InCognitus

I was referring to how the doctrine developed. First of all, Gnosticism isn't a monolithic belief system, it encompasses a wide range of ideas. And Gnosticism developed (in part) out of Jewish mysticism and Platonism, and Christianity, from which it inherited the doctrine of eternal matter and that the world was created from unformed matter. So of course that's where things started. And I was referring to Gerhard May's book (from the post above), where he attributes the first evidence for the idea of creation ex-nihilo to Basilides. (i.e. he wrote, "The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo thus arises with Basilides out of a singular knitting together of common Christian and gnostic motifs. Or one could even say: the biblical ideas of creation and omnipotence are overstated in Basilides in a gnostic way; thus, as the being of the gnostic God explodes all concepts, so his creation can only be described, in a manner paradoxical for Greek thinkers, as creation out of nothing." From Gerhard May, Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of 'Creation out of Nothing' in Early Christian Thought, 2004 edition, translated by A.S. Worrall, p.84 and elsewhere in the book.) James Hubler (in his 1995 dissertation, Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy Through Aquinas) disagrees somewhat with May's reading of Basilides, and says that Basilides' formulation of creation ex-nihilo only had terminological similarities and didn't influence Tatian's and Theophilus' first teaching of creation ex-nihilo in Christian circles.

What Calm said. God has created worlds without number (Moses 1:33). And God created the world that he would dwell on, and he created the first man and woman on that world and was born unto parents on that world. That's what fits according to the revelations (scriptures) and what Joseph Smith taught.

This of course does not change the fact of what I said, which was, "According to Joseph Smith's view, God was God (divine) before he was once a man." God is eternally the Most High God who once was a man and he became our God, just as Joseph Smith taught in that same sermon: "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)

Yes, and I have heard or read other Latter-day Saint scholars say similar things, I just couldn't remember where I read or heard it (I hate when that happens). I listen to podcasts or YouTube videos when I'm travelling or sometimes during my morning walk, and read a lot of different sources, and as time goes by it all becomes a blur unless I take notes right after hearing or reading it. One of them (I think) was this one from the LDS Perspectives Podcast from 2019: Episode 112: The Council of Nicaea and Its Creed with Lincoln H. Blumell. I thought they used to have a transcript of this, but I don't see one so I can't tell if this is one that I was thinking of without listening to it again. Maybe I'll listen to this again on my morning walk tomorrow.

I agree, that's a much better way of saying it. The doctrine of creation ex-nihilo fits much better with the gnostic view of the material world, so it was no surprise to me to learn that is where the doctrine originated.

I think the main problem that Latter-day Saints have with the Nicene creed is with how the word "homoousious" is understood today to mean "one being", but I think Latter-day Saints might accept the way the word was originally explained to the council. In the Letter of Eusebius Pamphilus to the Church of Cesarea, Eusebius wrote about how the term "homoousious" was explained to the council: Latter-day Saints would agree that the Son (Jesus Christ) is Divine in the same way the Father is Divine. If the "same substance" ("homoousious") is intended to mean that they both are Divine beings, then we have no problem with that definition. I also think this understanding is more compatible with the earliest Christian views of the relationship between the Father and Son, in that they referred to Jesus as "another God" or the "second God" as was discussed in this thread earlier. But I don't know of many modern Christians who view it that way, because the modern ideas about monotheism seem to require the "one being" meaning. In 2020, Daniel C. Peterson wrote an article for The Interpreter Foundation titled, Notes on Mormonism and the Trinity. You might find it interesting. Here are a couple of quotes: "Latter-day Saints indisputably reject the solution to the trinitarian problem associated with standard readings of Nicea. But their rejection of mainstream Nicene orthodoxy does not necessarily place them in opposition to the project it represents. Nor, as has become more and more evident, does it leave them isolated and alone." And he says something similar to what I said above: "Prior to the fourth century, phrases such as 'of one substance' and 'of the same substance' seem, at least in the minds even of some of those who approved the creed, to have indicated a generic similarity, meaning something like 'the kind of substance or stuff common to several individuals of a class.' The point may have been simply that Jesus, like the Father, is divine—a concept that Latter-day Saints fully endorse."

Read the King Follet discourse carefully. According to Joseph Smith's view, God was God (divine) before he was once a man, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to lay down his life and take it up again as he says he did in that discourse (the same as Jesus Christ did).

What Calm said is absolutely correct. This article on the Spirit World (from the same church source that you referenced) says the following: The "Also" portion in red above describes the second of the "two parts" that Calm was referring to in her post. Furthermore, from a Greek New Testament perspective, all of the spirit world is called "Hades" (hell). It refers to the place of the dead, generally.

I recently encountered that channel, and it really provides good responses to the complaints. The first one I watched was this one: Anyone who has been going to the temple regularly in other locations already knows the answer to this question. The video does a good job of providing a visual answer to that question using the Dallas, Texas temple as an example.

You still can’t get around the fact that Paul said that the man of sin was already at work in his day. The man of sin was already at work during Paul's life time (as Paul said), and all the other things were "future" to the time of Paul's writing of that epistle (of course), such as the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem in 70 AD and Titus being deified with his spoils from the temple, and the great apostasy (apostasía, the falling away) that followed after that. And the man of sin continues on doing his thing until Christ returns (which is still future). Even using the ESV you still can’t get around the fact that Paul said that the man of sin was already at work in his day. "7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders" So what does Paul say? (1) The lawless one was ALREADY at work in his day. (2) The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan (Satan is the lawless one). (3) The lawless one (Satan) will be revealed and be stopped at the coming of Jesus. I think the Jews of 70 AD would strongly disagree with you.

We’ve already been through all of that. I think you already know the answer. The fulness of the Gentiles “comes in” (Romans 11:25, which is tied to the language of Genesis 48:19) when the descendants of Joseph begin to bring about the gathering of Israel a “second time” to worship the Lord, and it is “fulfilled” right when Jesus said it would in Luke 21:24, “And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”

Right. The scriptures harmonize with its entirety. Which is exactly why you can’t take Deuteronomy 4:35, Deuteronomy 4:39, Deuteronomy 6:4, 2 Samuel 7:22, 1 Kings 8:60, Nehemiah 9:6, Isaiah 43:10–11, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 44:8, Isaiah 45:5–6, Isaiah 45:21–22, and Isaiah 46:9 out of context. Right, there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that God is God from all eternity. We’ve discussed that before several times. See my post on 07/09/2022, 07/25/2022, 08/10/2022, 10/30/2022, 11/12/2022, 11/16/2022, 11/21/2022, 11/27/2022, 12/24/2022, 07/17/2023, 12/15/2024, 01/05/2025, 01/25/2025, and 09/28/2025, and probably several other posts as well.

I've posted this before, but this is relevant again.... I highly doubt that the early Christians had all the same things revealed to them that Joseph Smith did, or that all of the things that were revealed to the original twelve apostles were taught widely throughout the church. But Irenaeus (c. 175 - c. 195) come close to implying some of the things Joseph Smith taught in the KFD in this statement: "How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man? Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created? How, again, can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker? For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. For thou dost not make God, but God thee. " (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 39 - but read Chapter 38 for full context.) Obviously Irenaeus is speaking about men becoming gods here, but what if what he says in the bolded portion is a universal truth?

I agree with what Calm said above completely. And I want to elaborate on something she said about following the scriptural counsel to “seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and faith” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:118). I take that to mean our reliance for truth is not on canonical revelation alone, but that every truth we encounter should at the very least not contradict canonical revelation. And I think this seeking "learning, even by study and faith" even extends to carefully trying to understand the things we have in the King Follet Discourse (to the extent that they are an accurate recording of Joseph Smith's words) more carefully. I think many people have misinterpreted things that Joseph Smith was saying in that sermon, and other sermons, because they assumed a particular interpretation of his words that would contradict the revelations. And what Calm said here is key: I alluded to the difference in how Latter-day Saints view our relationship to God (in that we are the same kind of being as God) in the post I just made, above.

Hi Rory, I'll try to respond to your post now that I'm back in town: There is indeed a danger in the Israelites worshiping false gods. You provided a good list of those. But there are still those “gods” that coexist with God, and they are the ones being spoken about in Deuteronomy 10:17 and elsewhere (in the council of gods or divine council). God is the God over those gods, and they are in heaven with God (as noted in Psalm 89:5-7), and their works are sometimes compared to the works of the Supreme God, but the works of the Supreme God are beyond comparison (Psalm 89:5-7, Exodus 15:11, 18:11, Psalm 86:8, 97:9, 135:5). Again, I don’t find Deuteronomy 10 saying anything about the other gods (the gods that God is the God over) being subject to bribery or respecting persons. Instead, I see those verses as emphasizing greatness and the integrity of the “most high” God, the God over other gods, the Lord over other lords. God counseled the men who he called to be judges in Israel to not respect persons or take bribes in Deuteronomy 16:18-20. But these are not the “gods” (elohim) of Deuteronomy 10:17, because of the Hebrew superlative being used in that verse (as I said before). It is not saying that he is the Civic Magistrate of civic magistrates in those verses, it’s saying he is the “God of gods and Lord of lords”. There is not a translation issue with Deuteronomy 10:17. But there is a problem when translators render the word “elohim” as “judges” (as it is done sometimes Exodus 21:6 and 22:7-9), because that’s not the original or intended meaning of the word “elohim” at all. Translating the “elohim” as “judges” is just a way to avoid a meaning that would be uncomfortable to the theology of the translators. As for thinking of the “gods” of Deuteronomy 10:17 as earthly civil authorities, I just can’t find any way to make that work with the Hebrew superlative unless we consider God to be the greatest Earthly Civil Authority above all other earthly civil authorities (as I explained above). Furthermore, the idea that these “gods” are earthly civil authorities doesn’t work for verses like Psalm 89:5-7, which indicates that the “gods” are with God in the heavens. I agree that humans are made in God’s image and therefore have attributes that are similar to God, but there is much more to it than that. As I have discussed elsewhere on this board, the apostle Paul taught the Athenians that we are all the very génos of God, the very same "kind" of being as God, in Acts 17:28-29 when Paul was quoting the Greek poet Aratus. The Greek word génos in that verse is translated as genus in the Latin text, and is the same word used in the Septuagint for "kind" of being (as in Genesis 1:21, 24, and 25). The teaching that we are the same kind of being as God is central to Paul's argument in the context of Acts 17, which was that since we are the same kind of being as God "we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device." That argument falls to pieces if we are merely God's creations as many assume (gold, or silver, or stone are God's creations too). I see this as referring to our spirit that came from God. God created our physical world and our physical bodies, but our spirits came from God (the Bible says that in multiple places). So when it says God is the "God of gods", it isn't comparing God to his creations, but to others who coexist with him as spirits. I also agree that it is an abomination to worship created things, idols of wood, stone, gold, and silver. We believe there was a council in heaven in the beginning, and I think Job 38:4-7 is referring to that kind of council at the time when creation began (when "all the sons of God shouted for joy"). But as far as I know there is no official church doctrine about the individuals included in “the Heavenly Council” described in verses like Psalm 82:1, 89:5-7, or 1 Kings 22:19-22, or what was their function. So, I have no opinion on who they are or what was their function other than how the Bible describes them. I prefer to try to understand them in the way that ancient Israel would have understood them. Some of the early Christians considered the “gods” to be “those who have received the adoption”, or the church as did Irenaeus in Against Heresies, Book III chapter 6, paragraph 1. And Origen points out that “divine” beings who are at times called “gods” in the scriptures are also called “angels” because of their employments (Origen, Contra Celsum, Book V, Chapter 4). From a Latter-day Saint point of view (and I would include from the Biblical point of view), humans and angels are one in the same. Humans are spirit beings that lived with God in the beginning, and God called some of them to be his “angels” (messengers) to minister to mankind (either as spirits or in the flesh), or sometimes mortal humans are referred to as “angels” in scripture. An “angel” is just a job description (to be a messenger of God). There seems to be some kind of deliberation and seeking a consensus among those in the heavenly council, as well as individual volunteering going on, like in Isaiah 6:8 where it says, “I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.” And I do think that those in the heavenly council are uncreated in the sense that they are spirit beings who coexist with God, but I also consider pre-mortal humans to be in the same category (spirit beings who coexisted with God prior to them being sent to earth in a physical body). This is the first post from GoCeltics indicating that he (“Jeremy”) is not LDS. Below is a link to the posts explaining how TheTanakas ("Pete", who claimed to be LDS but is not), telnetd ("Gail"), theplains ("Jim"), and marineland ("Tony", who posted previously on this board as orion88) are all the same person. This is the thread link: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74208-the-uniqueness-of-the-lds-church/page/35/ See the post from me on 11/27/2022 and 12/03/2022 on that page where I get into the specific evidence. GoCeltics (“Jeremy”) came along a little later but also comes from the same source. Thank you for your comments, and sorry for the late response. I've had a lot going on.

What do you mean by "incompatible"? God is not made of physical matter; God is not a creation, He is the Creator. God is not finite; He is infinite. In that sense he is not "compatible" with matter because He is not matter. But that does not mean He is at odds with matter, or He and matter oppose each other. Contrarily, God the Father creates, sustains, and acts through matter. No metaphysical incompatibility there. I suspect he's referring to the idea that was formulated by Tatian and Theophilus in the late second century AD that anything eternal would be God, and therefore matter cannot be eternal. Tatian wrote: “For matter is not, like God, without beginning, nor, as having no beginning, is of equal power with God; it is begotten, and not produced by any other being, but brought into existence by the Framer of all things alone.” (Tatian – Address to the Greeks, Chapter 5) Gerhard May (who credits Tatian and Theophilus as the first to teach the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo) also explains this as part of the basic argument of Theophilus, in his book: Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of 'Creation out of Nothing' in Early Christian Thought, page 160 (emphasis in bolded italics is mine): One of the footnote references that May provides for Theophilus is this one: “But if God is uncreated and matter uncreated, God is no longer, according to the Platonists, the Creator of all things, nor, so far as their opinions hold, is the monarchy of God established. And further, as God, because He is uncreated, is also unalterable; so if matter, too, were uncreated, it also would be unalterable, and equal to God; for that which is created is mutable and alterable, but that which is uncreated is immutable and unalterable.” (Theophilus - To Autolycus, Book II, Chapter 4.) I have also come across other Christian Fathers making similar arguments, such as this one from Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD): “The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. Now the world was made from nothing; wherefore it is not God; as also because this world admits of dissolution whenever the Creator so wishes it.” (Hippolytus—Refutation Book 10 Ch. 29–30)

Clement of Rome (Died, C 100 AD) : “For thou through thy operations didst make manifest the eternal fabric of the world; thou, Lord, didst create the earth.” (Clement of Rome – First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 60:1, see also here). Early Christians taught that God created all things out of unformed matter (Justin Martyr) and that matter is eternal (see Clement of Rome quote above). But the doctrine of creatio ex-nihilo was first introduced at around 177 AD by Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch, and was developed further by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. The doctrine was later adopted in Judaism as well. But the doctrine didn't exist in Christianity and Judaism prior to that time (nor in the Bible). And according to Gerhard May (author of Creatio ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of 'Creation out of Nothing' in Early Christian Thought, 2004 edition), the Christians (Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch) in the late second century AD got the doctrine of creatio ex-nihilo from the gnostics! On page 83 of May’s book, he writes: “We turn again to the problem of creatio ex nihilo. About the middle of the second century a surprising picture emerges: the gnostic Basilides advances a thoroughly thought out doctrine of the creation of the world out of nothing, while the contemporary church Christian teachers either pay scant attention to the problem of the creation of the world or - if they have a certain intellectual formation - can talk unthinkingly about shaping the world from eternal matter; we shall see this in the case of Justin. A generation later the situation has fundamentally changed. By then the church theologians are asserting the creatio ex nihilo and reproaching the gnostics for falsifying the Christian conception of the creation of the world through their attachment to the cosmology of the philosophers. Is it anything more than a curious accident of history, that the doctrine of the creatio ex nihilo first meets us in unambiguous form in the work of a gnostic theologian? Even if Basilides is dependent on an older tradition and the impression that he is the earliest exponent of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is mistaken, it remains striking that we find no comparable statements in non-gnostic theologians before Tatian.” (Emphasis added).

I think you can also update your password in the account settings as well.

I have things to say in response to your post, but earlier this week I was asked to give a talk in church next week and I'm leaving on an all week business trip tomorrow morning, and I'm trying to get my thoughts together for the talk topic. (The date of the talk is on Father's Day, and the topic is "Heavenly Father". Got any ideas on how to narrow that down? ). I only logged in today because I saw the warning about the email address and sign-in changes. I really hope those changes don't impact you. Please find a way to make sure your login works, because you are a valuable resource on this board.

Gentile blood which supposedly changes into the blood of Abraham when a person is acted upon by the Holy Ghost (Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, chapter 21). Then this goes right along with what Heiser was saying in the video. He directly linked the blessing given to Ephraim in Genesis 48 where Jacob blessed Ephraim that he would become a "fulness of the Gentiles" with what Paul said of the "fulness of the Gentiles" that would come in Romans 11:25. There is no difference.

I understand what you quoted to be a bad translation. This is what it says in the KJV: “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: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” The red words in italics aren’t in the Greek text. And this is the Joseph Smith Translation of those same verses: “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work, and he it is who now worketh, and Christ suffereth him to work, until the time in fulfilled that he shall be taken out of the way. And then shall that wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. Yea, the Lord, even Jesus, whose coming is not until after there cometh a falling away, by the working of Satan with all power, and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” And do you honestly think that we have never seen anything like the magnitude described in verses 4-12? Are you really serious? Look around you. It has been going on for centuries. Besides, this was already explained to you in my post on 03/29/2025 when I discussed the fulfillment of verse 4 when the Roman army besieged and captured Jerusalem and destroyed the city and the temple in 70 AD under the leadership of Titus. In that post I quoted from the Wikipedia article on Titus that says, “When Vespasian was declared Emperor on 1 July 69, Titus was left in charge of ending the Jewish rebellion. In 70, he besieged and captured Jerusalem, and destroyed the city and the Second Temple. For this achievement Titus was awarded a triumph; the Arch of Titus commemorates his victory and still stands today.” This is a description of the Arch of Titus: “The arch contains panels depicting the triumphal procession celebrated in 71 AD after the Roman victory culminating in the fall of Jerusalem, and provides one of the few contemporary depictions of artifacts from Herod's Temple.” The same article describes some of the decorative sculptures on the arch: “The south inner panel depicts the spoils taken from the Temple in Jerusalem. The golden candelabrum or Menorah is the main focus and is carved in deep relief. Other sacred objects being carried in the triumphal procession are the Gold Trumpets, the fire pans for removing the ashes from the altar, and the Table of Showbread”. The arch contains this inscription: “The Senate and the Roman people (dedicate this) to the deified Titus Vespasian Augustus, son of the deified Vespasian” 2 Thessalonians 2:4 says (of the man of sin) that he is the one that “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God”. This was fulfilled by the works of Satan being manifest through Titus and his army when the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. So, for both the apostasy and “man of sin”, there is no reason to assume that either of these are some kind of future event, and there’s no reason to stretch and strain to try to make 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13 and 19 depict the same events. Paul clearly says that the man of lawlessness was already at work during his day (in verse 7) and for the apostasy he said it would begin “after my departing” (Acts 20:28-31). Thus, these are both past events. You simply can’t get around the fact that Paul said that the man of sin was already at work in his day.

So your Bible only has those 15 verses in it? And that’s the only scripture that you can’t go beyond? You do realize that the Bible has more than 15 verses in it, right? Proof texting a modern belief back into the Bible is a common tactic. But you really need to take the Bible in its textual and historical context. And do you think Philo, Justin Martyr, Origen, and Lactantius, who lived in that ancient time and culture, had no clue about what the Jewish and Christian belief was on this topic? There is additional context you should consider, including: “Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children: But these two things shall come to thee in a moment in one day, the loss of children, and widowhood: they shall come upon thee in their perfection for the multitude of thy sorceries, and for the great abundance of thine enchantments. For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.” (Isaiah 47:8–10) “This [Ninevah (see verse 13)] is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.” (Zephaniah 2:15) "Let the heavens [שמים; šāmaîm] praise your wonders, O Lord, your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones [קהל קדשים; qĕhal qĕdôshîm]. For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord? Who among the heavenly beings [אלים בני; bĕnê ’ēlîm] is like the Lord, a God feared in the council of the holy ones [סוד-קדשים; sôd qĕdôshîm], great and awesome above all that are around him?" (Psalm 89:5–7) "Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?" (Exodus 15:11) "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works." (Psalm 86:8) "For I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord is above all gods." (Psalm 135:5) "For thou, Lord, art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all gods." (Psalm 97:9). "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them." (Exodus 18:11) "For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward" (Deuteronomy 10:17)

The thing that puzzles me is how many people were surprised to find out he's LDS. I don't watch every single video that Dan puts out, but there are numerous times in interviews and in the Data Over Dogma podcast where his membership in the church comes up, and he's constantly being bashed in the comments about being a member of the church. In many of the interviews with him that I have watched (I think in a couple of them they were interviewing him about his book, The Bible Says So) he speaks fondly of his conversion to the church and how that led him to read the Bible for the first time prior to serving a mission, and how that got him started in Biblical scholarship. He discusses the church to some degree in this Data Over Dogma episode, for example: At about the 13:16 minute mark he discusses debates he had on his blog with James White about whether "Mormons" are Christians, and that comes up again around the 18:00 minute mark (where they are discussing the name of the church) and a little later he says, "you will find a lot of people who insist that I probably can't even call myself a Mormon anymore and shouldn't call myself a Mormon for multiple reasons. One of them being that you're not supposed to use that word." There's a lot more from there.

I don't mean any such designation other than that they are "gods" and are with God in the heavenly council.

I don't quite understand the problems, honestly. This is the YouTube version in case anyone prefers that: