InCognitus

In other words, we are saved through orthopraxy and not orthodoxy. (The orthodontists and orthopedic surgeons of the world won't be happy to hear that).

It doesn't diminish who Christ is. Matthew pointed it out for the same reason people were raised from the dead to mortality before the resurrection of Jesus. Before Jesus went to the cross, he said "I am the resurrection and the life". You seem to believe there's a difference in one being raised from the dead versus one being resurrected from the dead. I don't make a distinction except that in some cases, Jesus raised (resurrected) some back to life only to die again later. There is a difference between how Jesus was raised from the dead and how other prophets and apostles have raised people from the dead, and Matthew 27:52-53 makes a direct reference to the way Jesus was raised from the dead in this context: “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection” (Matthew 27:52–53). Now was that “after his resurrection” in the sense that Jesus rose up into mortality and died again? Or was it “after his resurrection” in the sense that Jesus rose up from the dead and became immortal, never to die again? And why wouldn’t we understand that those who were raised up “after his resurrection” were raised unto immortality in the same way? That is your focus so it doesn't make sense to you. That’s not just my focus, that is the central focus of the entire gospel of Jesus Christ in true Christianity: “If Christ be not risen [into immortality], then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14). Paul continues, “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” (verse 53). “Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him” (Romans 6:9). So why would Matthew point out that others were raised from the dead “after his resurrection” but they died again? That doesn’t prove anything, and it diminishes the power of Christ and the significance of the event, making him no different than other prophets and apostles who have raised the dead. Jesus was raised physically from the dead, in a glorified body. Jehovah's Witnesses refer to it as a resurrection but in their theology, it's actually a newly created body. The old body was destroyed. Every time Jesus appeared to his disciples, he had to appear in a newly materialized body. But I don't know if their view of Christ's spiritual body has substance. If I paraphrase them correctly "Jesus went into the grave, but Michael came out". Scripture doesn't say that the people who came out of the grave after Christ's resurrection were immortal or if the people were Gods (i.e. possessing eternal life). Why are you so obviously opposed to others receiving the resurrection to eternal life right after Jesus was resurrected? What is your theological reason for opposing it? In Alma's case, redemption brings eternal life. You are taking things out of context again. The redemption of “the soul” is one topic and context, the redemption unto eternal life is another topic and context. By your reasoning (and ignoring all context), I think you would believe that if I take a coupon to a grocery store and redeem the coupon then I will have eternal life. This fruit bearing occurs in mortality. Your "different abodes" is actually one abode. The comment about “different abodes” is not mine. As I said above, that was how the early Christians were taught to understand the passage. In a chapter titled, “Degrees of Glory in Heaven” (of all things), Clement of Alexandria (c. 155 - c. 220 AD) wrote: "Conformably, therefore, there are various abodes, according to the worth of those who have believed… These chosen abodes, which are three, are indicated by the numbers in the Gospel--the thirty, the sixty, the hundred. And the perfect inheritance belongs to those who attain to ‘a perfect man,’ according to the image of the Lord. And the likeness is not, as some imagine, that of the human form; for this consideration is impious. Nor is the likeness to the first cause that which consists in virtue. For this utterance is also impious, being that of those who have imagined that virtue in man and in the sovereign God is the same. "Thou hast supposed iniquity,’ He says, "[in imagining] that I will be like to thee." But "it is enough for the disciple to become as the Master,” saith the Master. To the likeness of God, then, he that is introduced into adoption and the friendship of God, to the just inheritance of the lords and gods is brought; if he be perfected, according to the Gospel, as the Lord Himself taught." (Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, or Miscellanies, book VI, chap. XIV) But contrary to your statement above, Jesus says there are “many” mansions, not just one (as you say there is “actually one abode”). Those who “are Christ’s” are those who receive Christ, and this is said of those in both the celestial and terrestrial kingdoms. Of those in the terrestrial, it says “These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father” (76:77). And it is only those of the telestial kingdom who “will not be gathered with the saints, to be caught up to the church of the Firstborn, and received into the cloud” (76:102). See also my repeated question to you below about those who are “Christ’s”. This is an absurd criticism as you well know. The description of the varying degrees of glory of the sun, moon, and stars have to do with how they appear to us “in the firmament” (76:70, 71, 81). And Paul’s comparison of the degrees of glory in 1 Corinthians 15:41 should be understood in the same context. See below. Romans 8:14-17 has a specific condition - "if children, then heirs". It doesn't say some children are heirs and others are not. You didn’t answer the question. The question was: What about those who “accept” Christ and profess to be Christian but decide to follow him on their own terms, using tradition and their own reasoning and interpretation of scripture instead of being led by the Spirit of God? What happens to them? As for Romans 8:14-17, yes, there is a specific condition there, but there is also a specific context for that condition, which has to do with being born again through the Spirit, as a follower of the Spirit. Those who are born again of the Spirit through Christ and follow the Spirit of God are heirs of God. They become children of God in a new sense of the word, as they are his followers. But you are trying to prooftext this verse out of context to imply that no other humans are children of God in some other sense. What does the Bible really say on this topic? Paul taught the nonbelieving Athenians that all men are the same kind of being as God, his “offspring” (Acts 17:28-29). Thus, all men are the children of God in this sense. The book of Hebrews teaches us that God is the “Father of spirits” (Hebrews 12:9). That is, he is the Father of all spirits, not just some spirits. Jesus taught us that we must follow God the 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 our Father already 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. So the Bible does say some “children” are heirs, and others are not. You just need to believe Jesus and the rest of the Bible too, not just a few verses out of context. These verses totally disprove the point you were trying to make above. Here Paul makes it clear that an “heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant”. He compared this to the “children” who were “in bondage under the elements of the world” until “God sent forth his Son… To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons”. In other words, the “children” of God who were “in bondage under the elements of the world” are born again and adopted through the redemption of the Son, thus making them worthy of being heirs of God. They were still “children” of God prior to being adopted in one sense but being born again through Christ they are worthy of being heirs of God unto exaltation. Yes, that is true. Those who follow the Spirit of God are the ones who are heirs of God and receive exaltation. 1 Peter 3:18-19 doesn't specifically use the words "corrupt" and "violent" to describe the people in Noah's day that perished in the flood, but we see this from Genesis 6:11-13. Exactly, so you see that Peter is making an important distinction here and is talking about Christ visiting only the disobedient people who were killed in the flood, not those who were “corrupt” and “violent” as described in Genesis 6:11-13. The distinction is simple. Here’s the internet AI Overview of the difference between disobedience and corruption: So there is a difference. Was their choice to disobey God a good choice when all was said and done? Moses 5:10-11 depicts it as being the right thing for them to do. It certainly seems to be what God intended them to do, since God set them up to fall by placing the tree of knowledge of good and evil right in the middle of the garden, and sending Satan (who had rebelled against God) to the very same location to tempt Adam. The fall caused death, as that was the direct result of Adam partaking of the fruit. See above. I think you mean Moses 8:28-30, not Moses 6:12-13 (or I have no idea what you are talking about). You are confusing the Genesis verses with Moses. And since Moses 8:28-30 says exactly the same thing as Genesis 6:11-13, I presume your criticism above applies to both the Bible and the book of Moses, since you previously agreed that Noah could not have possibly taught every man, woman, and child upon the earth prior to the flood.

" ... it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple". This ideas are comprehensible and simple to me, even though I don't believe them. This statement from the King Follet Discourse taken out of context doesn't support your view. Any statement taken out of context might seem to be "comprehensible" in some way that the original author did not intend. As I have explained many times before, Joseph Smith made it clear in that same sermon how God became our God with respect to the relationship we have with God. See my post on 03/29/2025, and many others. It all comes down to this: “The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 354) In other words, all our worship and all our devotion is to the one God who is above all other gods. Heavenly Father [the God of all worlds, which are without number] is the one Eternal God of all other gods (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32), and when we learn how to be Gods ourselves (through God’s plan as provided in the scripture), we become “kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before” us. We are always subject to the one God and Father who is above all others. And He isn’t made a king and a priest unto anyone else, since he is the one God who is “above all” (Ephesians 4:6).

Jesus raising dead persons (Lazarus and others) to life to die again, as opposed to raising others to eternal life, does not diminish who he is and it doesn't put him on par with other disciples or prophets. It certainly does diminish who Jesus is with respect to what is reported in Matthew 27:50-53. Why would Matthew specifically point out that people were raised from the dead after the resurrection of Jesus unless it was to show the power that Jesus has to raise people to immortality? To simply say he can do what other apostles and prophets have done is meaningless at that point. The focus of his resurrection is resurrection into immortality, and raising people up just so they can go into a city and show themselves around and then die again just makes no sense. And again, you are avoiding the implications of this passage from Matthew for some reason. Do you deny the physicality of the resurrection from the dead like the Jehovah’s Witnesses? Or why are you so obviously opposed to others receiving the resurrection to eternal life right after Jesus was resurrected? You must have some theological bias or some other agenda, because the implications of the text seem pretty obvious. Duh. Neither does the book of Leviticus mention any prophet raising the dead. Funny how that works. The Doctrine and Covenants is a is a collection of divine revelations and inspired declarations, and it isn’t a historical narrative like the Gospels or the book of Acts. (Remember there are different genres in scripture). But the Doctrine and Covenants does indicate that raising the dead is one of the powers that God may do through his servants (D&C 124:100). And in actual church history there are instances where the dead have been raised, such as this example from the life of Lorenzo Snow, and as described in this talk from Dallin H. Oaks. Thank you. I saw it. I'll copy and paste some of what you wrote. Doctrine and Covenants 88:96–102 explains that both the celestial and terrestrial individuals are resurrected as part of the first resurrection prior to the millennial reign of Christ. • Celestial, verses 96-98: "And the saints that are upon the earth, who are alive, shall be quickened and be caught up to meet him. And they who have slept in their graves shall come forth, for their graves shall be opened; and they also shall be caught up to meet him in the midst of the pillar of heaven— They are Christ's, the first fruits, they who shall descend with him first, and they who are on the earth and in their graves, who are first caught up to meet him; and all this by the voice of the sounding of the trump of the angel of God." • Terrestrial, verse 99: "And after this another angel shall sound, which is the second trump; and then cometh the redemption of those who are Christ's at his coming; who have received their part in that prison which is prepared for them, that they might receive the gospel, and be judged according to men in the flesh." Verse 99 does not depict dead terrestrials coming out of their graves or living terrestrials being changed in the twinkling of an eye (1 Corinthians 15:50-58). This is referring to faithful saints who had died, will die, or will be living at the time of the Second Coming. Ah, but it does depict the dead of the terrestrial realm as having “redemption”, and redemption is defined earlier in the context of this same section, where it says “the spirit and the body are the soul of man. And the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul” (vs. 15-16). And verses 96-101 show the complete context of how the “dead” will “live again”. But 1 Thessalonians 4 doesn’t mention anyone being changed in the twinkling of an eye like 1 Corinthians 15:50-58 does. If you are going to criticize God’s word and revelations (both ancient and modern), you better be doing it consistently or otherwise someone might think you are using a double standard. Right. In the Corinthian and Thessalonian passages, Paul must have forgotten to talk about the dead who do not live again until after the millennial reign of Christ (those of the telestial kingdom) like John mentions in Revelation 20:5. Or maybe Paul simply didn’t know about that, but Joseph Smith did? Remember, if you are going to be critical of God’s word, you better be doing it consistently or otherwise someone might think you are using a double standard. But (as mentioned previously) the apostle Paul does actually teach that there are possibly as many resurrections as there are the number of humans who have ever lived on the earth, saying that it occurs, “every man in his own order”. As Thayer’s Lexicon put it, “Paul specifies several distinct bands or classes of those raised from the dead” in that passage. For some reason John didn’t mention that in Revelation, but Paul did. Yet, there are “first fruits” and others mentioned in scripture. In the parable of the sower, Jesus said of those that “that heareth the word, and understandeth it”, there are those “which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty” (Matthew 13:23). The early Christians understood these to be referring to the different abodes in the afterlife. And don’t forget that Paul did teach that there “is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:41–42). It seems to me like he got it exactly right. And remember that Paul says it is “every man in his own order” for several distinct bands or classes of those who are raised from the dead. I don’t see the word “honorable” standing by itself in Doctrine and Covenants 76:73-77, do you? Don’t take words out of context. It says: “And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh; Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it. These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men. These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness. These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.” Those that perished in the flood included the “honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men”. They were blinded by the craftiness of the men that were responsible for the violence and corruption, which is what caused God to have them all perish in the flood. Romans 8:14-17 speaks of only one group of people who are led by the Spirit of God and are children of God. If children, then heirs. LDS theology refers to this group as exalted beings. Yep. And your point is what exactly? The question is, what about those who “accept” Christ and profess to be Christian but decide to follow him on their own terms, using tradition and their own reasoning and interpretation of scripture instead of being led by the Spirit of God? What happens to them? Right. These are the wicked (corrupt and violent) people mentioned in 1 Peter 3:18-19. They are not honorable. The corrupt and violent people aren’t mentioned in 1 Peter 3:18-19, only the “disobedient”. The Fall made the Atonement necessary, but the fact that the Atonement was foreordained doesn't mean Adam and Eve were doing the will of God in order not to frustrate His plan. The Atonement did not make the Fall necessary. God’s plan for the atonement (by foreordaining Jesus to be the Lamb slain from before the foundations of the world) shows that God included the fall in his plan. The fact that God knew that Adam and Eve would fall doesn’t mean they were “doing the will of God” by falling. Foreknowledge of something does not mean God wills it to happen, but God had "decreed that he should eat and fall" in the sense that he foreknew it and used it for his greater plan, which was to provide an environment where mankind could choose between good or evil and have the opportunity for repentance from their bad choices and redemption through the atonement of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Savior of the world. And God facilitated the plan by putting the tree of knowledge of good and evil right in the middle of the garden, right where Adam could see it and look at it every day. God, with his foreknowledge of Adam's choices, set it up for the fall. But of course that doesn't mean God sets us up for all of our bad choices. You could pick any number of evil behavior events in history and suggest that God willed those things to happen simply because he knew it would happen and used it in his plan for something greater. Take Joseph being sold into Egypt as an example. God used the evil behavior of Joseph’s brethren to get Joseph into Egypt, which later on proved to save many people from the famine. God has a bigger plan than what we can see at any given point in time. And in the case of Adam and Eve, he obviously had a plan for this earth that included the fall and atonement. You didn’t support your claim. In your original statement you said: You specifically said that those scriptural references (Alma 42:1-12, Moses 6:53-55, and Romans 5:12-29) “refer to what our first parents did as a sin”. In your attempt to support your claim above, you quoted this portion of Romans 5:12-19, “sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin”, yet you neglected to include the context of the very next verse where Paul refers to this as “Adam’s transgression”. He never refers to this as his “sin”. And sin obviously did come into the world through the fall, because fallen man is naturally subject to sin. And the same holds true of your treatment of Moses 6:53-55, where the same terminology is used: “Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden”. Likewise, Alma 42:1-12 never says what you claimed. That’s all I was trying to say there. Never do those verses “refer to what our first parents did as a sin”. I take "sin" and "transgression" to synonymous in some contexts. I never said that nobody ever refers to what Adam did as a “sin”, rather that the verses that you referenced (Alma 42:1-12, Moses 6:53-55, and Romans 5:12-29) do not refer to what Adam did as a “sin”. I’m glad you seem to believe in the LDS doctrine of the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms. Do you believe Jesus went and preached the gospel to the spirits of the dead? And, I’ve already discussed why the “disobedient” are not the same as those who were “corrupt” and filled with “violence” as described in Genesis 6:11-13. The corrupt and violent people aren’t mentioned in 1 Peter 3:18-19, only the “disobedient”.

I already explained how you are misinterpreting these quotes in my post to you on May 26, (where you tried to attribute some speculation from a BYU professor as a quote from Brigham Young, and I did a complete analysis of the statements in the King Follet Discourse and the Sermon in the Grove showing how your interpretation contradicts the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith's teachings) but you intentionally ignored my analysis and continued to repeat your assertions about "LDS theology". Please engage my response to these quotes that I already posted. And none of this is published as official Church doctrine. And I agree 100% with what Pyreaux said here: I prefer to leave my options open but also not speculate too far beyond what has actually been revealed. When we lock our thinking into a particular tradition we may end up being as blind as the first century scribes and Pharisees when Christ returns for the second time and tries to get us to open our minds to the reality of his teachings.

Not only are these things "not solid LDS doctrine", there really is no official statement on these doctrines from the Church that I'm aware of. And even in Joseph Smith's public sermons (when analyzed carefully against the context and the actual revelations), he does not seem to be teaching what a lot of people try to say he was teaching. And the canonized revelations teach otherwise. ETA: GoCeltic's counterpart (theplains) has been trying to assert that LDS Theology teaches that God is the "Elohim of our Earth" (which contradicts Moses 1:33 and Doctrine and Covenants 121:32) and that he has a "Grandfather God", but has provided no sources or official teachings on these things and continues to assert them as "LDS Theology" even though those things contradict the revelations and Joseph Smith's own teachings.

And this demonstrates the flaw in your claim and your thinking, as do the other quotes you included after you edited your post. A "guarantee against being consumed in the burning" or "fire insurance" against being burned does not stipulate that the opposite is true as you mistakenly assert. It only guarantees that those who are tithed shall not be burned, not that those who don't tithe WILL be burned. Just as in my prior example, stating that those who take a pedestrian bridge to cross a particular street will guarantee that the person will not be hit by a car does not mean that the opposite is true, where ALL who try to cross the street in some other way WILL be hit by a car. Your logic is flawed. In addition, I can absolutely prove from the teachings of scripture and the prophets that there are those who are not tithed that will be spared from being burned at the second coming. You have not supported your claim and in fact "have devoted so much time to saying and trying to prove the prophets and scriptures don’t really mean what they say."

You are still running away from your claim and trying to pin this on Elder Hinckley now. Back up your claim. Where does D&C 64:23 say specifically what you claimed "as to who WILL be burned and it is those who do not pay tithing"? We can discuss Elder Hinckley's talk once you back up your claim.

The Elmo GIF sealed the deal for me (typical antics).

I noticed that you dodged the question and just posted another quote without proving your claim. Your claim was this: The scripture says no such thing. And neither does the quote you posted from (then) Elder Hinckley of the quorum of the twelve. Let me give you an example. What if I were to say, "Those who cross the street using the pedestrian bridge will not be hit by a car while crossing that street." Using your logic, would you assume that EVERYONE who tries to cross that street without using the pedestrian bridge WILL be hit by a car? You made the claim, now support it. Where does D&C 64:23 say specifically what you claimed "as to who WILL be burned and it is those who do not pay tithing"? You said, "I think it’s funny how a few people have devoted so much time to saying and trying to prove the prophets and scriptures don’t really mean what they say." And it is funny, because at least one of those persons is YOU. Our scriptures (and the prophets) also make it clear that there are those who do not pay tithing that will NOT be burned at the coming of Jesus. The people who remain on the earth during the Millennial reign of Christ on the earth will include all those who will inherit the celestial AND the terrestrial kingdoms of God, and many of those in the terrestrial kingdom have never been members of the church and have no clue about tithing. Missionary work will continue during the millennium. How is that supposed to happen if all those not paying tithing will be burned? Your assertion is patently false.

Several people in the thread have already pointed this out to you. The scripture says those who are tithed won't be burned. It doesn't say what you are claiming, that if you don't pay tithing you will be burned. Prove me wrong. You said: I think it's ironic that you are doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

But isn't that exactly what you are doing? The Doctrine and Covenants verse says "he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming". But you say: Where does the scripture specifically say that those who do not pay tithing will be burned? (Hint: It doesn't). Now isn't it funny how you have devoted so much time trying to prove that the scripture doesn't mean what it says?

Scripture says, "even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame." If that means all the hairs that have ever fallen out of our heads in our entire lives, then we're going to all look like we have 80's hair.

We have had priesthood quorum lessons on some of the gospel topics essays. We were encouraged to do that by our bishop at the time when the essays were first put out. And in our recent combined adult and youth 5th Sunday lesson (at the end of June) which was on the topic of family history and record keeping, we discussed why one person's boring event based journal (from a farmer in southern Utah) was even important and helpful for documenting the history of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. (That was fun). And nobody in the class seemed to be clueless on what that was all about.

I'm getting some strong Atlantic Mike vibes here..... (Maybe I should go start a study group).

"Behold, I will hasten my work in its time." (Doctrine and Covenants 88:73) This is that time. President Nelson, October 2024 General Conference, "My dear brothers and sisters, do you see what is happening right before our eyes? I pray that we will not miss the majesty of this moment! The Lord is indeed hastening His work."

Paul was telling the Athenians that since they are the same kind of being as God then they shouldn't think of a divine being to be anything like gold or silver or stone, graven by art and man's device (because we are not gold or silver or stone, graven by art and man's device). It was simple logic and a way to teach them of man's relationship with God (we are his offspring, God is the Father of spirits).

I don't know. I do. See below. Just as we know Christ was able to raise Lazarus and others from the dead while he was alive (some examples - Jairus' daughter; Matthew 9:18-26 and a widow's son; Luke 7:11-17), we know he is able to also raise us from the dead into immortality. That doesn’t work. Any apostle or prophet can raise someone from the dead the same way Lazarus was raised from the dead. In fact, several prophets and apostles have raised people from the dead, among them Elijah (1 Kings 17:17-24), Elisha (2 Kings 4:18-37), Peter (Acts 9:36-43, where Peter raises Tabitha (aka Dorcas)), and Paul (Acts 20:7-12, Paul raises Eutychus who falls from the third loft). So why would those in Matthew 27:50-53 being raised from the dead in the same way as it was done by other apostles and prophets help us to “know” that Jesus “is able to also raise us from the dead into immortality”? It simply doesn’t work that way. Do you honestly think that Matthew is trying to say that Jesus is no different than any other apostle or prophet? Is that what you believe is really happening in Matthew 27:50-53? Do you think it was a sign to make sure everyone knows that Jesus is just like the other apostles and prophets? Or is it far more likely that they were resurrected to immortality and eternal life the same way Jesus was resurrected? I believe Jesus is more than just a prophet, and I believe Jesus raised the people in Matthew 27:50-53 from the dead into immortality the same way Jesus was resurrected from the dead in order to witness and demonstrate to us the power of his resurrection into immortality. Why are you trying to avoid the idea of a resurrection into immortality in Matthew 27:50-53? Do you deny the physical resurrection from the dead like the Jehovah’s Witnesses? Or what? I think we can. See above. Jesus is more than just a prophet. All in the first resurrection will become priests and reign with Christ for a thousand years (Revelation 20:6). Yes, the first resurrection, which is the morning of the first resurrection. See the end of my post on 05/20/2025, where I addressed this. See the end of my post on 05/20/2025, where I addressed this very question quite clearly. All who accept Christ are “Christ’s” (even the less valiant), but only as many as are led by the Spirit of God are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. We have already discussed Revelation 12 many times. The chapter describes part of a revelation that John saw and he describes the events in the order he saw them, and the revelation he received has several flashbacks in time. Furthermore, the events in that chapter repeat themselves, as we have discussed many times over again, so the whole chapter can’t be taken to be completely chronological. But it was terrible enough in that they were separated from God and all mankind suffers the consequences of the Fall. But obviously not as terrible as the violence and corruption at the time of Noah which prompted God to reboot the entire earth. Besides, the fall was part of God's entire plan (apparently), since Jesus was "foreordained before the foundation of the world" to be the lamb without blemish and without spot, so we could be saved by his blood (1 Peter 1:19-20). As do many Christian writers. St. Thomas Aquinas writes: "But there is no reason why human nature should not have been raised to something greater after sin. For God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom; hence it is written (Romans 5:20): “Where sin abounded, grace did more abound.” Hence, too, in the blessing of the Paschal candle, we say: “O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!” (Summa Theologica, III, 1, Article 3, Reply to Objection 3; see also the Catechism, 412). You are so desperate to find contradictions that you take things out of context and miss the continuity and the beauty of the teachings right in front of you, just like you did when you criticized President Nelson’s conference talk for following Luke’s gospel account of the mount of transfiguration, when you found Luke’s account to be contrary to Matthew’s account. The account of the fall in the book of Moses agrees with Genesis. In both Moses and Genesis, Adam and Eve were ashamed of their nakedness and made fig leaf aprons and attempted to hide from God (see Moses 4:13 compared with Genesis 3:7). But in Moses chapter 5, the angel of the Lord teaches Adam that he can repent and be redeemed through the Son of God, and “in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will” (Moses 5:9). In that knowledge Adam rejoiced, and he saw his eyes being “opened” in the new light of his Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, “O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!” You need to point out the exact place(s) in Alma 42:1-2, Moses 6:53-55, and Romans 5:12-19 where it says that Adam sinned when he first partook of the fruit as opposed to later on as a result of the fall. Certainly, sin entered into the world because of the fall (all men sin in their fallen state), but I’m not finding anything that supports what you are claiming above in those verses. Do you believe people from the telestial realm are in the group mentioned in 1 Peter 3:19? No. Only the terrestrial. This should be clear from our prior discussion. Why are you asking this?

That's an awesome chapter in the manual. I goes right along with what the apostle Paul taught the Athenians, that we are all the very génos of God (we are his "offspring" or the same kind of being that God is - Acts 17:28-29).

I'm with you on that. Normally I wouldn't have listened to the show, but since it was a topic of interest to me that I had just made a post about, I wanted to give it a fair shot and get everything in context (even though I was doing other things while listening to it at 1.3 x normal speed).

Thanks for posting this, as it is a topic of interest to me. I listened to the entire video, and while it was a very interesting discussion, they never really got around to talking about the implications of the title of the video "Does God ACTUALLY Have a Father?". These kinds of debates (or as in this case discussions that are labeled as "debates") always annoy me, because there were so many times that I wanted to interject something that would either challenge or strengthen one of the arguments. I also think Jacob got off on the wrong foot by using some of the biblical verses he began with that don't really prove the point he was trying to convey. There are much better verses he could have used that would greatly strengthen his argument. ETA: Incidentally, I weighed in on this topic in a massive post that most people won't read due the length on May 26th. It's toward the end of that post where I discuss the Sermon in the Grove. I don't think the infinite regression model holds up to what Joseph seemed to be teaching in the Sermon in the Grove, and it definitely does not hold up against the King Follet Discourse and the scriptures (including latter-day scripture).

From a Deseret News article, July 11, 2025: Church of Jesus Christ sees record growth in global membership Record-high convert baptisms during the past 12 months mark a milestone year for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reported July 9 that, as of the end of June, it has recorded the highest number of convert baptisms in any 12-month period throughout its 195-year history." Elder Quentin L. Cook, speaking to newly called mission leaders at the Provo Missionary Training Center in Provo, said that "in 2024, the church saw 308,000 people join — approximately 50,000 people more than in 2023. He then explained that in the first quarter of 2025, every region of the world saw at least a 20% increase in convert baptisms compared to the same period the previous year." This is a good turnaround from COVID times.

It depends on what you mean by "this" and It". If you mean the New Testament texts on deification (humans who are led by the spirit of God and receive Christ become "gods"), then there are many scholarly research articles on how the early Christians understood these writings as referring to deification and a belief in the existence of many "gods". See for example: BLACKWELL, BENJAMIN,CAREY (2010) Christosis: Pauline Soteriology in Light of Deification in Irenaeus and Cyril of Alexandria, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses, Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/219/ Or even David Burnett's “‘So Shall Your Seed Be’: Paul’s Use of Genesis 15:5 in Romans 4:18 in Light of Early Jewish Deification Traditions.” in Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 5.2 (2015): 211–36 (found here), where he explains, "When taken qualitatively, for Abraham’s seed to become as the stars of heaven meant to become as the gods or angels, the celestial bodies, the “fathers (πατέρας) of the nations (ἐθνῶν)” who had been allotted to rule the nations."

I don't understand your question about my aspect of timeline. They were resurrected after Christ's resurrection but I cannot say for sure they were raised immortal, never to die again. Lazarus was raised (resurrected) but he died later too. That was my premise. I consider the "first resurrection" as more on a greater magnitude. Similarly, Ezekiel 37:1-14 speaks of a greater magnitude of the Israelites gathering to their land. I’ve heard this interpretation of Matthew 27:50-53 many times before (mostly from Jehovah’s Witnesses, but also from others who deny the physical resurrection to immortality), where they say the earthquake caused the graves to be opened at the time of Christ’s death, and then the bodies of the saints rose up back to life and came out of their graves after Christ’s resurrection and showed themselves unto many people in the city, but it was only a Lazarus type of being raised back to life and they died again and not an actual resurrection of the same type that Christ underwent. But I’ve never understood how that interpretation makes any sense given the circumstances. What would be the point (from God’s point of view) of having those people being raised from the dead and go to show themselves to people in the city, but then die again later? Is it the point that Christ has power to raise the dead like he did with Lazarus? But we already knew that, he did that while he was alive. Or is it more likely that since Christ had literally died himself and rose up from the dead into immortality, to show that he has power to raise people from the dead into immortality and eternal life? I just don’t see any reason for Matthew to mention those events in connection with Christ’s resurrection unless it was intended to be a testament to the power that Christ has to raise us all from the dead into immortality. Please explain how it makes any sense from your point of view. As for the “first resurrection” having an even greater magnitude, what could be of a greater magnitude than having the first resurrection begin right after the point in time that Christ was resurrected and continue until his second coming? "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming". Who are those which classify "they they are Christ's" ? All those in the first resurrection are Christ’s, but every man is resurrected according to their “several distinct bands or classes” (according to Thayer’s lexicon definition) as Paul stated in 1 Cor 15:23. The “firstfruits” indicate the beginning of the harvest, and they are the faithful saints gathered out from the earth starting from the time right after Christ’s resurrection (as indicated in Matthew 27:50–53) up unto the second coming of Christ in the morning of the first resurrection. “They that are Christ’s” are all the others who have received Christ but either weren’t valiant in their testimony of the Savior during their lifetime or otherwise received Christ after being taught about him in the spirit world. By "order" in Doctrine and Covenants 88:96-97, I meant sequence of events - it says the living in Christ are raised first, then the dead in Christ are raised nextr. This is opposite to what the Bible says. The wording in the Doctrine and Covenants doesn’t directly depict the order. In 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Paul uses the word “first” which does depict an order. But in Doctrine and Covenants 88:96-97, it says “And…. And….”, which simply identifies events that happen without explaining the order. This is no different than in the gospels, where Jesus says in Matthew 24:11-12, “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.” Will you criticize Jesus if false prophets happen to show up after iniquity abounds and the love of many waxes cold? Why do you keep asking questions that have already been answered? See the end of my post on 05/20/2025, where I addressed this very question quite clearly. How do you understand this part of verses 7-8? "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 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". You’re changing the subject by looking in the wrong chapter. I quoted from 2 Thessalonians chapter 1, you are quoting from 2 Thessalonians chapter 2. I thought I was quite clear in explaining how I understand verses 7-9 of 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 in my post in the other message thread (see my post on 03/29/2025 and on 05/26/2025 to see my explanation of what Paul is saying about Satan being 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 coming). I’ll respond to what you ask above when I get around to replying to your post in the other thread in a couple of weeks when I return from my next trip. The transgression of Adam and Eve was done in innocence without them having a knowledge of good and evil, and even though their transgression had a great impact on mankind, it was obviously not so terrible that God wiped out the earth and started over like he did with Noah and the flood. Furthermore, their transgression in the Garden of Eden brought about the need for a Savior, which God had foreseen and planned for from before the foundations of the world (1 Timothy 1:9, 1 Peter 1:19-20, Revelation 13:8). Since God didn’t wipe out the earth and start over after the fall of Adam, it seems obvious to me that the violence and corruption (murdering and stealing) among mankind at the time of Noah was considered a far greater sin in God’s eyes. So in recognition of the degrees of disobedience, the murdering and stealing is obviously a far greater sin than that of Adam and Eve’s. Varying degrees of sinfulness still put them into one category ("The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth" - Genesis 6:11-13). This is the group of people described in 1 Peter 3:18-19. Only eight were saved from the flood. They are put into one category in the sense that they all perished in the flood, but not in one category with respect to their judgement, as there were people in both the telestial and terrestrial realm in that group. This is a fearful consideration for all professing Christians. Yes, and thus the very reason there is a terrestrial kingdom that is different than the telestial kingdom.

"It might be symbolic" even though the Greek is fractional is the key phrase here. Revelation is intended to be taken symbolically. The text of Revelation 19 (for example) describes Jesus coming from heaven riding on a literal white horse with his armies also riding upon white horses, while the "beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies" all sit on literal horses, and the fouls of the air are called in to eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and them that sit on them". I just can't picture a scenario between now and the second coming that would make the armies of the earth give up their jeeps, tanks, submarines, and stealth bombers, and trade them in for horses. Clearly these are symbolic representations.