means an indefinite period of time.  

To demonstrate this fact, notice how the Hebrew word ‘ôlām is used in this verse:  

“And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time [‘ôlām], even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.” (Joshua 24:2)

This is also why Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible translates Psalm 90:2 this way:  

“Before mountains were brought forth, And Thou dost form the earth and the world, Even from age unto age Thou art God.”

So as you can see, Latter-day Saint belief aligns with the actual text of the Bible on this issue perfectly, and you have never responded to what the biblical text actually says on this matter (you only repeat what you believe, as if that is supposed to prove something).

Also see our prior discussion on the meaning of “everlasting to everlasting” in the Bible here 07/09/2022, here 07/25/2022, here 08/10/2022, here 10/30/2022, here 11/12/2022, here 11/16/2022, here 11/21/2022, here 11/27/2022, here 12/24/2022), and here 07/10/2023, and here 01/01/2024.  You simply interpret the Bible differently now than how that phrase was understood in Bible times.

And since you are comparing the Hebrew “everlasting to everlasting” to the Greek New Testament “eternal life” or “everlasting life” in your comment above, I should point out that those are totally different concepts in the Greek.  Going back to Psalm 90:2, the Brenton translation of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament that was used by the apostles in New Testament times) renders Psalm 90:2 this way:

“Before the mountains existed, and before the earth and the world were formed, even from age to age, Thou art.”

In the Septuagint Greek of Psalm 90:2, the Greek word translated from the Hebrew word ‘ôlām is aiṓn, and it means “an age, a cycle of time”, not “eternity”.  This is a different word than is used in verses like John 3:16 (it uses the word aiṓnion, which has a different meaning).

Furthermore, I explained to you previously how it was that Joseph Smith taught that God “became God “in relationship to us in my post on 10/30/2022 and 11/10/2022.  God the Father has always been above all others.  How he came to be our God is explained in this statement from Joseph Smith:

“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)

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

The LDS Church also teaches Jesus became a God too.

This is not consistent with any scripture.

This totally consistent with scripture, including LDS scripture.   See my questions to you on this topic below.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

Becoming “like him” is relative, since nobody will ever catch up to be equal to God the Father in all of his works and glory.  But God the Father offers his children everything that he has, including sitting with him in his throne.

"Like him", for exalted beings, means "they will have everything that our Heavenly Father and 
Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge" (Gospel Principles).  

We will be given the same “glory” that the God of Jesus Christ gave to Jesus in the beginning (John 17:22).  But when I said “becoming ‘like him’ is relative, since nobody will ever catch up to be equal to God the Father in all of his works and glory”, I was referring to what God himself says of his “work” and his “glory” in Moses 1:39:

“For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”

Nobody will ever be equal to God the Father in the number of souls he brings unto immortality and eternal life, and that is part of his “glory”.  The same goes for the number of his creations.  Even though we inherit all that he has, he will always be the God of all other gods.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

Of course they weren’t “God”, because the context explains that Adam and Eve had gained only one important attribute of God, the knowledge of good and evil.  As God said, “the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil”.

Do you consider them "Gods in embryo"?

The 1981 version quotes Alma 12:31 as "Wherefore, he gave commandments unto men, they having first 
transgressed the first commandments as to things which were temporal, and becoming as Gods, knowing 
good from evil, placing themselves in a state to act, or being placed in a state to act according 
to their wills and pleasures, whether to do evil or to do good".

The 2013 version changes "as Gods" to "as gods".

Is there a doctrinal shift here?  

Is it now more appropriate to say "gods in embryo"?

I’m curious.  Do you just recycle things like this when you want to divert from the topic at hand?

One time you brought this topic up was in a post from you on 08/26/2020.  And as part of my response on 08/30/2020, I said the following, and I am asking the same question now:

“I’ve given you an explanation for Alma 12:31 (see here, here, and here).  If you are still not sure as to why it read differently previously, could you please at least enlighten me on how my prior explanation(s) didn’t help and why you keep bringing it up?”

You didn’t respond to this question before, so this just seems like a trolling tactic to me.  It makes me think you aren’t serious at all about these conversations.  Do you have a better explanation?

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

The teaching that God is the Father of our spirits is biblical, as is the teaching that we are the very same kind of being as God.  Paul taught that in Acts 17:28-29.

Do you believe that God is the Father of spirits as taught in Hebrews 12:9? 

I don't believe we are the spirit children of heavenly parents.  I believe that we are children 
of Heavenly Father only in the sense that he created us.  This has nothing to do with children 
being literally born to a heavenly father and a heavenly mother (or mothers).

You didn’t directly answer my question about Hebrews 12:9, but from what you say above I gather that you believe that when Hebrews 12:7-9 talks about the chastening of a father to his sons and 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 figurative “Father of spirits” on the other hand, with the latter meaning that God created us and he is only our “Father” in a figurative sense.  Is that correct?

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you believe that we are the same kind of being as God, as Paul taught in Acts 17:28-29?  

Or do you reject these teachings?

Acts 17:28-29 does not say that we are literal offspring of heavenly parents, having the same 
nature as them.  We are offspring only in the sense of our being created by him.

My reference to Acts 17:28-29 is not to claim that we are God’s offspring (although that is certainly implied there as well).  Rather, the point here is that the Greek word that is translated as “offspring” in that verse means that we are the very same kind of being as God, same race or genus (using the taxonomic term), and this is how Paul’s Greek audience would have understood the meaning of the word.  Paul intentionally used that word for that very meaning.  To try to claim that Paul really meant that we are created by God (and not really the same kind of being) would destroy Paul’s whole argument to the men of Athens, as I’ll explain below.

I’ve discussed this with you before on 03/11/2022.   The Greek word translated as “offspring” in those verses 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:

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.”

As you can see, there’s a family relationship or species/kind-of-being understanding built into the meaning of this word génos that goes far beyond the idea of creation alone (and that is also why our modern word “genes” is based on this Greek word).  And when Paul says we are the “kind” of being that God is, this can’t be referring to the genetics of our physical bodies, because our bodies are the offspring of our mortal parents.  Instead, this is referring to the relationship of our eternal spirits to God our Father, for our spirits came from God who is the “Father of spirits” (Heb 12:9).  And in the beginning, God created Adam’s body from the dust of the earth (the elements) and God put into him the “breath” (or spirit – same Hebrew word) of life, and he “became a living soul”.  His body came from the dust, but his spirit came from God (this is the same for all of us, not just Adam).  It is in this way that we are created in the image and likeness of God, for we not only have God’s form in likeness, but we have the image of his spirit as intelligent beings.  

When Paul taught the men of Athens about the true God in Acts 17:16-33, it was possibly one of the only places in the entire Bible where the true God is explained to outsiders (non-Jewish people), so this is a significant passage and important to our understanding of our relationship with God.

The complete context of this passage is important, comprising Acts 17:16-33.  I’ll summarize those verses here: 

Paul is addressing the Athenian pagans.  He was provoked in the spirit that the city was given over to idols (verse 16).  Then the Athenians brought him to the Areopagus (“Mars Hill” in the KJV, verse 19), where he proceeded to proclaim to them the true God in contrast to the idols that they worshiped (verses 22-31).  Paul makes the point that it is illogical to worship gods made by the hand of men. He indicates that we all have our existence, our very being, because of God. Then Paul quotes the Greek poet (Aratus), affirming that, “we are the offspring [génos] of God” (verses 28-29). 

As mentioned above, génos is the same Greek word from which we get our English word “genes”.  This word is also translated as genus in the Latin Vulgate.  So Paul is telling the Athenians that they and himself and all of us are of the very same genus as God.

This distinction is very important to Paul’s greater point because Paul goes on to say, “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.

So here in these verses Paul is not only saying that man and God are the same category of being, but he is also saying they are the very same “kind” of being.  We are all his “offspring”.  This is vastly different from the view that Christians developed in the late 2nd century and onward.  For some reason they don’t believe what Paul taught about God and our relationship with him.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

From what I 
know of LDS theology, people are not created. They existed as eternal intelligences (gnolaum) 
before being born to heavenly parents.

People are “created”, but not out of nothing (as many modern Christians believe).  Creation out of nothing is a later doctrinal development (late 2nd century) and is not biblical.

We believe that “in the work of the Creation, the Lord organized elements that had already existed (see Abraham 3:24). He did not create the world ‘out of nothing,’ as some people believe.” (See Gospel Topics essay:  Creation).  This same concept applies to the spirit of man.  Joseph Smith taught , “The Father called all spirits before Him at the creation of man, and organized them.” 

So we fully believe that man was “created”, although we might understand the word “created” differently than the way most Christians defined it after the 3rd century AD.  The spirits of men were “organized”, and man was “created” or organized from the dust of the earth.  And from our current point of view on earth, there is a distinction between God and his creation.  Relative to our earthily existence, God is clearly the “uncreated one” and humans are the “created”.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

I believe God is of a different nature than those whom he created. So God has a different nature 
from his angels.  Humans also have a different nature than angels. Humans are also of a different 
nature from plants and animals.

That sounds like what most modern Christians believe today, yes.  But this contradicts the Bible in what Paul taught, that we are all the same kind of being as God.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.  But they are “one” in unity and will, just as the Bible teaches (John 17:11, 20-23), but not “one Being” or “one essence” or “one substance” (the way the Nicene Creed teaches), because that teaching is completely absent from scripture.

I don't believe the Nicene Creed teaches the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one being. You can 
interpret it that way if you wish. They are 3 separate personages but they are one God.

I don’t try to interpret the Nicene Creed at all.  Rather, I use non-LDS Christian sources to have them explain how they interpret it, because it would be wrong to misrepresent what other people believe and teach.

I quoted from the Got Questions website explanation of the Nicene Creed, remember?  In the article titled: What is the meaning of homoousious?, they quoted the Nicene Creed as follows:   “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.”

Do you think the Got Questions website is interpreting the creed incorrectly?

I also have several books on the Trinity to help me understand what other Christians believe about the Trinity (again, because I want to understand another person’s beliefs accurately).  For example, in the book The Forgotten Trinity, in a chapter titled "What Is the Trinity?", under the heading a "Basic Definition," the author James White writes:

"Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (The Forgotten Trinity - Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief, by James R. White (1998, Bethany House Publishers), p.26, emphasis added).  Incidentally, this definition is also quoted in the Got Questions article, Should we worship Jesus?

On the next page, White paraphrases Hank Hanegraaff of the Christian Research Institute, whom I often heard repeat this statement of belief on his radio show years ago (he was "The Bible Answer Man" before he converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church in 2017):

"[W]hen speaking of the Trinity, we need to realize that we are talking about one what and three who's. The one what is the Being or essence of God, the three who's are the Father, Son, and Spirit. We dare not mix up the what's and who's regarding the Trinity" (ibid, p.27)

In the book Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Robert M. Bowman, Jr, states a similar belief:

"Another aspect of God's oneness is the fact that there are no separations or divisions or partitions in God. The trinitarian doctrine holds that God is a single infinite being, transcending the bounds of space and time, having no body either material or spiritual (except the body that the Son assumed in becoming a man). Thus the trinitarian God has no parts. You cannot divide infinite being into components. The Athanasian Creed affirms that God is not divided by the three persons when it states that the trinitarian faith does not allow for "dividing the substance" (using "substance" to mean the essence or being of God). The three persons, consequently, are not three parts of God, but three personal distinctions within God, each of whom is fully God" (Why You Should Believe in the Trinity - An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses, Robert M. Bowman, Jr., 1989 Baker Book House, pp.12-13)

In the book The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, Robert Morey also makes a similar distinction in laying out certain expectations about the Trinity with regard to the Bible:

“1. We expect to find in the Bible that there is only one, true, living, eternal Being who is God by nature and Maker of heaven and earth.
2. We expect to find in the Bible that the one true God is incomprehensible.
3. We expect to find in the Bible that the one true God exists in three Persons called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."  (The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, by Robert Morey,1996, World Bible Publishers, Inc., p.60) 

So this is a common belief among many non-LDS Christians.

Which of these definitions do you agree with, and which ones do you disagree with?

Do you believe that Trinitarians are teaching a different god and a different Christ than what Jesus and the apostles taught when Trinitarians teach that Jesus is “of one Being with the Father”?  If so, are they in apostasy?

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

Humans being one in unity and one with the will of God does not make them Gods.

Of course not.  There is more to it than that.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

Joseph Smith taught Heavenly Father (Elohim of our Earth) had a father before him.  So Elohim (of 
our Earth) is not above the Father of Elohim.

Only if you interpret “father” in a heavenly context.  Joseph Smith also spoke about him as being born as a man (which requires having a father).  There are other ways that can be viewed, but we don’t have enough information about what Joseph Smith meant (or even the accuracy of the account, given that the notes were taken by hand during that sermon) to draw any solid conclusions.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, but the context tells us what it is talking about.  In Hebrews 1:6, it says:  "And again, when he [God the Father] bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." (Hebrews 1:6).  The context of this verse shows that Jesus was the firstbegotten of the Father before he was brought into the world.

First begotten does not mean first procreated via heavenly parents.

Or it does.  You interpret it your own way, but the Bible says God the Father brought his “firstbegotten” into the world.  It means what it says.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

Latter-day Saints don’t teach that Jesus came into being when he was begotten by the Father, as you well know.  We teach that Jesus has always existed.  Consequently, Latter-day Saints would agree with the phrase in the Nicene creed that says Jesus was “begotten, not made”, and we would also agree with the phrase in the creed of the First Council of Constantinople that Jesus was “begotten of the Father before all worlds”.  And we believe, as the Bible teaches, that God the Father brought his “firstbegotten into the world”, as Hebrews 1:6 teaches.  

Do you believe these things?  

Was Jesus “begotten of the Father before all worlds” as the early Christians creeds teach, or not?  Or do you believe something else?

Some translations use firstborn instead of firstbegotten.  Firstborn in this case means the primacy 
(pre-eminence) of Christ. It could also mean coming into power and authority.

Begotten in the case of Christ does not mean created.  Firstborn does not always mean first born 
either. 
 
We see this in other passages too.  Firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18) and the firstborn 
of all creation (Colossians 1:15).

Remember what I said before, the context tells us what it is talking about.

You reference Colossians 1 for example.  Verse 15 says Jesus is the “firstborn of every creature”.  It goes on to say he is the creator and is “before all things, and by him all things consist”.  And then in verse 18 it says he is the “head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence”. 

In other words, he was the “firstborn of every creature” prior to creation, and he is the preeminent one put in charge of creation, and he is also the “firstborn from the dead” (i.e. he was the first to be resurrected) so that he might have preeminence in “all things”. 

We know what “firstborn from the dead” means, but what does “firstborn of every creature” mean?

Also, you did not answer my questions about whether you believe Jesus was “begotten of the Father before all worlds” as it says in the creeds. 

Was Jesus “begotten of the Father before all worlds” as the early Christians creeds teach, or not?  Or do you believe something else?

You also said, “It could also mean coming into power and authority” (regarding Jesus being the “firstbegotten”).

So, do you believe that Jesus came into power and authority?  Does that mean you also believe he became God?

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you see any difference there?  Would you classify the teaching that Jesus is “homoousious” with his Father as “a different Jesus” than what was taught by Jesus and the apostles?  Or how is that a better choice than the Jehovah’s Witnesses, given that the concept is not found in scripture at all?

The concept of "another Jesus" is also found in Paul's warning (2 Corinthians 11:4). The LDS and 
JW "Jesus" fits the bill.

Or, maybe your version fits the bill?

Maybe that’s why you didn’t answer the question (again)?

Remember, we are comparing this to what Paul meant when he warned against preaching of a different Jesus than what Jesus or the apostles taught (not compared to what you personally believe).

I asked you what is the difference between the Jehovah’s Witnesses using scripture to support their views about Jesus, and the later Christian concept of a “homoousious” Father and Son which has no support from scripture at all? 

Would you classify the teaching that Jesus is “homoousious” with his Father as “a different Jesus” than what was taught by Jesus and the apostles?  Or how is that a better choice than the Jehovah’s Witnesses, given that the concept is not found in scripture at all?

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

In my last post I demonstrated clearly that the Trinitarian idea that Jesus and his Father are “one being” (“homoousious”) is not a biblical teaching ... So, if you believe in this unbiblical teaching about God the Father and Jesus, then I totally understand why you “consider the LDS as teaching a different Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ”.  We don’t teach that unbiblical doctrine, but our teachings correlate with what Jesus and the apostles taught about how Jesus and his Father are “one”.

I am not a Trinitarian.  The Father and the Son are not "one being".

How do you define “Trinitarian”?  I define that as a person who believes in the doctrine of the Trinity.

If you define it the same way, then that’s an interesting change for you (and I get why, for biblical reasons).  When did you stop considering yourself to be a Trinitarian?  In your posts on 08/01/2020, 08/26/2020, 09/05/2020, 09/11/2020 and 11/02/2020, you seemed to be affirming and defending the doctrine of the Trinity.  Why the change?

Do you believe that the three persons of the Godhead are each Gods, but are one God in unity like the Bible teaches and the early (pre-Nicene) Christians and the Latter-day Saints believe?  Or do you believe something else?

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

A lot of people and false prophets have come up with teachings which have no scriptural basis 
and have deceived their followers.

I think that is true for the doctrine of a “homoousious” Father and Son as found in the Nicene creed (and other creeds), since it has absolutely no basis in scripture.  And unfortunately, that doctrine is at the core of the doctrine of the Trinity, which is believed by millions of modern Christians.

The Bible tells us to beware of false prophets, but that also means there will be true prophets of God.  Jesus said that he would be sending more prophets and people would reject them the same as with past prophets (Matthew 23:34-35).   And when God calls prophets, he directs them by revelation the same as he has always done and reveals teachings about himself, some of which may not have been made known as clearly in prior revelations (scripture).  There are so many more things to know about God than what can be contained in any of the scriptures.  That’s why God always works through prophets and apostles (and God doesn’t change).  

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

God the Father increasing in the number of his creations does not equate to him being “formed” into something else.  The same goes for any one of us progressing to inherit the same things that God has.

I'm not referring to this.

You were referring to this in the quote from you that I was responding to.  In your post on 11/05/2024, you said, “I provided some LDS teachings which show Heavenly Father and Jesus became (were formed into) Gods.”   You were talking about God the Father and Jesus being “formed into” Gods.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

I am referring to a person, who not a God now, believes he can be 
formed (through progression) into a God someday.

The same is taught about the LDS Jesus in his pre-mortal life.  He "attained that pinnacle of 
intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent 
state." (Religion 430-431 – Doctrines of Gospel Student Manual, chapter 4).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/32501_eng.pdf

That sounds exactly like what the early Christian Father Origen (185-254 AD) taught in his Commentary on John 1:1:

“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.”  CHURCH FATHERS: Commentary on John, Book II (Origen)

So it sounds like this was a teaching that the early Christians believed as well.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

So I guess when Christians say they have “eternal life” and start telling people that they have “eternal life” then we really shouldn’t believe them, because their life hasn’t existed eternally and they gained “eternal life” at some point?  Is that the logic you are trying to use here?

Eternal life, as defined by the LDS Church, does not mean becoming a God and living life as a God.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/true-to-the-faith/eternal-life?lang=eng

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the 
world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but 
have everlasting life" (John 3:14-16).

Eternal life in the context of what Jesus said is to be eternally with him, even if we die. Those 
who perish are those who will not reside with Christ.

Only God has existed as God from eternity to all eternity. His life is eternal.  Joseph Smith 
taught that God (Elohim of our Earth) has not existed as God from all eternity. He and his wife 
(wives) became Gods by following the Plan of Salvation of their God.

People can receive the gift of eternal life through faith in Christ but we have not existed 
eternally in the past.  LDS theology has people in progressing in various stages (uncreated, 
eternal intelligences, then being formed into spirit children, then becoming mortal children, 
then being formed into Gods).

"The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like himself" (Journal of Discourses 
3:93).  In short, Gods are formed.

https://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/pdf/JoD03/JoD03.pdf

Again, you didn’t answer the question and are trying to deflect into another rabbit hole.

In your post on 11/05/2024 you said:

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

I think even you believe you are an eternal being but that will not make you an Eternal 
God, if according to LDS teachings, you become God and then start telling people you are the 
Eternal God - because you have not eternally existed as God.

I was asking about the logic of what you said above.  I asked before, and I ask again:

When Christians say they have “eternal life” and start telling people that they have “eternal life” then we really shouldn’t believe them, because their life hasn’t existed eternally, and they gained “eternal life” at some point?  Is that the logic you are trying to use here?   <-  THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

Acts 2:36 says that God “made” Jesus “both Lord and Christ”, and in Matthew 28:18, Jesus said that “all power… in heaven and in earth” was “given” to him.  And Philippians 2:8-9 says that Jesus was “highly exalted” by his Father and given a name “above every other name”.  So, was Jesus “a God being formed” too?

Jesus has always existed as God.

Where does scripture say Jesus always existed as God?

Also:

Why does Acts 2:36 say that God “made” Jesus “both Lord and Christ”?  Was he not “both Lord and Christ” before the God and Father of Jesus Christ “made” him that way?

Why does Matthew 28:18 have Jesus saying that “all power is given to me in heaven and earth”?  Did he not have that power before?

Why does Jesus in John 17:22 pray for his disciples by saying, “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them”?  In John 17:5 it says Jesus had this glory with the Father “before the world was”.  When did the God and Father of Jesus Christ give that “glory” to Jesus?  (It had to be “before the world was” according to John 17:5 and 24). Did Jesus not have that glory before his God and Father gave it to him?

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

But the passage doesn’t say that God is merely the God of those other “gods”, rather it compares God to the other “gods” and says those gods are “among” him.  It says, “Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works.”

Are any of these "gods" worshipped by anyone?

It doesn’t say in that passage.  But elsewhere the book of Revelation says for those who “overcome”, Jesus will cause them to be worshipped by other humans (Revelation 3:8-9, see also Isaiah 49:23 and 60:14).  These overcomers are also those who sit with the God of Jesus Christ and with Jesus Christ on God’s throne (Revelation 3:21).  So according to what Jesus says about others who become like God in the Bible, they are worshipped.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

Can you please explain how your interpretation of Psalm 86:8 or Exodus 15:11 makes any logical sense and shows praise and worship to God by comparing him to corrupt human judges?  “Among the corrupt human judges there is none like unto thee, O Lord, neither are there any works among the corrupt human judges like unto thy works”.  How is that being respectful to God?

"Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy 
works" (Psalm 86:8).

"Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful 
in praises, doing wonders?" (Exodus 15:11).

This is a comparison of the true God (the LORD) with all other gods who are believed to be true 
deities by those who worship them.

So, according to your reasoning, Psalm 86:8 would be, “Among the fictional gods (that some people believe are real) there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works"?  Is that right?

And Exodus 15:11 would be, "Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the fictional gods (that some people believe are real)? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?"

Isn’t that the same as comparing God to Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny?  How does comparing him to fictional characters that some people believe exist show praise to God about his greatness?

And wouldn’t doing that promote the legitimacy of those false gods?  Think about that for a moment.  Let’s assume you believe Zeus and Hermes are true deities (these false gods are mentioned in Acts 14:12). And you hear Psalm 86:8 quoted to you, and you imagine it to be saying, “Among Zeus and Hermes there is none like the LORD [YHWH], neither are there any works like unto the LORD’s works.”  Doesn’t that just legitimize the reality of Zeus and Hermes by saying that?   “Oh yeah” (you might think), “Zeus and Hermes are good gods, but YHWH sounds more powerful!”.

Or even with the statement from Deuteronomy 17:10 saying God is “the God of gods”.  With that same line of reasoning you might think, “Yes, he’s the God of Zeus and Hermes, so Zeus and Hermes are real and it’s still fine if I believe in them and worship them too”.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

"And Jethro said, Blessed be the LORD, who hath delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, 
and out of the hand of Pharaoh, who hath delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians. 
Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he 
was above them" (Exodus 18:19-11).

These gods of Egypt, believed to be real and true gods by the Egyptians, were actually false.  So 
the LORD is above all gods that are believed to be true by the people.  

God executed judgement against those whom the Egyptians believed to be true gods and whom they 
worshipped (Exodus 12:12; Numbers 33:4).

You realize there’s one huge difference between the verses you quoted from Exodus 18:10-11, and what is said in Psalm 86:8 or Exodus 15:11, right?  Exodus 18:10-11 is quoting Jethro, a Kenite shepherd, from his point of view, while Exodus 15:11 is a part of a God inspired song of Moses, and Psalm 86:8 is part of the song of David.

Why would Moses, a prophet of God, give credence to false gods by comparing them to the God of Israel in Exodus 15:11?

There’s a lot more that could be said about these verses and the ancient Israel point of view on the gods of the nations and the idea of elohim ruling the nations under God’s authority, but there are many books and papers written on that topic by biblical scholars, and I’ll just say there is way more to this than can be explained here.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

I believe the gods of Psalm 82 is a reference to corrupt human judges, regarded as children of 
the most high God. He is judging among the gods (among the Israelite judges who were regarded as 
gods, as Moses was),

You’ve stated your belief on Psalm 82 many times, and I explained several times why interpreting the “gods” in that chapter as human judges doesn’t work in the context. 

First, Psalm 82 states that the gods were being condemned as corrupt in their administration of the nations of the earth. The Bible nowhere teaches that God appointed a council of Jewish elders to rule over foreign nations.  The opposite is true, they were to be separate from other nations.

Second, as I stated previously, the punishment given to these “gods” to “die like men”, and that makes absolutely no sense if they are already men.  It’s nonsense.

Third, and most importantly, the idea that this divine council consists of human judges contradicts the other verses I brought up, like Psalm 89:5-7, which speaks of these gods in a heavenly council. 

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

They are denounced for committing various sins (judging unjusting, accepting wicked persons, not 
defending the poor, fatherless, needy, etc).

"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge 
unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice 
to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. 
They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the 
earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 
But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for 
thou shalt inherit all nations".

If you believe these are gods who are being worshipped in some other realm, then God (Elohim) is 
revealing evil deities.

They aren’t being worshipped in some other realm (I don't believe that), and yes, they are being chastised for being deficient in their duties.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

There is no disrespecting of God when you understand it that way.

The disrespect comes from other verses (not Psalm 82), where you have God being compared in his works to corrupt human judges or false gods, or where it is said that God is the God of false gods, fictional deities.  There is no praise or honor in such comparisons.

The human judges interpretation of Psalm 82 has its own serious problems (as stated above and many times elsewhere, like in these posts on 07/18/2023 and 08/03/2023).

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

You really need to read the Got Questions website article titled:  What is the divine council?

The article begins with "Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings?".

In the LDS pantheon of Gods (heavenly beings), many Gods are alike although not exactly alike, 
with Elohim.

So do you agree with the Got Questions website article, What is the divine council?, that the divine council is a pantheon of heavenly beings?  That’s exactly how Michael Heiser described it in his book, The Unseen Realm.  He wrote, “The God of the Old Testament was part of an assembly—a pantheon—of other gods.” (p. 11).  That’s the same book that is recommended by the Got Questions website on that topic (at the bottom of that webpage article).

Another question comes to mind.  Remember what I said last time?  The Bible teaches we will become “like him” (Jesus,1 John 3:2), and Jesus is like his Father (John 12:45):

“Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.  Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.”  (1 John 3:1–3)

Do you agree with John’s teaching that “we shall be like him”?   If you agree with John, how do you see that fitting with Psalm 89:5-7 as quoted at the beginning of that Got Questions article?

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

“1) The ‘gods’ are supernatural beings who rule under God. Psalm 82:1 says, ‘God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the gods.’ In the Hebrew, the phrase translated ‘great assembly’ speaks of a divine congregation or a divine council. Some interpret this passage as God warning that those in the divine council who continue making unjust decisions will die ‘like mere mortals’ and ‘fall like all other rulers’ (Psalm 82:2, 6–8). God created hell for Satan and his angels (Matthew 25:41), and we know He will bring justice to them at the right time. They will fall like mere mortals.”

What do you mean by supernatural beings?  Deities, angels, or something else?  Are any of these 
"gods" worshipped by anyone, anywhere?

I was quoting from the Got Questions website, and I was stating their point of view on that topic.  So, you should ask them what they mean by “supernatural beings”.  Or, read the book they recommended on the topic (The Unseen Realm).

In plain Bible language they are elohim, meaning they are gods.  I don’t know why people want to try to change what the Bible says all the time.  i.e. “No, they can’t be elohim, they’re angels or judges or false gods, but they can’t be real gods!” (Even though that’s what the text says!)

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

There are other gods, yes, but your reasoning above is not correct.  God the Father is the “God of all other gods” as it says in Doctrine and Covenants 121:32. He is the one God “above all” (Ephesians 4:6), the “God of gods” (Deuteronomy 10:17).

Do you believe God (Elohim of our Earth) is above/greater than his Father God?

I think your question presupposes a particular interpretation of what people wrote down for what Joseph Smith said that may not be the only way to understand what he said.

Doctrine and Covenants 121:32 and Abraham 3:17-19 are definitive in teaching that God the Father is the God of all other gods.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

Paul also mentions “lords many” along with the “gods many”.   Paul is referencing Deuteronomy 10:17 here:  “For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward”.  These are real “gods” and real “lords”, because God is not the God of nothing, he is not the God of idols or make-believe entities.  He is the God of “gods” that really exist.

Same question as above.  Do you believe God (Elohim of our Earth) is above/greater than his Father 
God or his Grandfather God?

Above you were responding to my explanation about why Paul would be contradicting himself if he was referring to idols instead of real gods that exist in reality in 1 Corinthians 8:5 (since Paul repeatedly denied that idols are gods at all), and you are trying to change the subject to the question you are asking above.  Does that mean you see why Paul would be contradicting himself if he meant false gods when he said there are “lords many, and gods many” in 1 Corinthians 8:5?

As for your question above, see my response above.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

Another revelation soon confirmed that "the saints shall be filled with his glory, and receive 
their inheritance and be made equal with him."

This links to Doctrine and Covenants 88:107 ("And then shall the angels be crowned with the glory 
of his might, and the saints shall be filled with his glory, and receive their inheritance and be 
made equal with him").

Yes, all that is biblical.  God gives his glory to the true followers of Christ, even the same glory that Jesus had with the Father in the beginning (John 17:20-23).  And sitting with God in his throne in the same way Jesus is sitting with God in his throne is being made equal to him (sitting side by side with him in his throne).  God gives them all power, all his glory, and all that he has (they will “inherit all things”). 

But as I said above, being “equal” to him in his position on his throne and in power and in receiving all that he has, does not mean that they become equal in all of his accomplishments in bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, or in the number of his creations.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

But because all the teachings come from God, they will always be in harmony with the word of God as revealed previously.  That doesn’t mean everything God reveals to us in the future will be found in prior scripture, but it will be in harmony with prior scripture since God is the source of all truth.

The LDS doctrines of Heavenly Father being a man and then becoming a God and Jesus (the spirit 
brother of an angel called Lucifer) being the first spirit child born of heavenly parents, who 
also became a God, are not in harmony with any LDS scripture. 

Maybe you can tell me how you believe some woman had her sins forgiven and then went on to becoming 
a Goddess and Heavenly Mother of our Earth is in harmony with scripture.

Or maybe you can tell me how the Holy Spirit also being a child of heavenly parents is in harmony 
with scripture.

Or maybe you can tell me how any of those things are not in harmony with scripture?   

I would never try to support some of the speculation on scripture (if it’s not revealed in scripture then it is someone’s interpretation or speculation), but the revealed doctrines are in harmony with the Bible. 

I think you may be also confusing what it means to be “in harmony” with the idea that everything must be found therein.  “Harmony” means that it is consistent with revealed scripture and doesn’t contradict it and may even enhances it.

In music, harmony is achieved when there are two or more notes that compliment the other notes being played, producing chords or a progression of tones that enhance each other.  The other notes aren't playing the same exact notes, rather they are complimentary to one another.

Some Christians talk about the “harmony of the four gospels”, but does that mean every detail and every teaching that we find in the gospel of Luke is also found in the gospel of Matthew?  No.  That was made clear when trying to compare President Nelson’s talk about the experience of Peter, James, and John on the mount of Transfiguration as derived from the gospel of Luke with the portrayal of the same event as provided in Matthew’s gospel.   There are differences between them.  But do they contradict each other?  Or are they in harmony?

The same goes for the revealed doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  They are in harmony with the doctrines and teachings of the Bible.  But that doesn’t mean every single detail is found therein.  Our doctrines come from God.  And there are a lot more things that God would like to reveal to us if we would just get on with embracing and acting upon what he has already given us.

4 hours ago, InCognitus said:

John Taylor, The Gospel Kingdom, p.70:  "The art of photography has not been long known. When I was a boy people would have laughed at you if you had talked of taking a man's likeness in a minute's time; yet it is done.

This John Taylor quote is funny.  Today people would laugh at the idea that it took "a minute's time" to capture a man's likeness  

Times have really changed.

Here are a few sources that include references to the words "mineral", "vegetable", and "animal" in the same paragraph:

Discourses of Brigham Young, p.101:  "The animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms abide the law of their Creator; the whole earth and all things pertaining to it, except man, abide the law of their creation. 9:246." 

Discourses of Brigham Young, p.101 - p.102:  "The earth will abide its creation, and will be counted worthy of receiving the blessings designed for it, and will ultimately roll back into the presence of God who formed it and established its mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms. These will all be retained upon the earth, come forth in the resurrection, and abide for ever and for ever. 8:8."

John Taylor, The Gospel Kingdom, p.70:  "The art of photography has not been long known. When I was a boy people would have laughed at you if you had talked of taking a man's likeness in a minute's time; yet it is done. Did not light always possess the same properties? Yes, but man did not understand it. The same thing applies to the mineral world, the vegetable kingdom, the animal creation, and all the works of God. They are all governed by certain laws. The vegetables which you grow here, how were they organized? God organized them and placed them upon the earth, and gave them power to propagate their species. So also with regard to the animal creation, as well as birds, fishes, insects, etc."

James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, Ch.3, p.26 - p.27
"Such then is the need of a Redeemer, for without Him mankind would forever remain in a fallen state, and as to hope of eternal progression would be inevitably lost. The mortal probation is provided as an opportunity for advancement; but so great are the difficulties and the dangers, so strong is the influence of evil in the world, and so weak is man in resistance thereto, that without the aid of a power above that of humanity no soul would find its way back to God from whom it came. The need of a Redeemer lies in the inability of man to raise himself from the temporal to the spiritual plane, from the lower kingdom to the higher. In this conception we are not without analogies in the natural world. We recognize a fundamental distinction between inanimate and living matter, between the inorganic and the organic, between the lifeless mineral on the one hand and the living plant or animal on the other. Within the limitations of its order the dead mineral grows by accretion of substance, and may attain a relatively perfect condition of structure and form as is seen in the crystal. But mineral matter, though acted upon favorably by the forces of nature -- light, heat, electric energy and others -- can never become a living organism; nor can the dead elements, through any process of chemical combination dissociated from life, enter into the tissues of the plant as essential parts thereof. But the plant, which is of a higher order, sends its rootlets into the earth, spreads its leaves in the atmosphere, and through these organs absorbs the solutions of the soil, inspires the gases of the air, and front such lifeless materials weaves the tissue of its wondrous structure. No mineral particle, no dead chemical substance has ever been made a constituent of organic tissue except through the agency of life. We may, perhaps with profit, carry the analogy a step farther. The plant is unable to advance its own tissue to the animal plane. Though it be the recognized order of nature that the "animal kingdom" is dependent upon the "vegetable kingdom" for its sustenance, the substance of the plant may become part of the animal organism only as the latter reaches down from its higher plane and by its own vital action incorporates the vegetable compounds with itself. In turn, animal matter can never become, even transitorily, part of a human body, except as the living man assimilates it, and by the vital processes of his own existence lifts, for the time being, the substance of the animal that supplied him food to the higher plane of his own existence. The comparison herein employed is admittedly defective if carried beyond reasonable limits of application; for the raising of mineral matter to the plane of the plant, vegetable tissue to the level of the animal, and the elevation of either to the human plane, is but a temporary change; with the dissolution of the higher tissues the material thereof falls again to the level of the inanimate and the dead. But, as a means of illustration the analogy may not be wholly without value."

Journal of Discourses, Vol.7, p.285, Brigham Young, October 9, 1859
"All this vast creation as produced from element in its unorganized state; the mountains, rivers, seas, valleys, plains, and the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms beneath and around us, all speaking forth the wonderful works of the Great God.  Shall I say that the seeds of vegetables were planted here by the Characters that framed and built this world--that the seeds of every plant composing the vegetable kingdom were brought from another world?  This would be news to many of you.  Who brought them here?  It matters little to us whether it was John, James, William, Adam, or Bartholomew who brought them; but it was some Being who had power to frame this earth with its seas, valleys, mountains, and rivers, and cause it to teem with vegetable and animal life."

There were other references I found, but not as relevant. 

45 minutes ago, webbles said:

Interesting.

Here's a link to the various versions of King Follet Discouse and none of them have that text - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/accounts-of-the-king-follett-sermon

Here's The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and I can't find the text in it - https://archive.org/details/teachingsofproph00smit/page/n3/mode/2up

Here's True to the Faith and I can't find the text in it - https://preview.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/36863_eng.pdf?lang=eng

I can't find A New Witness for the Articles of Faith online.

I have the Folio Bound VIEWS Infobase, LDS Collectors Library (from years ago), and it includes A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, as well as many other titles, and I couldn't find anything remotely like that quote in the entire database, let alone A New Witness for the Articles of Faith.