InCognitus

We sang "We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet" for one of the hymns in our sacrament meeting this morning, and it was emotional for everyone. I feel bad for the people giving talks this morning as they were struggling with emotion too. One of the talks, coincidently, had several quotes from President Nelson about the blessings of the temple. I'll miss President Nelson.

I think the Lord was just trying to get him to stop pestering him on the subject

The exact circumstances and place names on all the other worlds that Heavenly Father has created may be different, so nobody can answer this question. But I can confidently say that there would be a meeting of heaven and earth at the fulfillment of God's plan for those worlds with each and every one of Heavenly Father's creations.

The Bible doesn't even say that. It says, "Before mountains were brought forth, And Thou dost form the earth and the world, Even from age unto age Thou art God." (Psalm 90:2, YLT).

Another "feature" of this board is that we can't give you upvotes until you reach 25 posts, or otherwise I'd upvote this post. Welcome, and I hope you remain active on the board.

I have two theories. My first theory is that every one of the rapture predictions that have been made were all correct but none of us made the cut. My second theory is that it's all a joke, in which case I still think that the Left Behind book series (and movies) would get the "end" times more correct if the second book and movie (the sequel) had been named: Right Behind: Turning the Other Cheek.

It already happened back in the dinosaur days. That's the thing about birds (the dinosaurs we were left with), they are the sinful ones. The others all disappeared in the velocirapture.

As soon as you quit getting responses in this thread, you'll know.

Using the Moses 7:18 definition of "Zion", I'd say that's a definite "yes" on other worlds, although perhaps not called by the same name: "And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them." (Moses 7:18)

As a new member, you can't edit your posts until you reach 25 posts.

I disagree given the context of Peter's reference to preaching the gospel to the spirits of the dead in the preceding chapter (1 Peter 3:18-20) and the immediate context of 1 Peter 4:6, where the "dead" are defined in verse 5 in reference to the final judgement: "They will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead." (NKJV). Because we "will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" and "every one of us shall give account of himself to God" (Romans 14:10, 12).

I've answered that several times now. I quote again from my post earlier: They are given an equal opportunity to learn about and accept the gospel of Jesus Christ so they can be judged by the same standard as men in the flesh (in general), and are also judged by how they responded to the truths they had available to them and knew about while they were in the flesh. What do you think it means? You seem to be trying to make something else of this.

We "will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" and "every one of us shall give account of himself to God" (Romans 14:10, 12). All are judged by Christ.

KSL posted a news story yesterday that includes some of the chat conversation, and gives details of how he was turned in: "'I had the opportunity,' suspected Charlie Kirk assassin allegedly told roommate"

Maybe I should talk to our stake president about starting an inquisition to get all these garment wearing hypocrites off the church roles and do away with them the old fashioned way. This could put a new spin on the concept of a "stake fireside".

They are given an equal opportunity to learn about and accept the gospel of Jesus Christ so they can be judged by the same standard as men in the flesh (in general), and are also judged by how they responded to the truths they had available to them and knew about while they were in the flesh.

What happened throughout the centuries to all those you believe were raised up to immortality and eternal life and entered Jerusalem plus all those Nephites who were supposedly raised to immortality (3 Nephi 23:9-10) plus all those of all the other scattered tribes Jesus supposedly visited (3 Nephi 16:1-3) after his resurrection if some were also resurrected there? “All those”? God has chosen only a select few to come forth early in the resurrection for various purposes. One reason would be for them to witness to the same kind of resurrection as Jesus Christ, as shown in Matthew 27:51-53 or as reported in Helaman 14:25-26. Another reason is for those who are raised up to be called to do specific work in the restoration, where physical resurrected beings are needed, for the restoration of the priesthood and to restore the keys for various things. Individuals such as John the Baptist, Peter and James, Moses, Moroni, and others may be in this category. What happened to them? They were taken to heaven by God, to be used in the work of God as may be needed from time to time. If you read the chapter more carefully, Paul is only comparing two aspects, not three. "There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another". There is no telestial. Sun, moon, and stars. I count three comparisons of glory there, don’t you? And “so also is the resurrection from the dead”, Paul says. I take it to mean exactly that. Notice that those three glories are all heavenly, and are separate from the earthly comparison that Paul makes in relation to mortality and immortality in the verses that follow. Except Paul is no longer talking about three degrees of glory of the resurrection from this point forward, he’s talking about the difference between mortality and immortality (two distinct situations), as I noted above. It is the difference between how we are now compared to how we will be when resurrected. He already addressed the three degrees of glory earlier. Don’t fall into that trap. A “spiritual body” is one that is made alive by the spirit, which is completely different than spirit beings in the premortal life. Jesus is a perfect example of this. He existed prior to coming to this earth as a spirit, he was born of Mary into mortality, and he died and was resurrected on the third day with a physical, tangible body of flesh and bones as he explained in Luke 24:39. So from a physical body point of view, Jesus first attained a “natural body” when he was born of Mary, and he attained a “spiritual body” when he was resurrected, even though he had existed as a spirit being prior to being born of Mary. Do you think Jesus got it in reverse too? Remember, the “heavenly” includes the glory of the sun, moon, and stars, which represent the three degrees of glory, which Paul says, “so also is the resurrection of the dead”. Do you believe the terms "firstborn from the dead" and "firstfruits of them that slept" (applicable to Christ) also apply to all those who were raised and appeared in Jerusalem? You realize that “firstborn” and “first begotten” are singular nouns and “firstfruits” is plural, don’t you? Jesus is THE “firstfruits” of them that slept (the first of the firstfruits), but there are clearly other “firstfruits” of the resurrection. Didn’t you just answer your own question using Doctrine and Covenants 88:98? If that isn’t enough, see Book of Mormon Seminary Student Manual (2024): “What is the First Resurrection? Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught: “Those coming forth in the morning of this resurrection do so with celestial bodies and shall inherit a celestial glory; these are they who are Christ’s the firstfruits. Those coming forth in the afternoon of this resurrection do so with terrestrial bodies and consequently shall inherit that kingdom; they are described as being Christ’s at this coming. All who have been resurrected so far have received celestial bodies; the coming forth of terrestrial beings does not commence until after the Second Coming. (Doctrine and Covenants 76:50–80; 88:95–99.) (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary [1965], 1:196)” See also Doctrines of the Gospel Teacher Manual, Chapter 32: The Resurrection and Judgement. You will never get things to work out if you start counting trumps out of context. Trumps and trumpets are mentioned all throughout the Bible and all the scriptures, and they indicate different things in different contexts (for example, the seven trumpets of Revelation chapter 8). In most cases only the extremes are discussed throughout the scriptures, the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15), the resurrection of life or the resurrection of damnation (John 5:29), or those who awake to everlasting life and others to everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2). Mosiah is just doing more of the same, with the “second trump” representing those who come forth in the end. They of the telestial kingdom however receive of the fulness of the Holy Spirit, another God in LDS theology. Let me know where in Doctrine and Covenants 138:12-17 (a description of those Jesus visited and preached to in the spirit world before his resurrection), do you find those who would inherit a terrestrial glory. You are repeating yourself. This question has already been answered in this thread several times by me and others. See my post on 04/22/2025 where I said: “The revelation in section 138 focuses only on the extremes: those of the celestial realm who are called to preach the gospel to others, and those of the telestial realm (those in darkness) to whom Jesus did not go to teach personally.” And my post on 05/20/2025 where you still didn’t get that I had answered your question and I said: “We’ve already been through this. You are setting up a false dichotomy. Section 138 focuses on extremes (the righteous and the wicked). Not mentioning those in the intermediate state does not automatically lump them in with one or the other.” Romans 8:9-17 is speaking of the covenant sons (sons by adoption). They are the ones entitled to call God their Heavenly Father. They are the ones entitled to call God their Father in a covenant sense, but God is the Father of all spirits (Hebrews 12:9), and remember that Jesus said that we (all men) should love our enemies and do good to those who hate us so that “ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:45). God is the Father of us all, but those who are covenant children of God have a special connection with him as their Father. Where do you see non-covenant sons inheriting the earth? “The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.” (Psalms 37:29) What happens to them is covered in Romans 8:9. They don't reside in the Kingdom of God. They are not regarded as covenant sons. They are neither the sons of Hagar or of Jerusalem (Galatians 4:22-26). So do they go to hell, or what happens to them (the Christians who aren’t led by the spirit of God) in the final judgement? Are you saying it is covered in Romans 8:9? "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his"(Romans 8:9). I don’t see the word “only” in verse 15, do you? According to Jesus he is the Father of all but we must behave like him so that we “may be” his children (Matthew 5:45). And, “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven” (Matthew 6:9). There is no scripture that speaks of spirits (uncreated eternal intelligences) becoming spirit children of Heavenly Mother(s). You keep avoiding what Paul was teaching in Acts 17:28-29 for some reason. What did Paul mean when he taught that we are all the same kind of being as God, his offspring? You posted a modern Christian commentary, but it just made things worse and didn’t even address the meaning of the Greek word génos. Do you believe what Paul taught, that we are all the same kind of being as God, his offspring? Or do you reject that teaching? Paul is not speaking of procreation of a Heavenly Father with his heavenly wives. Remember, it was you that said in your post on January 2, that “The pagans understood ‘offspring’ in the sexual case of literal reproduction for the Greek gods; like that which occurs between male and female.” Is this true or false? How would Paul’s audience have understood what Paul taught about the Christian God, that we are all the offspring of God? They obviously understood his logic, because many of them pondered his meaning and some rejected their idols and joined the Christian church that day because of Paul’s teachings. How do you think they understood Paul? Why does scripture, in Genesis 5:3, say this ("in his own likeness, after his image") of only one of Adam's many children? "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth". Does "after his image" mean something more deeper? Only three of Adam’s children are ever named in the Bible (Abel, Cain, and Seth), so does naming only three of Adam’s “many children” mean something deeper for those three? And in Genesis 5:3, where Seth is mentioned, it is the only place where a genealogy is given from Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, and so on, comparing God making Adam in his own image and likeness (in verse 1) to Adam begetting a son in his own image and likeness (in verse 3), perpetuating the image and likeness of God from Adam on down. So, pointing out that Adam begat Seth in his own likeness and after his image doesn’t seem like Seth is being singled out as special here, as it is part of the narrative context for establishing the fact that men perpetuate the image and likeness of God. Do you think “image” and “likeness” means something deeper in this verse below? “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4). 1 Peter 3:18-20 refers to all the unsaved who perished in the flood. These unsaved are the disobedient as Peter worded it, as corrupt and violent as Genesis 6:5 worded it. It seems you exclude violent and corrupt people from those verses in 1 Peter 3 and only focus on the "disobedience" part. What part of 1 Peter 3:18-20 refers to “all the unsaved who perished in the flood”? The verse simply says that Christ “went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water”. It doesn’t say anything about ‘all the unsaved” that I can find in those verses.

The Joseph Smith Papers give us the original sources, so we can compare them and see which ones agree or differ from the others in some way, and we are not limited to one person's interpretive compilation of the original source or sources, as they were published in the Times and Seasons, Church History, or Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. I explained in great detail the difference between the King Follet Sermon sources and the Sermon in the Grove source in my post to you on May 26. A lot of people have relied on those published compilations through the years, but a lot can be gained from studying the original notes and the realization that the published version of the Sermon in the Grove relies primarily on the account of only one person (Thomas Bullock), and he didn't always get everything right.

This seems to have been confirmed (as SeekingUnderstanding has already noted). KSL has a story on it today. And while that information may help to determine the killer's motive, it just goes further to underscore the utter stupidity of it all, since that roommate association with the suspect in the killing just backs up some of the theories that Kirk was spreading. Why would the killer do something that goes further to confirm what the person he hates is saying? Killer dude, you've just made things worse. What's wrong with people these days?

It's referring to the final judgement, which comes after the resurrection.

His actual motive alludes me. I haven't been able to find anything on that other than the rather mundane statements in several news articles reporting that he had talked about Kirk at the family dinner table, indicating that he didn't like Kirk and the viewpoints that he had. If not liking someone is a motive for murder, we're all in trouble. ETA: I am purposely not using the killer's name because sometimes notoriety can be part of a motive. And if trying to silence Charlie Kirk's ideology was his motive, making him a martyr is certainly not the way to do it. Prior to this week I had never heard of Charlie Kirk (I guess I live in a cave), but I can't be the only one. Now everyone knows who he is and I'm sure curiosity will make his ideology more well known. What a dumb way to handle the situation.

There are a lot of conflicting reports on this, but CNN is saying: And then there are reports from the ever so trustworthy New York Post [sarcasm intended] that the killer was "raised a devout Mormon", and that he fired his shot at Kirk "just moments after the conservative influencer had glowingly praised the Church of Latter-day Saints", as if that was a trigger point for why he fired the shot. But I don't see any way the killer could have been hearing anything being said at that moment unless he had a radio or something else. And there are conflicting reports on what exactly Kirk was saying at the time he was killed. The way they keep reporting that he was "raised a devout Mormon" implies that his family is not active in the church now, but I haven't found any information on that one way or another.

Reinterpret? Or is it that all the access we have now to all the original sources helps us put it in better context and evaluate what he was teaching?

Isn't that the point? They are given an equal opportunity to learn about and accept the gospel of Jesus Christ so they can be judged by the same standard. Why is there a "but" to that? This just shows the terrestrials did not receive the gospel and its ordinances. It shows that they did not have it in their hearts to accept the gospel or to live according to its principles. For those who inherit the terrestrial kingdom, they are those "who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus" or who "received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it" (Doctrine and Covenants 76:74, 79). In other words, they knew about it but didn't receive it with all their heart. Is this an allusion to the doctrine of the Trinity? 1 + 1 + 1 = 1? They will be taught correct math later on I'm sure. It's not a theory. The proof is there. See my posts starting on November 16, 2022. Have one what?

This is part 2 of a response to the post by @theplains on June 20, located here, which was a response to my post dated 05/26/2025. PART 2 OF 2 I believe those seven churches in Revelation were literal churches at the time. I don't subscribe to the notion that it is symbolic or that a church represents a church age. Not all that was written to a specific church can be applied to the remaining six. You can see this in the specific commendation and condemnation given to each. I agree with you that there is no indication that the seven churches in Revelation are representative of “a church age”. And I also agree that the churches in Revelation were literal churches at the time. However, Babylon was a literal city and a literal empire in its day, but the word Babylon is used in the book of Revelation and throughout the Bible as “a symbol for the stereotypical enemies of God and His people. (Sodom and Egypt are also used in this way)” (as it says in the Got Questions article, What is the significance of Babylon in the Bible?). Furthermore, the number seven has symbolic significance throughout the book of Revelation (and the entire Bible for that matter), and (as I mentioned last time) John’s vision included instructions to these “seven” churches with both specific greetings from Jesus Christ (as told in the vision), along with specific praises when applicable (to five of the seven churches) along with specific warnings against corruption when applicable (to five of the seven churches), but each one of them also received promises to those who “overcome”, and these were always directed to all the “churches”, i.e. “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches” (Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26-29, 3:5-6, 12-13, and 21-22). Since this was all given to John in a prophetic vision, it is definitely not intended to be entirely limited to seven specific historical churches (even though some very specific criticisms may have applied to them alone) any more than the prophecies about Babylon (or Sodom or Egypt) would be limited to a specific historical city or empire. I believe the general instructions, admonitions, and blessings pronounced to each of those churches could be applicable to any one of us today in similar situations, and the general promises made to those who “overcome” are applicable to all who overcome in any time or place. Their examples are there for our benefit. When and who is the fulfillment of 2 Thessalonians 2:7-9? I have already explained that, have I not? You also asked the following in your post in the Overthrowing the Church of God thread on 06/24/2025: In my response to that on June 29, I pointed out how I have already explained to you the “when and who” of verses 7-9 of 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 in my post my post on 03/29/2025 and on 05/26/2025 , where I explained that the “who” is Satan, and Paul was saying that Satan was already at work in Paul’s day and how Satan’s work would continue until Christ returns and Satan’s work will be destroyed at Christ’s second coming. As I also said before, Satan is the one doing those wicked things through the lives of many people including some in Paul’s day, which is why Paul said, “the mystery of iniquity doth already work” in his day and time. You are repeating yourself, so I’ll repeat myself. I explained what I believe Paul is saying, above (it is Satan). And even though the beast of Revelation 13 and 19 is one of the individuals that Satan uses to do his evil works, the beast can’t possibly be the only “who” of 2 Thessalonians 2:7-9 because Paul said he was already at work in his day (“the mystery of iniquity doth already work”), and no human individual lives that long. The spirit of the antichrist can reside in different people at different times. It began to work prior to Paul's time and possibly more so in his time. But I believe there will be someone much more evil (two in this case; the beast and the false prophet) who Christ will cast into the lake of fire at the Second Coming. The power, signs, and lying wonders of this man of sin (2 Thessalonians 2:9) fits nicely with those of Revelation 13:7,12-14; 19:19-20. Okay, so apparently you do see that 2 Thessalonians 2 can’t possibly be referring to just the beast, but it is Satan in general. As for 2 Thessalonians 2:9, that verse is somewhat ambiguous when taken out of context. The subject of who is “coming” is defined in verse 8, where it says, “And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming”. The one who is “coming” is the Lord Jesus Christ, and he comes chronologically after Satan does his wickedness on the earth. We’ve been through this before (why do you keep repeating yourself?). Remember, Matthew 24 starts out with the context of Jesus answering two separate and distinct questions asked by the apostles in verse 3: “Tell us, when shall these things be? [concerning the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem in 70 AD – see verse 2] and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” Jesus discussed the events leading up to the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem in 70 AD in verses 15-21 of Matthew 24. Titus is the one who destroyed the temple at Jerusalem in 70 AD. And if you doubt that those verses in Matthew 24 are talking about the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem in 70 AD, compare those same verses to Luke’s account of the same discourse in Luke 21:20-24, where verses 20 and 24 make a very clear reference to the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the temple at Jerusalem in 70 AD: “And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh… And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.” Remember the Jerusalem timeline? Remember what I posted on 08/18/2024? Remember the Jewish virtual Library article, History of Jerusalem: Timeline for the History of Jerusalem? The destruction of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem happened exactly the way that Jesus prophesied in 70 AD, it’s a past event. The Roman emperor Titus was responsible for that destruction and his defiling of the temple in the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD. And please don’t reboot that entire discussion again. Do those in the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms make up the bride of Christ? For context I’ll repeat what I said last time: The Lord has always considered his people to be his “bride”. But he also refers to them as backsliding, playing “the harlot”, and they are forsaken by the Lord at times (temporarily). See for example Isaiah 54:4-8, Jeremiah 3:14, 31:32, and Ezekiel 16:8-22. Israel has gone in and out of apostasy several times. The fact that the Lord’s people are his “bride” does not mean that they will never go into apostasy or be “forsaken” by the Lord for a time. So, there are various groups of people that make up the bride of Christ, but ultimately it will only be the faithful who come to the wedding feast wearing the wedding garment. That much-bigger-thing are the mighty signs and wonders done by the beast and false prophet to deceive the people on the earth just before the Second Coming. No. The much “bigger” thing we were talking about was the apostasy that Paul prophesied would come and that it was “already” at work during his day, which has nothing to do with the behavior of the “beast” and “false prophet”. Remember, Paul “marveled” that the saints at Galatia were “so soon removed” from the gospel of Christ. Remember, Paul prophesied that Christ’s organization would be destroyed and the bishops would be replaced after his “departing”. When did that apostasy occur? Where does Revelation 13 or 19 say anything about an apostasy? (It doesn’t). That apostasy is in the past because it was already beginning in Paul’s day. Revelation 13:12-14: "And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live". Revelation 19:20 – "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone". 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12: "Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness". These future, lying signs and wonders may even exceed those wrought by the Apostles of the early church. Yes, but how does this answer the question of where Revelation 13 or 19 shows anything about the great apostasy that Paul was talking about in 2 Thessalonians 2:3? Future lying signs and wonders by the beast and false prophet don’t indicate an apostasy from the true Christian faith. You’re going to need to point out specifically where these chapters show that an apostasy is taking place. Can you do that? Jesus did not come to create the church as an institution. That’s clearly a false statement, as it contradicts the New Testament. Jesus came to organize his church as a body of believers, with a definite leadership and hierarchy, giving it apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, “For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God” (Ephesians 4:12–13). The apostle Paul did not say that Jesus did this only until men could read the Bible on their own and invent their own church, rather he said this organization was established “till we all come in the unity of the faith”, so that “we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Ephesians 4:14). In other words, the institution that Christ set up was intended to prevent the very thing we see happening in Christianity today. To his apostles Jesus said, “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.” (Matthew 10:40) Paul also taught, “God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you” (1 Corinthians 12:18–21). Paul also taught that some of those members of the body of the church included apostles and prophets (1 Corinthians 12:28). If Christ didn’t set up the church as an institution, then what is this organized leadership that Paul said would continue until all come in the unity of the faith? And who are you to say of an apostle or prophet (a member of that body), “I have no need of thee”? I think deification is more about the concept of believers sharing in certain aspects of divine life or nature without becoming a deity. But what you say above reflects your modern popular version of Christianity that developed much later on, which is totally contrary to the teachings of the early mainstream Christian Fathers, for they clearly taught that those who are deified become actual “Gods”. Here are a few examples: Irenaeus (175-195 AD), “For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; although God has adopted this course out of His pure benevolence, that no one may impute to Him invidiousness or grudgingness.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 38) Irenaeus again, “How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man? Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created? How, again, can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker? For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. For thou dost not make God, but God thee.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 39). Origen (185-254 AD): “Now the God of the universe is the God of the elect, and in a much greater degree of the Saviours of the elect; then He is the God of these beings who are truly Gods, and then He is the God, in a word, of the living and not of the dead.” (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 2 Chapter 3). Origen again, “"There are some gods of whom God is God, as we hear in prophecy,[Psalms 136:2] ‘Thank ye the God of gods,’ and [Psalms 50:1, LXX and in the Hebrew] ‘The God of gods hath spoken, and called the earth.’ Now God, according to the Gospel, [Matt 20:2] ‘is not the God of the dead but of the living.’ Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god. The Apostle, too, writing to the Corinthians, says: [1 Cor 8:5] ‘As there are gods many and lords many,’ and so we have spoken of these gods as really existing.” (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, Chapter 34). Clement of Alexandria (c. 155 – c.220 AD): “the Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God. Is it not then monstrous, my friends, that while God is ceaselessly exhorting us to virtue, we should spurn His kindness and reject salvation?” (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, Chapter 1, Paragraph 13). Clement of Alexandria (again), “Then become pure in heart, and near to the Lord, there awaits them restoration to everlasting contemplation; and they are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Saviour.” (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book 7, Chapter 10, paragraph 4). Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235 AD): “And thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven, thou who, whilst thou didst sojourn in this life, didst know the Celestial King. And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God: for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a man, these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon thee, because thou hast been deified, and begotten unto immortality. ... For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, rendering regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards thee. And provided thou obeyest His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, thou shalt resemble Him, inasmuch as thou shalt have honour conferred upon thee by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the divinity of His divine perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory!” (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Book 10, Chapter 30). Do any of the sources from the early Christians quoted above sound like they are teaching “believers sharing in certain aspects of divine life or nature without becoming a deity”? NOW again, why do you suppose that the majority of the mainstream Christians teachers prior to the invention of the doctrine of creation out of nothing and prior to the first council of Nicaea (when Constantine added the word "homoousious" to the creed) believed and widely taught that God is the God over other gods, and that men become actual gods? Which God or Gods are the Brother and Sister Gods (of Earth's Heavenly Father) and Heavenly Father (of Earth) in subjection to? None, obviously, since God the Father is “the Eternal God of all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32). He is the “head God” as Joseph Smith taught. Reread what I posted last time and engage what I said rather than just repeating your distorted views of Latter-day Saint doctrines. I already addressed your mischaracterization of our beliefs. Furthermore, your response above has nothing to do with the quote from the early Christian Father, Clement of Alexandria, where he clearly taught doctrines similar to that of Origen (who I quoted previously), where he taught doctrines very much like what you quoted from the LDS Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, Chapter 4. Your comment is just another diversion from the topic. As I mentioned before, Heavenly Father is only eternal in the sense he was never created, he always existed. He is gnolaum. But he has not eternally existed as God. I'll elaborate further in your example of Jack the plumber. One Christian view is that Jesus is the Eternal God. There never was a time when he was not God. Another view (the LDS one) is that he has not eternally existed as God but rather he was an eternal being who became a God. The LDS Jesus constitutes a different Jesus. Perhaps the “LDS Jesus constitutes is a different Jesus” than what modern Christians believe and teach about him (the creedal Jesus), but what Latter-day Saints teach about Jesus is not different than the biblical Jesus and the teachings about Jesus from the earliest Christians. I posted about this previously, and you agreed that some of the early Christian teachings about Jesus sounded a lot like what you quoted from the Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, Chapter 4. You said, (referring to a quote from Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, paragraph 2), “What he said seems to align with what the seminary manual mentions”. And I also posted a similar statement from Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 2. Now who exactly is teaching a “different Jesus”? CFR for where the LDS church officially teaches (in scripture, official doctrinal statements, and official curriculum manuals) what you claim to “understand of LDS theology” as stated above. And if you try to use any of the references that you posted previously that I already discussed in my last post, then engage what I said about them in my last post and explain why anything I said was incorrect. Your caricature of LDS theology doesn’t agree with Joseph Smith’s teachings that “all Gods” before us were made “kings and priests to God”, nor does it agree with what the scriptures clearly teach, that God is “the Eternal God of all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32). CFR for where the LDS Church teaches (in scripture, official doctrinal statements, and official curriculum manuals) that Doctrines and Covenants 121:32 applies to only “Heavenly Father’s sphere”, or where I personally made that distinction as you are alleging that I am doing above. CFR for where the LDS Church teaches (in scripture, official doctrinal statements, and official curriculum manuals) for what you are saying above. And if you try to use any of the references that you posted previously that I already discussed in my last post, then engage what I said about them in my last post and explain why anything I said was incorrect. You forget all the other descriptions of the people in that passage: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. Only those led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. These are the heirs. In your logic, only exalted become Gods. You are repeating yourself, and this has already been dealt with extensively previously, and more recently in my post on 08/17/2025 and my post on 08/30/2025. There's a teaching which goes something like this: "In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it". Who is that head God? Is he the God of all the other Gods? Are these Gods of the past (before Heavenly Father became God of Earth), Gods in the present in other spheres, or children of Heavenly Father who hope to become Gods in the future or who have already progressed to Godhood in the past or present? The answer to your questions above should be completely evident based on what I posted previously, including the post you are responding to. Here is one of the relevant portions from my last post: The Head God of All Other Gods The scriptures clearly teach that God is “the Eternal God of all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32). Abraham 3:19 also teaches this: “And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.” God the Father has created “worlds without number” and is the God over all those worlds, and he is not merely “the Heavenly Father of our Earth” (as you like to mischaracterize it): “[W]orlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.” (Moses 1:33) And in both the King Follet Sermon and the Sermon in the Grove, the primary focus for Joseph Smith was that Heavenly Father is the “head God” of all other gods. In both sermons he taught this principle using Genesis 1:1. This is what he said in the King Follet Sermon: “I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of the creation in the Bible—Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith—in, by through, and everything else. Rosh—the head. Sheit—grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, ‘The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods.’ That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council.” Joseph Smith emphasized that God is the “head God” at least eight times in the King Follet Sermon, calling him “the head, the Father of the Gods”. In the Sermon in the Grove, Joseph Smith made the same point as follows: “Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits, rendered by King James' translators, ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.’ I want to analyze the word Berosheit. Rosh, the head; Sheit, a grammatical termination; the Baith was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since added by an old Jew. Baurau signifies to bring forth; Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, ‘In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods,’ or, as other have translated it, ‘The head of the Gods called the Gods together.’” Joseph Smith emphasized that God is the “head God” at least seven times in the Sermon in the Grove. This same idea (of the head God above all other Gods) is also expressed in this statement from the King Follet Discourse: “Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you”. He says “all Gods” before us have become “kings and priests to God”, the head of all Gods. What could be more clear than that? Moses and Satan are referred to as gods but they are not deities. There are examples in scripture of being exalted but that does not mean being made into a deity. I don't think the early church father had the following concept in mind: "As man is [not a God now] God once was [not a God once]. As God is [now a God], man may become [a God in the future]". Irenaeus (c. 175 - c. 195) taught, “How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?” (Against Heresies, IV.39 (St. Irenaeus). Some Christians believe other [false] gods exist or that the gods in Psalm 82 is a reference to human judges. Moses and Satan are also referred to as gods. Your response totally avoids the question and falls back to your favorite false interpretation of Psalm 82 (that we have discussed over and over) and doesn’t deal with what these mainstream early Christian fathers actually taught (even regarding Psalm 82). The mainstream early Christian Fathers taught that the “gods” of Psalm 82 are men that are actual gods, and they often used Psalm 82 in their teachings that men become gods. Here are a few examples: Justin Martyr (150 AD): Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter CXXIV. Irenaeus (c. 175 - c. 195): Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter VI (paragraph 1), Book IV, Chapter XXXVIII (paragraph 4). Clement of Alexandria (c. 155 - c. 220 AD): Exhortation to the Heathen, Chapter XII, Origen (185-254 AD): Against Celsus, Book 8, Chapter 3. More examples could be given. Alright. The LDS Heavenly Father earns the title of God, meaning he was not God "by title" before. Here is a rephrase of Isaiah 44:6: "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first [doctor], and I am the last [doctor]; and beside me there is no God [doctor]". And a rephrase of Isaiah 43:10: "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God [no doctor] formed, neither shall there be [no titles of doctor bestowed upon anyone] after me". For me, based on how I understand the scriptures, God is always God and never needs to earn the title of God. There never is a time when he is not operating as Doctor. That’s an interestingly contrived story, but it has no relationship to reality. I believe God has always had the title of God as the most advanced and most intelligent being in existence, but he “became” our God in relationship to us, as stated as follows: “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) For your Jack example, you are primarily focusing only at the moment Jack becomes a plumber. No, just the opposite. I’m focusing on the fact that Jack is now an eternal plumber, regardless of the moment or how long ago he became a plumber. I’m focusing on what we know of Jack now and the eternities to come, which is the same for how the God of the Bible is described in the Bible. But that’s not what it means to be an “eternal plumber”, nor is that what it means to be an “eternal God”. The Bible never says God has existed eternally as a God, it says from age to age he is God (as we have discussed many times). I’m just putting your example into the same terminology we have for God in the Bible. To be perfectly clear, I do believe that God has always been God in the sense that God the Father has always been the most advanced, and is thus the God over "all other gods" as Doctrine and Covenants 121:32 says, and that all the gods before us have become kings and priests "to God" in the same way (as Joseph Smith). God the Father only “became” our God in the way that Joseph Smith explained: “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 “became” our God when we agreed to align with God and accept his plan. Eternal life is not living life as a God, procreating spirit children and peopling worlds that are created. Do you believe that if you receive “eternal life” that it would mean that you have had life eternally? If so, then fine, your thinking is consistent. But if you don’t believe that you have had life eternally, then why would you imagine that the phrase “eternal God” means that he has been God eternally? You aren’t being logical or consistent. Actually, biblically speaking we are all the offspring of God (the very same kind of being as God), and God is the “Father of spirits”, and God created the earth and created man (the human soul) by forming our bodies from the dust of the earth and putting into us the “breath of life” (our spirits that came from God and will return to God). Did Heavenly Father institute his own laws for progression or did he just pass on the same laws that he obtained from his own Father so he could also advance to Godhood? Obviously according to Joseph Smith and other teachings of the church, God the Father instituted his own laws or utilized laws that are eternal. CFR for where official LDS Theology (in scripture, official doctrinal statements, and official curriculum manuals) teaches that God had “laws that he obtained from his own Father so he could also advance to Godhood”. You seem to be referring only to the sphere in which you reside. You seem to be ignoring the meaning of “all other gods”. CFR on where I “seem to be referring only to the sphere in which you reside”. CFR where official LDS Theology (in scripture, official doctrinal statements, and official curriculum manuals) teaches that God has “spirit brothers and sisters who went on to become Gods themselves”. And if you intend to use any of the sources that I discussed in my last post (like the Sermon in the Grove or King Follet Discourse), you will need to engage the things I posted last time and explain where I said anything that is incorrect. Besides, I have already answered that question many times. Quoting from my post on 03/03/2025, “I have explained to you previously that God the Father has always been the most advanced being of all and the God over all other Gods, scripture makes this clear. And I have also explained what Joseph Smith was teaching when he said that God “came to be God” in relation to us, as he put it in that context.” I believe the Godhead [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] always existed. They have always been God. There is only one Godhead. Nothing came into existence without Christ's involvement. Ok, so you don’t believe what you said last time, that “all beings are created through Christ”. I don’t either. Angels could be viewed as a different type of creation next to the seraphim and cherubim. The cherub above the ark of the covenant are depicted as having two wings each. Of course, someone could view angels as a different type of creation next to the seraphim and cherubim (people believe all kinds of unbiblical things), but such a belief would not be based on the Bible. The Bible gives us absolutely no indication that angels are a different type of creation, next to the seraphim and cherubim, or otherwise. Here is some commentary to help explain what this means: https://www.christianity.com/wiki/god/what-does-it-mean-to-be-the-offspring-of-god.html The strangest part about that Christianity.com article is the title, “What Does it Mean to Be the Offspring of God?” It’s funny (strange) because the article never provides that meaning, it doesn’t answer the question that is asked in the title, it never provides a definition of the Greek word génos that is translated as “offspring” in those verses. Don’t you think that is a bit odd, or even suspicious? Why do you think the authors of that article totally avoid defining that word? I think I know, it is because they know that there is no possible way to reconcile the popular modern Christian teaching about the transcendence of God and the popular modern Christian teaching that God created man out of nothing (creatio ex-nihilo), both of which are unbiblical, with the meaning of that Greek word (génos) in the context of the apostle Paul’s teaching in the Bible that we are all the offspring of God, the same kind of being as God. In modern Christian theology those concepts are incompatible with Paul’s teachings, and thus in the face of Paul’s sermon those modern Christian ideas are shown to be unbiblical. As you know I already posted my comments on that Christianity.com article over in the Overthrowing the Church of God thread, in my post dated 08/30/2025. So you should already know how the Christianity.com article tries to get around the real meaning of Paul’s teaching by bringing in other ideas that Paul didn’t introduce to his Greek audience in the context of his sermon in Acts 17, and by doing that the writers of that article commentary destroy the full impact of Paul’s logic in that sermon and they introduce even more confusion to the situation. Their explanation not only doesn’t solve the issue Paul was addressing, it makes it much much worse and it portrays Paul as a lying bait and switch salesman. Since you used the Christianity.com article to get around directly answering the questions I asked about Acts 17:28-29 in my last post, and since the Christianity.com article does nothing to address my questions, I’m going to restate them here. In Paul's teaching to the men of Athens, his use of the Greek word génos designated that we are the same kind of being as God. It means we are literally the same kind of being. And remember, you were the one who told me how his Greek audience would understand his use of the Greek word génos as "‘offspring' in the sexual case of literal reproduction for the Greek gods; like that which occurs between male and female." Why would Paul use that word (génos) if he knew that was how his Greek audience would understand the word if Paul didn't intend that meaning? Was he trying to trick them into joining Christianity like the Christianity.com article portrays him doing, since the article says that Paul really meant that we are created by God, or that only Christians can be the children of God through adoption, instead? Also, if you are going to simply cut and paste a commentary as if it is an answer to my question (which it was not in this case), you should also include your own comments to explain why you believe the commentary (or whatever you posted) addresses my question. Otherwise, it is meaningless. Of course, Latter-day Saints doctrine doesn’t say exactly how we are the offspring of God, so you don’t have to believe it the way you describe it above (I certainly don’t take it that way). But you should believe it the way that Paul taught it in the Bible, which is that we are all the “offspring of God” – the same kind of being as God (it’s biblical)! And Paul didn’t elaborate on exactly how we (all humankind) are the “offspring of God”, the very same kind of being as God, other than saying that we are that. But I know you believe that his Greek audience would have understood it as you said in your post on January 2, that “The pagans understood ‘offspring’ in the sexual case of literal reproduction for the Greek gods; like that which occurs between male and female.” So, I’m sure some of those that Paul converted to Christianity on that day may have believed it the way you described it. Maybe Paul did too. A child of God, by adoption, satisfies all the conditions of Romans 8:12-17. You can't pick some of the descriptions in those verses and omit the rest. These are the children of God: • They are led by the Spirit of God. • They receive the spirit of adoption • They are the children of God. • They are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. You are just repeating yourself and are responding to my comment out of context and are ignoring the rest of scripture. These are also children of God: All of us, we are all the “offspring of God” (Acts 17:28-29). All of us, for God is the “Father of spirits” (Hebrews 12:9). All of us in one sense, but only those who follow God by behaving like him in another sense, because Jesus said we must follow God our “Father” by loving our enemies and doing good to them that hate us, so “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 4:45). Note that Jesus did not say that we should do this so that we may be the “children of God”, but that we “may be the children of your Father”. In other words, God is already our Father in some sense (as in in Acts 17:28-29, Hebrews 12:9), but we must behave like him so that we can become his children in another sense. As many as receive Jesus Christ are given the power “to become” the sons of God, they are “born… of God”, born again through Christ (John 1:12-13). Those who are led by the Spirit of God become adopted as children of God under the covenant. So when you said “A child of God is an heir of God” in your prior post, that is not universally true, because a literal child of God (offspring) may not be a covenant child of God (becoming an heir of God). As I mentioned before, the heirs are the children of God, by adoption (Romans 8:12-17). The comment you quoted from me above was in response to your statement, “We have different opinions of what it means to ‘inherit all things’”. How does your response above address what you believe it means to “inherit all things”? How does that answer my question? There is a general sense of all being children of God (made in his image) No, not just made in his image (Paul never mentioned that in Acts 17), but children of God in the sense that God is the Father of spirits and we are all the very same kind of being as God, his offspring. And as I have said elsewhere (as in my posts in the Overthrowing the Church of God folder on 08/30/2025 and 09/06/2025), there is no way for Paul’s sermon to make any logical sense to the Athenians if he was merely teaching that we are all the “children of God (made in his image)” as a creation of God. So apparently you do accept the fact that not all children of God are heirs, and that Romans 8:12-17 refers to those who enter a covenant and are adopted as children of the covenant (born again) and become heirs of God. This is what I was trying to say all along. Regarding the GotQuestions article: The seven churches described in Revelation 2-3 are seven literal churches at the time that John the apostle was writing Revelation. Though they were literal churches in Asia Minor at that time, there is also spiritual significance for churches and believers today. The first purpose of the letters was to communicate with the literal churches and meet their needs. The second purpose is to reveal seven different types of individuals/churches throughout history and instruct them in God's truth. I agree with the first purpose but not with all of the second purpose. Some churches today are not defined by the descriptions below: The church in Pergamos "But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. The church in Thyatira "Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols". Some of what is written to each church is repeated to the others. Some even believe the church of Philadelphia and Laodicea represent the last two churches in the final age leading to the return of Christ. Jesus provides a promise to the believers in Philadelphia, which can be extended to all believers: "Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down from out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name" (Revelation 3:12). A similar theme is written in the letter to the church of Thyatira: "And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father". To Laodicea: "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne". And to Sardis: "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels". This theme of overcoming can be related to 2 Corinthians 6:16. "… for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people". One key description: "to those who overcome". Not overcoming means missing out on the blessings and promises that the Lord has prepared for those who are faithful and endure to the end. These are they who will reside with God in his kingdom. In LDS theology, many will not return to live with Heavenly Father. They had not overcome, endured to the end, or received eternal life. But getting back to Revelation 3:9 ("Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee"). You said "All of the promises that Jesus makes to the "seven churches" (the entire church) include the future promises to those who "overcome", which includes humans (who overcome) sitting with God in his throne in the same way Jesus sits on the throne with his God and Father". I said the future promises that Jesus made to those who “overcome” are given to all the churches, as it says in each of these verses: Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26-29, 3:5-6, 12-13, and 21-22. They all say, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches”. Those promises are not limited to the seven listed in the book of Revelation. And those promises include humans (who overcome) sitting with God in his throne in the same way Jesus sits on the throne with his God and Father (Revelation 3:21). They are with God in his throne doing what God does in his throne, ruling and reigning in his kingdom. But that doesn’t mean the specifics of the other praises or admonishments that are given to the individual historic churches listed in the book of Revelation apply to future generations. The Nicolaitans, the woman Jezebel, or the specific individuals involved in the synagogue of Satan (as it was called) may not exist by those names in future generations, but the same principles may apply. Some of the problems were due to the willingness of the Christians to compromise with paganism or to succumb to harassment from outside sources, all of which should be watched for today. I have no idea why you keep asking about women. Don’t you believe that women are among those who “overcome”? I do. As for your question about “the synagogue of Satan”, see below. This passage is about the restoration of Israel to their homeland: literal Gentiles assisting literal Israelites. I don't believe this is their gathering into the church. But maybe Later-day Saints interpret this as referring to the gathering of Israel in the latter days, where people from all nations are invited to come unto Christ and be part of His covenant people. I think we can agree this has nothing to do with all Israelites being worshipped by those of the synagogue of Satan. Of course I never said that Isaiah 49:23 had anything to do with the Israelites being worshipped by those of the synagogue of Satan. You had asked if the gods of Psalm 89:8 were worshipped by anyone (Psalm 86:8 is where it says, “Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works”). I responded by saying it doesn’t say in that passage, but elsewhere in the Bible it does refer to humans being worshipped by other humans, and I listed Revelation 3:8-9, Isaiah 49:23, and Isaiah 60:14 as examples of this. The point is that God causes some humans to worship other humans, and the Bible shows this to be true. From what I understand of LDS theology, Heavenly Father (of Earth) is God over all the Earth and over all the worlds he has created. As I said before, you clearly don’t understand LDS theology. And that God is the God of the earth is biblical, “For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called” (Isaiah 54:5). So I’m sure you believe that too. Is that how you refer to the God you worship? The “Heavenly Father (of Earth)”? But he is not only the God of this earth, but he is also the creator of worlds without number as noted in Moses 1:33, and thus the God of worlds without number. I explained last time why what you say above is contrary to latter-day scripture and what Joseph Smith taught. Why don’t you engage what I said last time explain why you think I’m wrong (if you disagree)? There is no such thing as “Gods before Earth’s Heavenly Father”. The scriptures clearly teach that God is “the Eternal God of all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32). And in both the King Follet Sermon and the Sermon in the Grove, the primary focus for Joseph Smith was that Heavenly Father is the “head God” of all other gods. This same idea (of the head God above all other Gods) is also expressed in this statement from the King Follet Discourse: “Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you”. If “all Gods… before you” became “kings and priests to God”, and if God is the “Eternal God of all other gods”, then there is simply no such thing as “Gods before Earth’s Heavenly Father” as you claim. According to who? You? CFR for where it says Abraham 3:19 “only pertains to Earth’s Heavenly Father’s sphere”. As explained above, there is no such thing as “all the other beings who obtained the title of ‘God’ long before Earth’s Heavenly Father did”. If you think otherwise, then you’re going to need to show where the official teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints say this. And if you try to use any of the references that you posted previously that I already discussed in my last post, then engage what I said about them in my last post and explain why anything I said was incorrect. How is Earth's Heavenly Father regarded as the head God of his Father God or of all his spirit brothers and sisters (of the same Father) who also became Gods either before or after him? CFR where the official teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (in scripture, official doctrinal statements, and official curriculum manuals) teach that “God or of all his spirit brothers and sisters (of the same Father) who also became Gods either before or after him”. And if you try to use any of the references that you posted previously that I already discussed in my last post, then engage what I said about them in my last post and explain why anything I said was incorrect. Do you believe Earth's Heavenly Father was a Divine Being before he was born to his heavenly parents? CFR where the official teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teach (in scripture, official doctrinal statements, and official curriculum manuals) that “Earth's Heavenly Father was… born to his heavenly parents”. Were Heavenly Mother and Father of Earth able to become Gods and establish their kingdom without the aid of their heavenly parents? Did you even read anything I said last time? I don’t think so. I addressed this question already. Reread my last post and engage what I said instead of repeating your theories. When the LDS God the Father and God the Mother were once man and woman on some other world, were they already Gods in mortal bodies? Did you even read anything I said last time? I don’t think so. I addressed this question already. See my last post. You keep repeating yourself on this theme but I think it would help if you specifically qualify and limit this to the sphere of Earth's Heavenly Father. He is not a God over all the gods (spirit children) which pertain to the other spheres of His Father God or all his other Brother and Sisters who became Gods and their subsequent children. CFR for where official LDS doctrine teaches (in scripture, official doctrinal statements, and official curriculum manuals) that God “is not a God over all the gods (spirit children) which pertain to the other spheres of His Father God or all his other Brother and Sisters who became Gods and their subsequent children.” And if you try to use any of the references that you posted previously that I already discussed in my last post, then engage what I said about them in my last post and explain why anything I said was incorrect. And I keep repeating myself on this theme because you have not addressed how your version of “LDS theology” (as portrayed above) fits in with the official teachings of the Church, nor have you engaged any of my posts demonstrating how your version of “LDS theology” contradicts the scriptures and the teachings of Joseph Smith. And contrary to what you say above, the scriptures clearly teach that God is “the Eternal God of all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32). You seem to want us to believe otherwise, or you certainly want to portray it as such. What can I say. Mormonism also split up into various sects, while not as many, with different interpretations too. David Whitmer would even go as far as writing "An address to all believers in Christ", documenting why he believed Joseph Smith as a false prophet. And so did the early Christian church split up into various sects (those of “Apollos” or of “Cephas”, Hymenaeus, Alexander, Phygellus and Hermogenes, Philetus, Diotrephes, and the Nicolaitans to name some). But the true church was distinguished from all the others by the fact that it was the only one led by the apostles who were called by Jesus Christ. But again, you didn’t answer the question. 1 Thessalonians 1:5-6 and 1 Corinthians 2:4-5 both explain that Paul’s teaching came not “in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance… with joy of the Holy Ghost”, and also that Paul’s preaching was “not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power. That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God”. How does the way Paul taught (as quoted above), using the power of God by revelation through the Holy Ghost, compare to the way the preaching is done in Christian sects of modern times? Right, Protestant sects today have rejected Paul’s teachings in the Bible where he taught that we are all the offspring of God. The commentaries they write work hard to try to get around Paul’s actual teaching by making their readers believe that Paul was really saying we are all created by God out of nothing, because that’s what their traditions teach them. I'm not sure if you consider the Doctrine and Covenants as being a closed-canon as nothing has been added since 1978. And as I said before, most of the D&C seems to deal with the time before the saints travelled to the Salt Lake Basin in 1847 This is such a weak criticism. Would you have considered the Bible to be a closed canon if you had lived at the time when Jesus was born, and hadn’t had any revelation added to scripture in the 400+ years since the time of Malachi? Criticizing the church for not adding anything to the Doctrine and Covenants since the 1981 edition (44 years ago) seems to pale in comparison. The point remains; the canon of scripture is open and always open. God is eternal and so are his words, so we need to always be open and prepared to receive all he desires to give to us. Denying the power of God isn’t just “a little bit of apostasy”, it’s a betrayal of all that Jesus taught and the established authority of his church.