InCognitus

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

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

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

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

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

First of all, that is a quote from a sermon that has some accuracy issues. Unlike the King Follet Sermon, our published text of the Sermon in the Grove relies primarily on the account of only one person, Thomas Bullock. And to top things off, the sermon was given during bad weather (it was raining and the sermon had to be cut short due to the rain). See my post on 05/26/2025 where I discuss some of the accuracy issues. I see from Thomas Bullock’s notes of that sermon that the discussion of God the Father having a father was in the context of God the Father’s mortal experience on an earth. His notes show that the statements about God the Father having a “father” are immediately followed by “I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him”. In other words, Bullock’s notes indicate that God the Father’s “father” would have been either his earthly father when he was born into mortality, or that God the Father (as the head of all other Gods) would have appointed some other God to produce him in the same way that Jesus came into mortality. But Bullock also seems to have repeated himself in part of those notes, so it’s hard to tell if Joseph Smith was restating something for emphasis, or if Bullock recorded it incorrectly, or if he did get it correct we need further information and context to draw any conclusions with certainty.

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

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

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

The Bible teaches that all humans are the same “kind” of being as God (the génos of God, his offspring - Acts 17:28-29), so when people ignore that teaching and claim that God created us out of nothing instead, that will definitely distract from coming to know "the only true God", don't you think?

Jesus is an eternal being in that he has always existed externally in one form or another, but he has no existed eternally as God. The church (of which you belong) teaches he became a God. . Like the early Christians did. Why did later Christians abandon that doctrine? Christ is the only-begotten. Early Christians didn't mean offspring in the sense of a heavenly mother. How do you know what they meant by that? Justin Martyr (150 AD) wrote: “But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures and as Offspring by God..” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 62). What did he mean? It's possible God can create matter out of nothing. It’s only possible if you believe that it’s possible for God to contradict the Bible. The Bible teaches that humans are the same “kind” of being as God (the génos of God) in Acts 17:28-29. And since humans are the same “kind” of being as God, we should not think of our relationship to God is like the created things (gold, silver, or stone). Our spirits came from God and existed with God prior to our mortal experience. So it’s really not possible, biblically speaking. And this fits with the earliest Christian views on creation, since the earliest Christians taught that matter is eternal and that God created all things from unformed matter. It wasn’t until around 170 AD that Christians began to adopt the creation out of nothing doctrine. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have tried to rid themselves of doctrines that (in their view) are based on Christian traditions, but they missed this one, and the idea of a closed canon of scripture is another one they missed.

You should make a more clearer and concise statement like "God the Father atoned for the children of his own heavenly mother and father". This would satisfy a portion of your "Jesus did what he saw the Father do" statement. I made it completely clear that Joseph Smith was using the "Jesus did what he saw the Father do" statement only with regard to creation (when the worlds come rolling into existence), and that God the Father dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ did and he had the power to lay down his life and take it up again. There is no other information about God the Father's earthly experience other than that. So for me to speculate that God the Father "atoned" for others would be far beyond anything that Joseph Smith was teaching, and he never implied that God the Father did every single thing that Jesus Christ did. By the way, there’s a board rule against “badgering a participant for an answer that has already been given”. You should take that to heart. Joseph Smith didn't make such a claim. And I'm not afraid to say that. Joseph Smith taught that there is a God above Jesus Christ (God the Father is the God of Jesus Christ), but the Bible teaches that (so I'm sure you agree).

That appears to be your definition of "exaltation" - meaning a body is exalted. You should become more familiar with how the LDS Church defines exaltation. Nope. Exaltation: “The highest state of happiness and glory in the celestial kingdom.” “What is exaltation? Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.” So, Exaltation is defined as “the kind of life God lives”. The kind of life that God lives includes having a resurrected body, and God the Father received a resurrected body, he “achieved” that state through his own means by laying down his life and taking it up again. And the “highest state of happiness” is receiving a fulness of joy through the spirit and body being joined together eternally. Not quite. I said he has always been “God” in that he is the most intelligent and most advanced being in existence, but he “achieved Godhood” using the definition of receiving a physical body and living the kind of life that God lives now in the Celestial Kingdom. He has also become our God in that he offered us a plan to become like him and instituted laws for us to follow to become like him. It all comes down to how you define “God”. If to be God means to be the Supreme Being, then God the Father has always been God because he has always been the most intelligent and most advanced being in existence. If to be God means that he progressed beyond what he was before and has provided a way for others to progress to become like he is and he rules over them, then he “became” God in that way. You are only thinking about Heavenly Father's sphere of influence or realm. No, I’m not. Don’t say that I’m thinking something when you already know that I’m not thinking that. There is no “sphere of influence or realm” implied in this statement: "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, 6, King Follett Discourse, p. 354) Where is there any room for your interpretation in that statement? You don’t need to “think” that, because you know what I said. And the Bible clearly teaches that God the Father is the very God and Father of Jesus Christ (John 20:17, Rom 15:6, 1 Cor 11:3, 2 Cor 11:31, Eph 1:3, Eph 1:17; Heb 1:8-9, 1 Pet 1:3, Rev 3:12), and Jesus is even said to be eternally subject to the Father (1 Cor 15:28). So, you should believe that too. Do you believe that Heavenly Father is a higher God than Jesus like the Bible teaches? God the Father is the most High God, the God of all other gods. Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no? You ask a loaded question that presupposes something that I don’t find that Joseph Smith ever taught. God the Father doesn’t have a God, and I don't see Joseph Smith teaching that anywhere. God the Father is “the Eternal God of all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32) As for the identity of Jesus’ grandfather, it depends on which genealogy is correct. According to the gospel of Matthew, his grandfather was Jacob (Matthew 1:16). According to the gospel of Luke, his grandfather was Heli (Luke 3:23). Some say this is the genealogy of Mary, but that works too. And whichever one you want to pick, God the Father is still the God of all others and has no God over him. And God the Father would have also had an earthly father and mother when he dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ did. And that’s exactly the way Joseph Smith taught it.

In that discourse, he said "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". Do you believe that he was only teaching the people to know and believe God became OUR God instead of Him becoming A God? If yes, provide the exact inference. I’ve already done that a million times now (with only slight exaggeration). Read my last post. Read my other posts. See the quote below (from my last post), and my post on 10/30/2022, 11/10/2022, 11/11/2022, 11/16/2022, 12/14/2024, 03/29/2025, 05/26/2025, 08/03/2025, and 09/08/2025. You should have engaged my responses previously if you disagree with my answer instead of asking the same questions over and over again. Under whose laws did Heavenly Father advance before and after he supposedly became a man? Did you read the quote I posted, or not? Read it again. Who instituted the laws? HE did. This quote makes it obvious, the first principles of man are “self-existent with God”, and God the Father has always been the most high God, the most intelligent and most advanced being in existence. He advanced and progressed on his own and then he provided a plan for others to progress the same way, by keeping the laws he instituted for that purpose. God the Father, “because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself”. Where does Joseph Smith say another being provided those laws? (He doesn’t). There is no room for your interpretation in what Joseph Smith taught in that sermon. Moses and Satan were referred to as gods in scripture but they were not Deities. Irrelevant to this discussion. Obviously, those early Christians were not talking about men becoming gods in the same way that you are trying to distract the topic in your comment above. That sure sounds to me like what the early Christian St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD) taught: “You shall escape the boiling flood of hell’s eternal lake of fire and the eye ever fixed in menacing glare of fallen angels chained in Tartarus as punishment for their sins; and you shall escape the worm that ceaselessly coils for food around the body whose scum has bred it. Now such (torments) as these shalt thou avoid by being instructed in a knowledge of the true God. And thou shalt possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven, thou who, whilst thou didst sojourn in this life, didst know the Celestial King. And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God: for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a man, these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon thee, because thou hast been deified, and begotten unto immortality. This constitutes the import of the proverb, ‘Know thyself;’ i.e., discover God within thyself, for He has formed thee after His own image. For with the knowledge of self is conjoined the being an object of God’s knowledge, for thou art called by the Deity Himself. Be not therefore inflamed, O ye men, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to retrace with all speed your steps. 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, Book 10, Chapter 30) Do you agree? When heavy hitters like St. Clement of Rome, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Theophilus of Antioch, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Hippolytus of Rome, Origen (Highly regarded as one of the most influential Christian theologians), St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Augustine of Hippo all teach that men become gods in no uncertain terms, then yes, I consider that to be a widely accepted fundamental doctrine of early Christianity. It was a church wide doctrine, and it was found in all parts of the Christian world at that time. Where do you think the early Christians got the teaching that men become gods that was taught so widely in earliest Christianity? They didn’t get it from interpreting the words of one person in different ways, they received it as part of their basic teachings from the earliest time. I quoted Joseph Smith directly. Joseph Smith emphasized that God the Father is the “head God” at least eight times in the King Follet Sermon, calling him “the head, the Father of the Gods”. He taught that he was “more intelligent” and “saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself”. Where is there any room in those statements for the idea that God has a God above him like you are asserting? Where do you think the early Christians got the teaching that men become gods that was taught so widely in early Christianity? Do you really think they were ignoring scripture when they taught it? They quoted scripture constantly in support of that doctrine. Read what Hippolytus wrote about man being in the likeness of God that I posted above. And, you should read what St. Irenaeus (c. 175 - c. 195) wrote about that. Here’s a partial quote: “But being in subjection to God is continuance in immortality, and immortality is the glory of the uncreated One. By this arrangement, therefore, and these harmonies, and a sequence of this nature, man, a created and organized being, is rendered after the image and likeness of the uncreated God, -the Father planning everything well and giving His commands, the Son carrying these into execution and performing the work of creating, and the Spirit nourishing and increasing [what is made], but man making progress day by day, and ascending towards the perfect, that is, approximating to the uncreated One. For the Uncreated is perfect, that is, God. Now it was necessary that man should in the first instance be created; and having been created, should receive growth; and having received growth, should be strengthened; and having been strengthened, should abound; and having abounded, should recover [from the disease of sin]; and having recovered, should be glorified; and being glorified, should see his Lord. For God is He who is yet to be seen, and the beholding of God is productive of immortality, but immortality renders one nigh unto God… 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… “ And: “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.” Read the whole chapters of Irenaeus, Against Heresies, chapters 38 and 39: CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, IV.38 (St. Irenaeus), CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, IV.39 (St. Irenaeus). It gives you the full picture. Christianity has evolved through the years and has departed from its earlier teachings because of new doctrines that were developed later on making the original beliefs incompatible with the later doctrines. See the Irenaeus quote above, "“How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?". Actually, they did. Lactantius (c. 240-c 320 AD) wrote that Jesus Christ is the "Second God": "God, therefore, the contriver and founder of all things, as we have said in the second book, before He commenced this excellent work of the world, begat a pure and incorruptible Spirit, whom He called His Son. And although He had afterwards created by Himself innumerable other beings, whom we call angels, this first-begotten, however, was the only one whom He considered worthy of being called by the divine name, as being powerful in His Father's excellence and majesty. But that there is a Son of the Most High God, who is possessed of the greatest power, is shown not only by the unanimous utterances of the prophets, but also by the declaration of Trismegistus and the predictions of the Sibyls. Hermes, in the book which is entitled 'The Perfect Word', made use of these words: 'The Lord and Creator of all things, whom we have thought right to call God, since He made the second God visible and sensible. But I use the term sensible, not because He Himself perceives (for the question is not whether He Himself perceives), but because He leads to perception and to intelligence. Since, therefore, He made Him first, and alone, and one only, He appeared to Him beautiful, and most full of all good things; and He hallowed Him, and altogether loved Him as His own Son'" (Lactantius , "The Divine Institutes" - Book IV, Chap. VI) And he taught that Satan was produced second: "Since God was possessed of the greatest foresight for planning, and of the greatest skill for carrying out in action, before He commenced this business of the world, -- in asmuch as there was in Him, and always is, the fountain of full and most complete goodness, -- in order that goodness might spring as a stream from Him, and might flow forth afar, He produced a Spirit like to Himself, who might be endowed with the perfections of God the Father. But how He willed that, I will endeavour to show in the forth book. Then He made another being, in whom the disposition of the divine origin did not remain. Therefore he was infected with his own envy as with poison, and passed from good to evil; and at his own will, which had been given to him by God unfettered, he acquired for himself a contrary name. From which it appears that the source of all evils is envy. For he envied his predecessor, who through his stedfastness is acceptable and dear to God the Father. This being, who from good became evil by his own act, is called by the Greeks "diabolus": we call him accuser, because he reports to God the faults to which he himself entices us. God, therefore, when He began the fabric of the world, set over the whole work that first and greatest Son, and used Him at the same time as a counsellor and artificer, in planning, arranging, and accomplishing, since He is complete both in knowledge, and judgment, and power; concerning whom I now speak more sparingly, because in another place both His excellence, and His name, and His nature must be related by us." (Lactantius , "The Divine Institutes" - Book II, Chap. IX) You have this wrong. Read the definitions of “Exaltation” that I quote in my next post. Like the early Christians did. Why did later Christians abandon that doctrine? It was because of doctrines that were developed later (like a “homoousious” Father and Son) that made the earlier beliefs incompatible with their new teachings. No. But I see a dividing line between the Creator and creation. I know you do, because modern Christianity has taught you to believe that there is a great gap between Creator and creation even though it contradicts the Bible. That idea goes along with the creation ex-nihilo doctrine that was developed around 170 AD, even though Christians prior to that time taught that matter is eternal and that God created all things from unformed matter. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that humans are the same “kind” of being as God (the génos of God), which makes our relationship with God more meaningful, and God shows his great love for us by providing a way that we can become like he is.

Finally! This is what I’ve been saying all along (as you can see from my prior posts). This doesn’t change anything about my view. The "man of sin" represents many individuals throughout the world and in different periods of time. Nobody says there can only be one representative in any place and time. I see these as two separate individuals who are doing the workings of Satan (the man of sin), and therefore they are representing the man of sin. See above.

I have a copy of the 1981 edition published by the church, but it's just selections (not the entire Book of Mormon). I'm going to compare my copy to the one that you posted online just for kicks. My mother-in-law also had a copy of the 1981 selections edition. She and a group of people in her ward took Hebrew lessons from a Rabbi (Moshe Ben-Asa), and I think she found out about the church's publication of the Hebrew selections and obtained a copy right away somehow (I wish I knew the story of how she acquired it). But because of discussions they had with the Rabbi, he became interested in the church and ended up being baptized (it's a cool story). Unfortunately he passed away from cancer not long after that. But it was because of me being aware of my mother-in-law's copy of the book that I recognized it when I saw one for sale in a used bookstore in Tempe, Arizona in the 1990's (I still have a receipt for it, I paid $3.00 for it). I knew the value of the book the moment I saw it.

"Eternal" in the sense he always existed in some form but not "eternally" existing as a son before he becomes a son born to heavenly parents. He is therefore "co-eternal" even before becoming a son and then becoming a God. He is eternal and therefore not anything like what the Jehovah's Witnesses teach about him. This is answered from what Joseph Smith taught (in 1839): “The spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal; and earth, water, etc., had their existence in an elementary state, from eternity. Our Savior speaks of children and says, Their angels always stand before my Father. The Father called all spirits before Him at the creation of man, and organized them. He (Adam) is the head, and was told to multiply. The keys were first given to him, and by him to others. He will have to give an account of his stewardship, and they to him.” Where does the Bible say that? What does the Nicene creed mean when it says Jesus is "born of the Father before all ages" and "begotten, not made"? What does the Athanasian Creed mean when it says Jesus was "begotten of his Father before all worlds" and "begotten not made"? Saint Irenaeus (c. 175 - c. 195) taught, "For there is the one Son, who accomplished His Father's will; and one human race also in which the mysteries of God are wrought, 'which the angels desire to look into;' and they are not able to search out the wisdom of God, by means of Which His handiwork, confirmed and incorporated with His Son, is brought to perfection; that His offspring, the First-begotten Word, should descend to the creature (facturam), that is, to what had been moulded (plasma), and that it should be contained by Him; and, on the other hand, the creature should contain the Word, and ascend to Him, passing beyond the angels, and be made after the image and likeness of God." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 36, paragraph 3). Why would these early Christians refer to Jesus as the "offspring" of the Father, the "first begotten"? Begotten before all the worlds? So you do believe the same as Jehovah's Witnesses on this doctrine. That's what I thought.

I already answered that question. Joseph Smith said that Jesus did what he saw his Father do when worlds come rolling into existence, and that God the Father dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ did and he had the power to lay down his life and take it up again, and Jesus followed him in that. There is no other information about God the Father's earthly experience other than that.

Right, the Celestial Kingdom of God, living eternally with God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ.

I know you know better than to make this false analogy and misrepresentation. Latter-day Saints believe: Jesus has existed eternally (there was never a time that he was not). Jesus is co-eternal with God the Father. The word "create" or "created" does not mean created from nothing. It means to organize. The Bible teaching that Jesus is the "firstbegotten" of the Father (Hebrews 1:6), the "firstborn of every creature" (Colossians 1:15). Those are biblical teachings. So for you to say that what Latter-day Saints believe "is similar" to what another group believes where that group believes that God created all things from nothing (creation ex-nihilo) and that Jesus is a created being (in that same sense of creation) is not just misleading, it's a flat out lie. Now here's a question for you. Do you believe in creation ex-nihilo like the Jehovah's Witnesses do? Are your beliefs similar to Jehovah's Witnesses in that regard?

Who did Heavenly Father atone for? Joseph Smith only said that God the Father was God prior to him being a man, since he had the power to lay down his life and take it up again, and Jesus followed him in that.

And Philo was also a Hellenized Platonist Yes, that was my point, along with similar ideas in the gospel of John. Jacob Hansen doesn't put down philosophy in his video, so I don't see why he would need to mention those things. His focus was to make plain the evolution of ideas that made the later ideas incompatible with the earlier ideas about God. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend him, I just don't see any justification for saying he has it backwards (and still don't). I'm trying to understand your comment. This is the point that I think Jacob Hansen was trying to make. But it's not that the earlier teachings felt too much like Greek philosophy, but that those earlier teachings became completely incompatible with the later developed philosophical teachings (i.e. creation ex-nihilo, a more absolute monotheism of a "homoousious" Father and Son, etc.)

Yes. So no problem then.

I think it would be hard to separate some of what we see in early Christianity from Platonism because it's hard to identify who borrowed from who. The gospel of John in the New Testament shares many themes with the writings of Philo (for example), and some of the early Christians said that Plato had borrowed some of his ideas from Moses (i.e. Justin Martyr, First Apology of Justin, Chap. LIX, Clement of Alexandria, Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 8, and elsewhere). But I'm not sure why you think Jacob Hansen has things backwards. Did you watch the video? What do you think he got wrong? The problems came when the Christians started replacing the earlier teachings with philosophical ideas that they viewed as more defensible and changed the doctrine to be entirely based on Greek Philosophy instead of ideas found in scripture. I think that's what Hansen was trying to say.

Jesus was God before he was a man, and God the Father was God while he was a man, or else he would not have had the power to lay down his life and take it up again (as Joseph Smith said he did), and Jesus did what his Father did. The early Christians taught that Jesus is "the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him... It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods" (Origen, Commentary on John 1:1, Book II, chapter 2). And, that "the nature of the Son, which is nearest to Him who is alone the Almighty One, is the most perfect, and most holy, and most potent, and most princely, and most kingly, and most beneficent... To Him is placed in subjection all the host of angels and gods " (Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book VII, Chapter2). These things are not apostasy, they were the original teachings.