InCognitus

Thanks, I feel better. I respect your views, and now I apologize for apologizing I have a meeting in 3 minutes, so I can't comment more now. I hope I get more time to review your post a little later.

Swift catch there.

It stresses me that I have made your experience here frustrating, and I truly apologize for that. I really welcome your input and am sincerely trying to understand your point of view. You are such a welcome voice on this board! In all my interactions with people of other faiths I try very hard to sincerely understand and be fair about seeing the other person's point of view. I was being honest about not grasping your viewpoint, and I hope I didn't sound like I was making light of it, as that was far from my intentions. I hope you get a chance to expound on it, as you are hinting at above. My method of making sense of another view or interpretation often involves me "proving contraries" (to use a Joseph Smith phrase) and working out the position in my head, and sometimes that comes across as criticism, which is not my intent. My apologies!

I'm glad you asked, and I really wish a lot of people on this board and elsewhere could have attended our class yesterday. Our entire lesson was about how to handle the hard things in church history, but with a focus on the polygamy topic of section 132. I'm in a ward in Utah now (I am really an Arizona boy at heart, so this is all new to me) and most of the people in the class have ancestors who had to deal with polygamy, and some of the families still have hard feelings about some of the branches of their family tree. But many of them wouldn't be there today if it were not for those families doing what they did. The teacher did a great job of handling it and there were some really good comments from some members of the class.

That makes no sense to me. Does that mean if we don't do marriage in this life, it is only for the eternities in the after life? Also, I don't think Paul considered this life to be a "present distress", and his teaching in verse 5 to husbands and wives, where he says: "Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (NKJV, emphasis added), would be in contradiction to what he says in verses 29-30: "But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not”. It is clearly for a temporary purpose, which has to be for the preaching of the gospel (in my mind). I don't think it even makes sense for Paul to give the council he gives above to prepare for the second coming. How would that make sense? ETA: I'm trying to understand what you are saying, and maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

You didn't READ what I said, which was "there is no such thing as a “Grandfather (the Father above Heavenly Father)”. So your question has no meaning. CFR where official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says there is a "Grandfather... above Heavenly Father".

I would say that you can safely ignore the other counsel given in the same context then. Isn't that the same thing you were saying, that "It was admittedly to an audience that thought the Second Coming was coming any day now so it can be seen as special circumstances"? Special circumstances mean that it wasn't a long term council, but for a unusual reason (either the impending second coming of Christ, or the urgent need to do missionary work). Here's the source, St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Philadelphians, Chapter 4, -HAVE BUT ONE EUCHARIST, ETC. Clement of Alexandria: Or he had knowledge of the tradition (like that of Ignatius), and recognized the Philippians source as evidence of that. The same goes for the quote from Origen, since he referred to the "tradition" that Paul had a wife, but that the tradition was disputed by some people. It seems that the dispute always had to do with the support for celibacy or the defense of marriage being ordained of God. The Clement of Alexandria source is definitely an argument against those that "teach that one must reject marriage and begetting of children" and "some who say outright that marriage is fornication and teach that it was introduced by the devil", and he quotes Paul in support of his argument, that "In the last times some shall depart from the faith, turning to spirits of error and doctrines inspired by daemons, forbidding to marry and commanding abstinence from food." So Clement was inclined to accept the tradition that Paul was a married man.

I can see how this view is a reasonable assumption. But I disagree with it for other contextual reasons. And in either case (that it was a "distress" because of the immanent second coming of Christ, or a "necessity" for preaching the gospel), it was a temporary and special circumstance, and not a long term council that celibacy is to be preferred. I haven’t seen any such sources that appeared convincing. I presume you have read the sources from Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria (and there's a source from Eusebius, but he is just quoting Clement of Alexandria)? And Origen also mentions Paul's married state, but treats the information as tentative (i.e. "Paul, then, if certain traditions are true, was called while in possession of a wife, concerning whom he speaks when writing to the Philippians, 'I ask you also, my loyal mate, help these women.'" - referring to Philippians 4:3). Can you explain why you don't find them convincing? I'm not trying to argue the point, I just want to understand your point of view. I can understand this view as well.

I agree. I have never liked the Bible translations (like the NLT and NET) that render Romans 1:1 as "a slave of Christ Jesus". I find this portion of the preface of the ESV translation to be applicable to this discussion: I think this is a thoughtful consideration of the translation because of our modern views on slavery.

The Greek word that Paul uses in Romans 1:1 (δοῦλος) to say he is a slave "of Jesus Christ" is also translated as servant, and that Greek word could definitely have both meanings. Being a "servant" or "serving", being "subject to" can be either willing or unwilling, and the Thayer's Lexicon definition gives "one who gives himself up wholly to another's will" as one of the possible meanings. I don't think we should pick on the apostle Paul for using the word to mean "slaves" as he might accept that practice in his day, because Jesus used the same word often and even implied that he himself was such (i.e. Matthew 8:9, 10:24, 10:25, 20:27, 24:45-46, 48, 50, Mark 10:43 for a few examples).

I don't think it's fair to say that Paul was advocating celibacy (in general) at all. First of all, multiple early Christian sources indicate that Paul was a married man, and thus Paul's statements about abiding "even as I" in 1 Corinthians chapter 7 should be viewed in that light. Second, Paul was responding to a specific question (1 Corinthians 7:1) and we don't have that question. But from the context of chapter 7 we can see that Paul was speaking to those who are called to participate in the "present distress" (verse 26), and the Greek word translated as "distress" in that verse (ἀνάγκην) is the same word used in 1 Corinthians 9:16 which is translated as "necessity" in preaching the gospel: "For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity (ἀνάγκη) is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!" (1 Corinthians 9:16). So in chapter 7, it appears that Paul is talking to those who are called to preach the gospel and whether they should be married while participating in that calling. And, I think this goes along with what Paul (a married man) says about having the power to take his wife with him on his missionary journeys, as do the other apostles (1 Corinthians 9:5), but he doesn't do that. He thinks wives are a distraction to the work (or maybe he just thought his wife would be a distraction to the work), which is why he advocated remaining celibate while participating in that calling.

I was just going to mention this, and then I saw you had already done so. This is the Josephus reference (correlating with Numbers 12:1): Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews — Book II, Chapter 10: "Tharbis was the daughter of the King of the Ethiopians: she happened to see Moses, as he led the army near to the walls, and fought with great courage: and admiring the subtilty of his undertakings, and believing him to be the author of the Egyptian success, when they had before despaired of recovering their liberty; and to be the occasion of the great danger the Ethiopians were in, when they had before boasted of their great achievements, she fell deeply in love with him: and upon the prevalence of that passion, sent to him the most faithful of all her servants to discourse with him upon their marriage. He thereupon accepted the offer, on condition she would procure the delivering up of the city; and gave her the assurance of an oath to take her to his wife: and that when he had once taken possession of the city he would not break his oath to her. No sooner was the agreement made, but it took effect immediately: and when Moses had cut off the Ethiopians, he gave thanks to God, and consummated his marriage, and led the Egyptians back to their own land."

Concubines were considered to be wives, so it may not be necessary to distinguish the difference. Take Abraham for example: "And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife." (Genesis 16:3) "Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah." (Genesis 25:1)

P.S. Latter-day Saints don't believe any gods are "formed" to be the God of Israel (or our God), either before or after God declared himself to be the God of Israel (as the context of Isaiah 43:10 makes clear).

Or, it is what Joseph Smith actually taught, that God the Father is the “head God”, and all other gods are subject to him and are representatives of him, and God the Father received his physical body by being born on an earth as the son of a father (as Joseph Smith taught), and there is no such thing as a “Grandfather (the Father above Heavenly Father)”. With this view, those who become Gods (or gods, however you want to put it) are always subject to the one God and Father above all, and they become representatives of God in relation to others and in the matters of creation. This is also the biblical model, for Jesus (who is God) was the representative of his God and Father, referred to God the Father as “my God”, and he created the earth under the direction of the Father, and while on earth he spoke the words of the Father and did only the will of his Father. And Jesus taught us to worship God the Father. And this concept of divine representation is also seen with other representatives of God in the Old Testament, such the angel that Jacob wrestled with in in Genesis 32:24-32 compared with the story of Manoah and his wife and their experience with the angel of the LORD in Judges 13:2-6, 15-22. In those two encounters, both Jacob and Manoah make statements about having seen God and they remarked about their state of preservation (or fear of losing it), even after it is clear (in Manoah’s case) that he was dealing with a representative of God instead of God himself: Gen 32:30 "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Judges 13:21-22: "But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God." This was also a concept implemented by Jesus in sending out the apostles and the seventy as his representatives, when Jesus said, “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me” (Matthew 10:40), and “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me” (Luke 10:16). If receiving mortal men (the apostles and the seventy) can be said to be the same as receiving Jesus and God the Father (his God and Father), how much more shall it be for those who become gods and are representatives of God the Father? Thus, God the Father, the Eternal God of all other gods (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32), is always the focus of all worship, honor, and truth, even when he brings others to become like him. He is the “head God”, the God of all, the “God of gods, and Lord of lords” (Deuteronomy 10:17).

Abraham is told in several of the verses that you quoted that "in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed". This is both literal and spiritual, as Abraham 2:11 points out. But the reality of how the "nations of the earth" will be "blessed" has to do with the spiritual aspect of that "seed", and not the literal sense. Consider what Jesus taught the Jews in John 8:31–47 as evidence of this: 31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 33 They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 37 I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 47 He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. Now, in the verses quoted above, who are the seed of Abraham that are those through which "all the nations of the earth [will] be blessed"? Those who rejected Jesus and wanted to kill him, or those who "do the works of Abraham"? Also, who are the seed of the Messiah as discussed in Isaiah 53:10? "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand." (Isaiah 53:10) Maybe I should post that verse in the "Was the Lord Fertile?" thread.

It's obviously more than a desire for Godhood, because Satan wanted to exalt his throne above the stars of God, meaning he wanted to be above everyone else including God. The desire to become like God, on the other hand, is fundamental to everything Jesus has taught us to do, through accepting him as our Savior and be cleansed through his atoning sacrifice, and by following him. That path requires humility and submission to the Savior and his God and Father, our God and Father. Satan had no humility. He rejected the entire plan and wanted all the glory. That was where he failed.

You are mixing the word meanings. Both Paul and Joseph Smith are borrowing the comparison of heavenly bodies (the sun, moon, and stars) to the degrees of glory in the resurrection. They are not saying the moon is the earth, but terrestrial is the name given by God to one of the degrees of glory, just as celestial and telestial are assigned to the others. The early Christian Origen (185-254 AD) spoke of these comparisons and explains it quite well. He wrote: “Since the heretics, however, think themselves persons of great learning and wisdom, we shall ask them if every body has a form of some kind, i.e., is fashioned according to some shape. And if they shall say that a body is that which is fashioned according to no shape, they will show themselves to be the most ignorant and foolish of mankind. For no one will deny this, save him who is altogether without any learning. But if, as a matter of course, they say that every body is certainly fashioned according to some definite shape, we shall ask them if they can point out and describe to us the shape of a spiritual body; a thing which they can by no means do. We shall ask them, moreover, about the differences of those who rise again. How will they show that statement to be true, that there is ‘one flesh of birds, another of fishes; bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial; that the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial another; that one is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars; that one star differeth from another star in glory; and that so is the resurrection of the dead?’ According to that gradation, then, which exists among heavenly bodies, let them show to us the differences in the glory of those who rise again; and if they have endeavoured by any means to devise a principle that may be in accordance with the differences in heavenly bodies, we shall ask them to assign the differences in the resurrection by a comparison of earthly bodies. Our understanding of the passage indeed is, that the apostle, wishing to describe the great difference among those who rise again in glory, i.e., of the saints, borrowed a comparison from the heavenly bodies, saying, ‘One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars.’ And wishing again to teach us the differences among those who shall come to the resurrection, without having purged themselves in this life, i.e., sinners, he borrowed an illustration from earthly things, saying, ‘There is one flesh of birds, another of fishes.’ For heavenly things are worthily compared to the saints, and earthly things to sinners. These statements are made in reply to those who deny the resurrection of the dead, i.e., the resurrection of bodies.” (CHURCH FATHERS: De Principiis (Book II), Chapter 10:2 (Origen)) The Joseph Smith translation says, "Also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial, and bodies telestial; but the glory of the celestial, one; and the terrestrial, another; and the telestial, another". Did Joseph Smith view the Moon as a celestial body? Yes and no. Obviously, the moon is a celestial body (in the sky) in the vernacular of Joseph Smith’s day, and he would have recognized it as such. But scripture uses symbolism and metaphors all the time to portray true principles and concepts. So, I have no problem at all with the Lord giving names to the three kingdoms of glory utilizing existing words as symbolic representation of the degrees of glory. This verse is often interpreted in various ways. Some people see it as a poetic description of God's majesty and omnipotence, emphasizing His perspective and power over the earth and its inhabitants. Others have speculated about its implications regarding the shape of the earth. How people interpret the verse today is beside the point. The point was that God doesn’t communicate to us using his full scientific understanding of the universe. Instead, he teaches us using principles and concepts we can understand from our earthly perspective. And, if people don’t understand that teaching method they can really mess up on their modern interpretations of the Bible (like thinking the Bible teaches that there is a flat earth). Which covenants prior to the law of Moses do you believe have been restored and when? Is circumcision one of them? I was referring to the temple covenants that Israel made with God on Mount Sinai (Exodus 19 and 24), allowing them to see “the God of Israel”, prior to them breaking that covenant with the golden calf, a short time later. We have already discussed this in detail. Reread the other message folder. The Levites being reserved for the priesthood is mentioned in several places throughout the Old Testament. You are avoiding the point. I have already pointed out that that the priesthood duties were primarily limited to the Levites after the incident with the golden calf. But Ephriam (the person) lived prior to the incident with the golden calf. So, I’ll repeat what I said last time: you are completely wrong to assert that Ephraim (the person) did not hold the priesthood, and the same goes for Reuben or any of the other brothers. You have nothing to support that assertion. This is not the Levitical or Melchizedek priesthood. What priesthood was it if not the Melchizedek priesthood? Clearly Melchizedek held that same priesthood. He was the priest of the most high God. So, what priesthood did Ephraim and his brothers hold, if not the same priesthood as held by Melchizedek? The LDS Church believes its members hold the office of high priest. No, it doesn’t. Only High Priests hold the office of High Priest. Again, you keep wanting to jump to the point after Israel breaks their covenant in the incident with the golden calf. Why do you keep trying to avoid the period of history when Ephriam lived? Prior to the incident with the golden calf, Moses referred to all the elders of Israel as a “kingdom of priests, and an holy nation”. The descendants of Ephraim would have been among those elders of Israel. So I’ll ask the same question again (referring back to what you said in your prior post): What exactly is “the way the LDS Church has interpreted things for Ephraim” that precludes Jesus (who was of the linage of Judah) from becoming the great High Priest? Please explain. Where does the Bible say Ephraim never served at the altar? The blessings of the priesthood exercised through Christ as our High Priest, yes. But the priesthood was not specifically promised to the tribe of Ephraim. I agree, the priesthood was not specifically promised to the tribe of Ephraim, it was promised to all the children of the promise of Abraham, with Ephriam being included in that promise. The descendants of Ephriam were among those of which Moses said were “kingdom of priests, and an holy nation” prior to the incident with the golden calf on Mount Sinai. There's a generic land inheritance for the meek. As scriptures reveal, there are also a specific land inheritance for the Israelites. But the land inheritance for the meek obviously includes the Israelites too. So, what’s the difference? The United States is not excluded from “inherit the earth”. You miss the fact that none of Jacob's blessings pertain to certain tribes obtaining the priesthood. And I have never claimed that Jacob's blessings pertain to certain tribes obtaining the priesthood over others, only you have done that. Are you missing your own "fact"? I have always said that the priesthood blessings pertain to the children of Abraham. Yes, so all the elders of Israel (including the tribe of Ephraim) held the priesthood prior to the incident with the golden calf on Mount Sinai. Why couldn’t you have just agreed with me on that point earlier? What do you believe the utmost bound of everlasting hills is? The entire world. How much is a multitude of posterity? In several censuses recorded in the Bible, both Manasseh and Judah exceed Ephraim (Numbers 1:27,33,35; 26:22,34,37). Considering that the tribe of Manasseh obtained a double portion of land inheritance over Ephraim, what do you believe are the greater blessings Joseph received over all the other brothers? Genesis 49:26 says, "The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren". What blessings had Jacob received which prevailed above the blessings of his progenitors? Did any of these blessings have to do with a land inheritance? Would you consider the scepter not departing out of Judah as the second or lesser blessing than those you believe Joseph received? We already went over that, and I answered those very questions in the other thread. Reread that entire thread and quit trying to reboot the entire discussion. Ok. Let's analyze what you consider to be my double standard. Would you clearly identify what you believe is the blessing of Ephraim above all his other brothers at any time in history and please provide scriptural support. You are changing the subject again. The “double standard” was because you acknowledge the fact that Judah’s blessing was to his posterity, but you claimed that Joseph’s blessing was to him personally among his family and not to his posterity. That is clearly a double standard. As for your diversion question, that’s already been addressed in detail in the other message thread. I addressed this earlier. Yes, above you acknowledged that all the elders of Israel were a “kingdom of priests” prior to them breaking their covenant on Mount Sinai. So your prior statement that, “All the seed of Abraham did not have a right to the priesthood in the Old Testament” is not true. In the Old Testament, several individuals set up altars for worship. Here are a few notable examples: Abraham: He built several altars to the Lord as he traveled through the land. For instance, he built an altar at Shechem (Genesis 12:7) and another between Bethel and Ai (Genesis 12:8). Isaac: He built an altar at Beersheba after the Lord appeared to him (Genesis 26:25). Jacob: He set up an altar at Bethel after his vision of the ladder reaching to heaven (Genesis 28:18-19) and later returned to build another altar there (Genesis 35:1-7). Moses: After the Israelites' victory over the Amalekites, Moses built an altar and called it "The Lord is my Banner" (Exodus 17:15). Joshua: He built an altar on Mount Ebal as part of the covenant renewal ceremony (Joshua 8:30-31). Gideon: He built an altar to the Lord after an angel appeared to him, calling it "The Lord is Peace" (Judges 6:24). Samuel: He built an altar at Ramah, where he lived and judged Israel (1 Samuel 7:17). David: He built an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, which later became the site of the temple (2 Samuel 24:18-25). Elijah: He repaired the altar of the Lord on Mount Carmel during his contest with the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:30-32). These altars were often places of sacrifice and worship, serving as physical symbols of the individuals' or communities' devotion to God. From the above list, only Isaac was the firstborn. The other individuals mentioned, such as Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, David, and Elijah, were not firstborn sons in their respective families. It’s rather ironic that you are now pointing out the widespread building of altars now in this folder (which were used for burnt offerings and sacrifices), while in the other folder you were arguing that they were not widespread and even denied they had any significance initially. This makes it clear that the priesthood was not entirely limited to the Levites after the law of Moses, and that temple ordinances such as sacrificial offerings and burnt offerings were widespread prior to them later being centralized to the temple in Jerusalem under the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah. Also, you need to check your list of people who you say were not “firstborn sons” in their respective families, as you would have a hard time supporting that claim for some of them. What double inheritance did Ephraim receive over Manasseh or his male siblings (if you include Jacob's other sons)? That question has already been addressed over and over in the other message folder. Go reread that folder. Were the parents of Melchizedek, who was the “priest of the most high God”, of Kohen or Levite descent? Do you believe that Melchizedek did not follow how God had set it up for the Old Testament? In that "electronic tattoos" link, I am not able to verify what Christian denomination the Daily Galaxy represents. You didn’t answer the question (again). Who is a Christian leader today who speaks for all of Christianity? Also, you didn’t stipulate previously that the person’s “Christian denomination” makes a difference on what constitutes “doctrine” in your definition of doctrine, which was: “Put simply, doctrines are just faith-based beliefs that are spoken or printed without the caveat of them just being opinions or speculations.” I’m just trying to nail down what you really believe to be the definition of Christian doctrine based on what you said previously. Elder Packer isn't really trying to define what makes something "official doctrine" as you like CFRs for. He's more interested in whether a statement is actually true or not. This includes speculations or opinions. But if they aren't expressed that way, then it's not speculation or opinion. Don’t be ridiculous. Obviously Elder Packer’s statement cannot include speculation or opinion unless, through the process of time and acquiring further information, the speculation or opinion proves out to be true or false. Otherwise, how can a person know if a speculation or opinion is true or not? Was the New Testament Christian belief that Christ would return in their lifetime true or not? That Christ would return in their lifetime was their speculation and opinion at the time, but we know now it wasn’t a true belief. Even the apostle Paul expressed that view, but it wasn’t true. He didn’t know that his opinion on that was wrong until he received further information about the apostasy of Christ’s church and other information that caused him to revise his earlier statements. That’s the process that happens all the time with apostles and prophets. They base their views on the truth that is made available to them at the time, and often those views may be revised later on as more information becomes available. It's easy to see truth (or not) in hindsight. A true statement can’t always be identified as such until all the information is available, and speculation and opinion (by definition) is always based on partial information. ... if it has scriptural support. That’s why I view the LDS doctrines of a Heavenly Mother as false. You mean, that’s why the LDS doctrines of a Heavenly Mother is true since the Bible teaches that we are all the “offspring of God”, and Paul’s audience would have definitely understood Paul to be teaching that very thing (according to you). Thus, according to your own view that doctrine is biblical. And, the “homoousious” Father and Son that is the most official doctrine of Christianity (based on the Nicene creed) must be false, because it has no scriptural support. The same goes for the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo (creation out of nothing), or the modern Christian teaching that the Bible is the only word of God, or that God really didn’t create man in his own image and likeness, and that there is such a thing as the “nature of angels” and angels have wings! Is that really where you want to go with this discussion? CFR for where official LDS doctrine teaches that God was “a spirit child of heavenly parents”. You are speculating and giving your opinion, not official LDS doctrine. (And note the key word, “official”). As for foreign gods, what is more dangerous and foreign to the Bible than the “homoousious” Father and Son? Furthermore, if, as you do, have beliefs about God that aren’t found in the Bible at all, who are you to complain about Latter-day Saint teachings that may not be found in the Bible, but may be based on additional revelation from God? It's good to see that you believe false teachings lead people astray but you haven't admitted any false teachings in LDS publications or General Conference talks. I don't know what Constantine meant by that term but I understand there are various interpretations. I didn't have anything else to add from what I wrote in other threads. You at least acknowledged before that the trinitarian idea of a “homoousious” Father and Son wasn’t biblical. Do you believe that unbiblical doctrine is leading people astray? I don't see a sheep that does not have eternal life (John 10:27-28). Actually, in John 10:27-28, Jesus teaches that “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me”. It doesn’t say that all sheep follow him and have eternal life as you suggest above. Scripturally speaking, some sheep go astray, and some get lost. Yes, that was the point. Which of the Corinthian gods was Paul teaching was the true God? This is a revealing question. This tells me that you think Paul was teaching about pagan gods when he taught the Athenians that we are all the offspring of God in Acts 17:28-29, because you can’t accept the Biblical fact that we are all God’s offspring. Paul was teaching about the true God of the Bible in those verses. Paul would have known how his Greek audience would understood his teaching, and the teaching that we are all the same kind of being as God was essential to his overall argument, which was that it is foolish to worship gods of stone or silver or gold, because we are not stone or silver or gold. It was a true teaching about the God of the Bible. Why do you reject that true teaching? Furthermore, this causes me to wonder about your perceived purpose for posting on this board. If you believe you are trying to lead us away from the so-called false teachings of “Mormonism” and to follow the true God of the Bible, you are doing a horrible job of that because you yourself aren’t following the Bible by rejecting this very teaching of the Bible. If you wish to persuade us that your beliefs are true and ours are not, then why can’t you offer any reasonable answer as to how we should understand Paul’s duplicity and bait and switch tactics to the Athenians when he taught them that we are all the very génos of God, the very same kind of being as God, his offspring? You acknowledged how Paul’s pagan audience might have understood his teaching (“’offspring’ in the sexual case of literal reproduction… like that which occurs between male and female”), even though you deny that Paul was implying that there is a Heavenly Mother and you don't believe we are really the offspring of God. How do you reconcile this? This is a core principle and changes everything about how we view our relationship with God. How are you going to convince us to reject Paul’s teaching and accept yours instead, if you can’t reconcile your beliefs with this teaching of the Bible and explain why Paul would lie to his audience about our relationship to God?

I agree completely with everything you say above and it corresponds to my own experience with the KJV. The archaic language helps me to remember and retrieve from my memory quotations that I would likely struggle with if it was written using contemporary English. And I feel the same way about the connected study tools that I have that go along with it.

Your question seems to be directed at the overall books of the Bible (but I think you left it vague on purpose). But I'll approach your question at the micro level. There is no question that passages have been added and removed from the copied manuscripts of the Bible over the passage of time, but it would be wrong to accuse an entire church or denomination of such things. The adding and removing seems to have been done by individual copyists or groups of copyists, and this isn't limited to the New Testament. The early Christians complained that some Jews had removed specific passages of scripture about the Messiah that might point to Jesus. And there is evidence of scripture tampering with the manuscripts related to the philosophical arguments by the early Christian apologists in the post New-Testament era. Given the differences in the manuscripts, Bible textual critics have argued and reasoned over which reading of a particular text is most likely the original, and what has been taken out or added along the way. The dating of a manuscript is important in making the decision on which text is likely the original, but there's more to it than just that. Many times the question on whether something is an addition or a removal of a particular passage comes down to who can provide the best reason the passage was removed or added. I don't know of any textual variant that can be blamed on "the Catholic/Orthodox Church(es)" or "Protestant Reformers" (although Martin Luther had it out for the book of James, I'm really glad that book made the cut).

I think the primary reason we use the KJV is because it was the translation that was used by Joseph Smith and it correlates with the revelations of the restored gospel. We keep using it primarily because of that tradition. In 1992, the First Presidency issued a "Statement on the King James Version of the Bible". My opinion on why we continue to use it (as stated above) is supported by the following paragraphs from that statement: "Since the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has used the King James Version of the Bible for English-speaking members." "While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church. In light of all the above, it is the English language Bible used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." We acknowledge that there may be better translations, or translations of specific words in scripture that provide greater meaning than what might be found in the KJV (the footnotes in our LDS edition of the KJV demonstrate some of that), but for practical reasons we keep using the KJV because of the the reasons stated above.

In some ways, yes. We are all the same kind of being as God (as the Bible teaches), but we all have a long way to go to progress to be like God in other ways. So really then, Satan lusted after power (to exalt his throne above the stars of God), and it wasn't his desire to be like God that was wrong. Do you agree? Also, Satan wanted to do it his own way rather than following God's way. God's way required that each person humbly accept Jesus as their Savior and be perfected in him, but there was nothing humble about Satan's approach. "For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 14:11) So there is really nothing lustful or wrong about wanting to become like God, and Jesus really wants all of us to become like him and be one with him and his Father. The problems arise with our motives and with who and what we love the most. That's what makes the difference.

No, I'm thinking about beyond the borders shown on typical Bible maps that are derived from the book of Joshua, like the one I posted above, along with the fact that they are said to rejoice in their "going out" and their abundance from the sea (Deuteronomy 33:18-19), which implies they go places and get good things from their seafaring ventures (which would be really really hard to do given the land allotment described in Joshua 19). In other words, the land that we may imagine that Israel will inherit and return to may not be what you've been led to think it is.

Yes, this indicates that the land inheritances of the tribes of Israel are not limited to what is commonly portrayed in Bible maps. Their inheritances goes far beyond that. This is a misconstruing of the text. Jacob was in Egypt at the time. What land did he really have? The blessings were given to him (past tense), but clearly not all of them had been realized at the time that Jacob pronounced his blessing upon Joseph. He was given a blessing (as one Jewish commentary describes it), "that bursts all bounds, one that has no limits, that reaches even unto the four corners of the world, as it is stated, (Genesis 28:14) “[God said to Jacob] and thou shalt spread abroad to the West and to the East [and to the North and to the South]”, an unqualified promise that was made neither to Abraham nor to Isaac." You keep trying to restrict the Israelites land blessings to a Bible land map, but their blessings go far beyond that. Or it means the entire world, as was explained in the prior post. That's what I believe it means. It might even include Canada. I already did that in my post to you in the other thread on February 25, 2024.

Is there something wrong with wanting to become like God? For example, what is lustful about wanting something like this?: "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." (1 John 3:2).