InCognitus

If God is a god (or if you prefer a God) and we are all the same kind of being as God is, then all spirit children were already deities (or if you prefer Deities) before coming to earth in physical bodies. No, it just means that your definition of God isn’t biblical and doesn’t fit the biblical model of who God is and what makes him God, because the Bible clearly says we are the same “kind” of being as God. You can either believe the Bible or not. And you already know that there is more to being God than the “kind” of being that he is, because we have already discussed that many times. As I said to you (when you were posting as GoCeltics on 12/10 and 12/12/2025), I define God as "the Supreme Being in whom we believe, whom we worship, and to whom we pray. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things." So, your idea that spirit children were “already deities” can only be true if you imagine that spirit beings come into existence (and didn't exist previously) through procreation of a male and female, and that they are born possessing all other attributes that are required to be "God" as explained above. Do you really imagine that spirit children of heavenly parents emerge (if they emerge at all) as the Creators, Rulers, and Preservers of all things, being perfect, and having all power and knowledge? Those attributes are all part of the biblical definition of "God", and you are constantly ignoring that part. Spirit beings are eternal; they co-exist with God. They become children of heavenly parents in some way that is not explained, and that sets them up with the potential to gain the attributes of God (Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things, being perfect, and having all power and knowledge) assuming they keep God's covenants and follow the plan that God set up for them to do that. Any spiritual teaching that lacks clear scriptural support shouldn't be promoted or taught. Ok, so the creedal definition of how the Father and Son are one should not be taught (since it has zero scriptural support), and the Latter-day Saint view of how they are one (as Jesus defined in scripture – John 17:11, 20-23) should be the correct view obviously. Here’s a list of “doctrines” (that I’ve come up with) that modern Christians teach that aren’t found in the Bible at all: The “homoousious” Father and Son Creation ex-nihilo (God created all things out of nothing) God or Jesus created Satan (thank goodness he didn’t do that, because that would be a very evil thing to do). Sola Scriptura A closed canon of scripture Angels are created (we have discussed this - see my post on 12/12/2025) Spirit of man is created (we have discussed this - see my post on 12/12/2025) That there is such a thing as the “nature of angels” (we have discussed this) Angels have wings (we have discussed this) God and man are nothing alike (whereas the Bible teaches that we are the same “kind” of being as God, and man was created in the “image” and “likeness” of God) Priesthood of all believers (we have discussed this over and over) Jesus is the only high priest (we have discussed this too) I’m sure there are many others. But according to you, those doctrines should not be promoted or taught. But I believe God is the ultimate source of truth (not only the Bible). I believe God has revealed additional scripture today, and those scriptures should be included in our “scriptural support” for what should be promoted or taught. We already discussed the lack of biblical support for the idea of a “nature of angels” in the other folder. You can go reread our previous conversation there. See my post on 03/03/2025, my post on 03/05/2025, my post on 03/29/2025, and my post on 05/26/2025 for past discussions on this. I posted this elsewhere, but you are doing this verse again so I’m going to repost what I said. Colossians 1:16 says nothing about Jesus creating Satan. In John 1:3 it says of Jesus, “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” In other words, Jesus didn’t create things (or beings) that were not made. Jesus did not create God the Father, for example, nor does it say he created the beings who are coeternal with God (the spirits of men) that were later given the job description of angels. Colossians 1:16 says, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him”. God the Father and the beings who are coeternal with God the Father are not “things”, nor were they created, and Colossians 1:16 doesn’t say that Jesus created them. As for the “principalities, or powers” mentioned in Colossians 1:16, those are the governmental organizations (whether they be in heaven or on earth) that Jesus organized. This is what Paul had in mind when he wrote to Titus, “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work.” (Titus 3:1)

It would be inaccurate and it would contradict the Bible if that was changed, because both the Bible and Book of Mormon teach that we must receive Christ and repent of our sins to receive salvation, and that is at the very least "all we can do". This is how it is described elsewhere in the Book of Mormon. In Alma chapter 24:9-11, Ammon explains it this way: "And behold, I also thank my God, that by opening this correspondence we have been convinced of our sins, and of the many murders which we have committed. And I also thank my God, yea, my great God, that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things, and also that he hath forgiven us of those our many sins and murders which we have committed, and taken away the guilt from our hearts, through the merits of his Son. And now behold, my brethren, since it has been all that we could do (as we were the most lost of all mankind) to repent of all our sins and the many murders which we have committed, and to get God to take them away from our hearts, for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain—" (Alma 24:10–11)

The quotes you provided are the LDS teachings to confirm Jesus is presently a God. I was referring to all the other LDS teachings which indicate that Jesus became a God. But remember, you were responding to what CV75 asked, which was this: “What is the most salient point of all those you reviewed in your post, upon which hinges humanity's salvation?” The key question is, what does salvation hinge upon? Your response was “Who Jesus is”. My response was, Jesus is God, and I quoted many Latter-day scriptural passages that state that fact far clearer than the Bible does. Do you think what Jesus once was changes how salvation is obtained now? Do you believe that from a salvation standpoint that the “other LDS teachings which indicate that Jesus became a God” counteract the clear and absolute LDS teachings (that I quoted) that Jesus is God? What is it exactly that disqualifies salvation other than your personal opinion on the matter? Furthermore, where does the Bible say that the “other LDS teachings which indicate that Jesus became a God” are false teachings or that they would disqualify one's salvation by believing them? Where does the Bible teach that Jesus has always been God? (Hint, it doesn't, you've been asked this very question before). And I know you are familiar with the early Christian teachings on this point, but I’ll repeat them here for complete context: This is what Clement of Alexandria (c. 155 - c. 220 AD) taught about Jesus: “CHAP. II.--THE SON THE RULER AND SAVIOUR OF ALL. To know God is, then, the first step of faith; then, through confidence in the teaching of the Saviour, to consider the doing of wrong in any way as not suitable to the knowledge of God. So the best thing on earth is the most pious man; and the best thing in heaven, the nearer in place and purer, is an angel, the partaker of the eternal and blessed life. But 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. This is the highest excellence, which orders all things in accordance with the Father’s will, and holds the helm of the universe in the best way, with unwearied and tireless power, working all things in which it operates, keeping in view its hidden designs. For from His own point of view the Son of God is never displaced; not being divided, not severed, not passing from place to place; being always everywhere, and being contained nowhere; complete mind, the complete paternal light; all eyes, seeing all things, hearing all things, knowing all things, by His power scrutinizing the powers. To Him is placed in subjection all the host of angels and gods; He, the paternal Word, exhibiting the holy administration for Him who put [all] in subjection to Him.” (Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 2) This is what Origen (185-254 AD) taught about Jesus Christ, the Son of God: “And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.” (See Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, paragraph 2). Is the salvation of those early Christians also disqualified because of your opinion? Show us why this matters to salvation from a Biblical point of view instead of by your opinions and speculation.

In case some of you haven't seen this, James Agnew of the "In Philosopher’s Garb" channel made this excellent logical and philosophical analysis of the video posted in the opening post. James Agnew holds a Doctorate in Theology from Kairos University where he specialized in Kenotic Christology, and he is not a Latter-day Saint. I wasn't going to watch this tonight, but I ended up listening to/watching the entire video (it wasn't a waste of time by any means, but I have a ton of other things I should have been doing!! ). I don't know if this guy uploads his video in 1.5 speed mode or not, but this is the first video of this kind that I didn't WANT to adjust to make it play faster, because the guy talks very fast and the video is edited well, and it is a steady stream of consciousness pouring out of his mouth (I kept waiting for him to pass out at some point for not taking a breath). To summarize, Agnew totally roasts the other video, and you can tell that he respects Than (the guy that did the opening post video), but Than's arguments are terrible (but we already knew that). And Agnew's analysis of Than's arguments are worth listening to if you have the time. I'll quote part of his summary here (from the 41:42 point of his video), because he makes some good points about these types of arguments: I like his phrase, "semantic gerrymandering". Agnew also says the reason he put out his video is to maintain integrity. He says toward the end, "If I'm going to rip into the bad arguments from those outside the church or those outside my branch of Christian tradition, then my conscience, my integrity demands from me that I be an equal opportunity critic. I cannot treat the bad arguments from my friends any differently than I treat the bad arguments from my foes. And if I do that, then I'm just a spineless hypocrite." I respect his integrity. Incidentally, Blake Ostler also says he's preparing a response to the opening post video.

But isn't this contradicting what you said, and what Paul said? You said, "Paul was already firm in his teaching that Christ rose from the dead". Paul was not teaching that Christ was "dead", but that he was "alive": "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive". So do you really think it makes sense for Paul to ask, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead [Christ], if the dead rise not at all?" I'm just trying to look at the meaning of this verse realistically and logically. What REALLY makes the most sense?

That's my take on it too. I watched a few of his videos here and there, at first because I was interested in how he described his experiences at the different denominations, but when I saw him being drawn back to LDS ward meetings I could see a change. The 52 temples addition is a logical progression of his life experience and an interesting way of expressing it to others.

But....Who is this "other group"? If this "other group" is not within the Christian community, then how does it make sense for Paul to use the non-Christian practice of a non-Christian group to convince a Christian congregation of the truthfulness of a Christian doctrine (the resurrection)? And if this "other group" is within the Christian community, then baptism for the dead is a Christian ordinance, or at least a practice that Christians were doing that Paul would recognize as showing faith in the resurrection of the dead.

Also: Doctrinal New Testament Commentary

I didn't see this thread until today, or I would have posted this on Friday. But here is some information about the victims: "Man killed outside church had embraced faith and nonviolence, community leader says" https://www.ksl.com/article/51430704/man-killed-outside-church-had-embraced-faith-and-nonviolence-community-leader-says

He (David Boice) was a generic Protestant guy that started a YouTube channel during COVID (I see one of the first videos he posted was on November 7, 2020) about visiting a new church every week, hence the name "52 churches in 52 weeks". His channel blurb says, "52 Churches in 52 Weeks is a weekly spiritual series that worships at different churches throughout the United States. The project aims to exemplify love, understanding, and bridge the gap between different Christ-focused religious affiliations." He posted a video each week with his thoughts about each of his church visits. I didn't really follow all of his videos, but I found it interesting that he was drawn back to visit Latter-day Saint ward services more than once. As soon as I saw that pattern emerge, I figured there was a reason for him returning to LDS wards more than once. And then in the spring of 2024 he converted and was baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He says he doesn't want to limit himself to temples in Utah.

I was wondering how this would turn out.... The "52 Churches in 52 Weeks" guy says in 2026 he is going to be creating a new channel for "52 Temples in 52 Weeks". He also talks about a church history site tour.

The technology is already there for natural and realistic AI characters, but it's probably not as commonly available to the average YouTube creator as some people would like (I don't know really).

I agree, the mouth movements are all too exaggerated and unnatural. I can't watch it.

In the absence of other new members I think I'd welcome AI bots anyway if they could engage in reasoned discussions without selling goods and services in the process.

But none of this changes the fact that Paul referred to other Christians as "they", and therefore the idea that the "they" in 1 Corinthians 15:29 MUST be referring to an outside group is false. So now it's "you" being baptized for the dead, not "they"? But that view is completely illogical, as I showed in my post above. Can you explain how it is logical and persuasive for Paul to refer to an aberrant practice of a fringe or non-Christian group to convince a Christian congregation of the truthfulness of a Christian doctrine? Why would that convince anyone? If this fringe or non-Christian group is wrong about doing baptisms for the dead, then couldn't they also be wrong about the resurrection from the dead? How would that argument convince any intelligent person? Not in the Jewish temple, no. Except for those living disciples who were being "baptized for the dead" that Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians 15:29.

Robbing Paul to pay Peter in this case

The "they" argument against baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29, to try to make it be about some other group of people unrelated to the Christian community has always seemed strange to me, especially when taking it in the context of the chapter for Paul's argument in favor of the resurrection of the dead. What really makes sense here? Let's presume [for example] that Paul is referring to some non-Christian or heretical group that is performing this non-Christian ordinance, and Paul uses their example to support the true Christian principle of the resurrection of the dead. This seems a bit absurd to me, especially if we test this line of reasoning by rewording the verse and replace the word "they" with the name of an appropriate non-Christian or heretical group of our choosing. For example: "Else what shall [the apostate anti-Christ heretics] do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are [the apostate anti-Christ heretics] then baptized for the dead?" Is that a persuasive argument? I think not. Doesn't such an interpretation make you wonder if the apostate anti-Christ heretics were wrong about baptism for the dead, could they not also be wrong about the resurrection of the dead? And if baptism for the dead is supposed to be a non Christian practice by a non Christian group, why limit this line of reasoning to the practice of baptism for the dead? Why not delve into other absurd illustrations to show support for the resurrection? For example, imagine Paul standing before a group of Christians saying, "Else what shall the Hindus do which cast their living widows upon the funeral pyres of their dead husbands, if the dead rise not at all? why do they then cast widows upon the funeral pyres of their husbands?" Now imagine the reaction of the Christians to such an argument, would they say, "Oh yes, it makes sense that no one of another religious persuasion would throw women into fires unless there was really an afterlife." Or would they say, "But that's a horrible thing for the Hindus to do, and a perfect example of why it's best NOT to believe in an afterlife." A reasonable, logical, and intelligent person (which Paul certainly was) does not support his belief in a certain doctrine or theory by relying upon evidence which is considered by his audience to be invalid. If you're trying to convince an audience that something is true, you don't take testimonials from people that the audience would look upon with suspicion (such as the practice of a pagan or non-Christian or apostate branch of Christianity in this situation). You choose testimonials from people that your audience respects, admires, and trusts. And you take true principles that are already accepted by your audience and use them as building blocks to teach greater truths, teaching principle upon principle. So, a more reasonable interpretation of the word "they" in 1 Corinthians 15:29 would be to conclude that Paul is talking about a group within the Christian community that is worthy, eligible, and has had the opportunity to be baptized for the dead, a group which would not include the entire Christian community to which Paul speaks because not all of the Christian community would have participated in this sacred ordinance. (Even today, not all members of the restored church of Jesus Christ have had the opportunity to be baptized for the dead, so it would be quite normal for a Latter day Saint Christian to speak of "they" who are baptized for the dead, rather than "we".) Certainly this conclusion is more reasonable than the idea that Paul would use the non-Christian practice of a non-Christian group to convince a Christian congregation of the truthfulness of a Christian doctrine. Furthermore, using the word "they" to refer to other Christians isn't out of place to Paul, even within the context of 1 Corinthians chapter 15. In verses 22-23 he says: "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." (1 Corinthians 15:22–23) Shall we say "That group is not his group" too?

Right, I need to decide if the Holiday Inn is true or false, or if the Utah Power and Light Company is really the true light. That sounds good, but I'm not sure that you really believe that. I think you only believe the Bible as far as it agrees with your doctrine, or you try to force it to agree with your doctrine. I'm thinking of the biblical teaching that we are all the same kind of being as God, for example. If we are truly the same kind of being as God (as the Bible teaches), then the doctrine of creation out of nothing is a false doctrine, and the difference between the creator and the created is much different than many people try to make it. There are also many things that people believe that aren't found in the Bible at all, things that we discussed previously, like the idea that there is a "nature of angels", how Jesus and his Father are "one" (in non-biblical ways), and many other things. How would you detect falsehood from truth in those kinds of things? But elsewhere you defined "doctrine" as including speculation and opinion, remember? I still don't get what your point was about that. There are many things that are "taught" that are not doctrines, even in the Bible. Things like Paul's comments about women not having braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array (1 Timothy 2:9). Is brushing that off today not a sincere way to account for what the Bible teaches as you would call it a "doctrine"? All scripture indeed, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

Joseph Smith makes that clear in his King Follet Discourse: “The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at the time.” So the "heads of the Gods" are God the Father (who called the grand council) and his grand council. But as you can see, this was directed by the one and only "head God" (God the Father). God the Father was already "the head God", so he wasn't appointed. We have no information on that question. But, I presume it was by following the plan established by the "head God", God the Father. What in the 1997 Gospel Principles manual "mentions a few things which infer that heavenly parents of our Earth became Gods"? Make sure your examples include that they are "heavenly parents of our Earth".

Where do you believe the Bible teaches how God is "one God", if not in John 17:11, 20-23?

I'm interested in this response too, but mainly I just wanted to just make a post to make sure the message board was still functioning since nobody has made a post in the last 24 hours!!

Exactly right, it's just a repackaging of the "Mormons aren't Christians" argument. I hadn't watched the video when I made my first comment.

I just watched the video. His argument totally fell apart at the end when he proclaimed the Christian Trinitarian God as the most philosophically coherent option, and that Mormons should choose Christianity. Furthermore, I don't think he realizes that the idea that "God and humans are the same kind; they are kin" (as he quotes from Blake Ostler) is purely biblical (Acts 17:28-29). We are the same genus as God, as the text states. He also misrepresents some of our views, such as him saying that Mormons believe that God "didn't create the plan of exaltation" (for example).

I'm not sure if you are thinking of Justin Martyr, but in his First Apology (chapters 5 and 6), Christians were charged with atheism because they were "introducing new divinities" and denying the "gods" of the pagans. It seems like a similar tactic going on in this modern argument. Justin Martyr wrote: "Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught." (Justin Martyr, Apology 1 Ch. 6) I think it's just a way for atheists to find a way to attack our view, since all their normal arguments against Calvinist or Protestant views don't work on us.

Thanks. Now it makes sense. I guess I wasn't tracking in my head where the thread had originated.