InCognitus

What you don't seem to "see" is the point that Joseph Smith was making in the context of his statement that you omitted on your website, and you continue to misrepresent him as saying what you said in your first post, which was this: You are lying about what Joseph Smith said there by intentionally ignoring the context where he paraphrased John 17:11 and 20-23, when Jesus prayed for a all the believers to become "one" with him and his Father in the same way Jesus is one with his Father. You said Joseph Smith "did not understand how God could be God in 3 persons", but the truth is that Joseph Smith clearly DID understand what the Bible teaches about how God can be God in 3 persons, and he compared what Jesus taught to what modern Christians teach. Let's break it down: 1. Joseph Smith says, "Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization." Here he accurately describes what most modern Christians teach about the Trinity, that the three persons of the Godhead are actually "one being", and you have seen that this is true from our prior discussions on what the word "homoousious" in the Nicene creed means to modern Christians. See our prior discussion on this in my post on 10/20/2024 and my post on 11/28/2025. See also my post on 01/03/2025. 2. Joseph Smith paraphrases the words of Jesus from John 17:11 and 20-23 where Jesus prays for his disciples to be "one" with him and his Father and each other in the exact same way Jesus is one with the Father: “Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me.” “Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are.” These are the verses in question: John 17:11, "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." John 17:20-23: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." This demonstrates that Joseph Smith clearly understood what Jesus taught in the Bible about how Jesus and his Father are "one". It also shows exactly what Joseph Smith meant when he said "All are to be crammed into one God" in his next statement. 3. Now his last statement, "All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster." Here Joseph Smith compares the "one being" theology of modern Christianity regarding how the modern Christians believe Jesus and his Father are one, to the actual words of Jesus as recorded in scripture where Jesus prayed for his disciples to be one with him and the Father in the exact same way, and says "all" would be crammed into one God (according to modern Christian thinking). Now, who are the "All" that Joseph Smith has in mind in this statement? The one "God in 3 persons" that you keep trying to make him say? Nope. It's "all" the believers, "all" those that Jesus prayed for, "That they all may be one... even as we are one". So do you still intend to keep misrepresenting him as referring only to the "3 persons" that are "crammed into one God"?

"The church" has not been led astray. The official position of "the church" is that there is no official position on the location of the Book of Mormon events.

You can't get more "foreign" than a god who is "wholly other" and contradicts the biblical teaching that humans and God are the same "kind" of being (Acts 17:28-29).

Obviously those who become gods (as the early Christians taught) and the gods who are with God in the heavenly council that he rules over, as scripture says. "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)

But you already know that what you said above is a false statement because you've been corrected on it multiple times previously. Joseph Smith knew how the Christians of his day viewed the three persons of the Trinity as one being (as they do today). Previously you copied and pasted an edited quote of this statement from your website that omits the portion of Joseph Smith's remarks that explains where he is weighing the modern views about how God is one in being with scripture, where Jesus prays for his disciples to be "one" with him and his Father in the exact same way Jesus is one with his Father. I responded to that in my post on October 24, 2024 with the following: Joseph Smith was taking the Bible for what it says in John 17:20-23 in connection with how Trinitarians define the oneness of God in the Trinity. He reasoned, if, as Jesus prayed (in John 17:20-23) for those disciples whom the Father has given him are to be “one as we are”, then they [the disciples given to Jesus] would all be crammed into one God (using a Trinitarian definition of how they are “one”). He is not saying that the three persons of the Trinity would be crammed into one God as your edited quote implies. Note the portion of his statement in red, below: “Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. "Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me." "Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are." All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster.” And now you misrepresent him again by claiming that Joseph Smith viewed "God in 3 persons" as "a giant or a monster". Anyone can see that's not what Joseph Smith is referring to in the quote above. You haven't shown any authority to judge us other than your opinion, and when you do judge us it is by misrepresenting and twisting the truth instead of directly engaging in it. So why should we listen to you? Give us a good reason.

I haven't finished watching this yet (I'm part way through), but this video is totally relevant to this folder's topic. It just got posted an hour ago: ETA: I watched the entire video. Brant Gardner does a great job of setting forth some important methodological considerations for determining the location of Book of Mormon events and he (and Jasmin Rappleye, Neal Rappleye, and Stephen Smoot) weighs each of the proposed models (Heartland, Baja, Meso-America) against the various considerations. It's worth watching. Spoiler alert: The Baja and Heartland models don't stack up so well (is anyone surprised? ). Some Heartland adherents were complaining in the comments that they should have had a Heartland representative on the panel.

I agree with 3DOP and Navidad above. I see 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 as describing the works of Satan as the "man of lawlessness" throughout time. In verse 7 Paul says, "For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is removed." He's not taken out until Christ returns.

I'm waiting patiently for his response to your post.

Do you think the early Christians were ignorant of those verses? They were not ignorant of them at all, but they understood them in their original context and in relation to other Bible verses that teach that God is the God over other gods. They viewed the "only one God" as the most high God, the one who is above all others, and they understood that Jesus and his Father are "one" with each other in a way that invites others to participate in the glory of God together with them. Origen (circa AD 185-254) wrote in his apologetic response to the accusations of Celsus (an anti-Christian) something about how the Father and the Son are "one", and describes them to be one in unity and NOT one in being: "In what follows, some may imagine that he says something plausible against us. 'If,' says he, 'these people worshipped one God alone, and no other, they would perhaps have some valid argument against the worship of others. But they pay excessive reverence to one who has but lately appeared among men, and they think it no offence against God if they worship also His servant.' To this we reply, that if Celsus had known that saying, 'I and My Father are one,' [John 10:30] and the words used in prayer by the Son of God, 'As Thou and I are one,' [John 17:22] he would not have supposed that we worship any other besides Him who is the Supreme God. 'For,' says He, 'My Father is in Me, and I in Him.' [John 14:11 and John 17:21] And if any should from these words be afraid of our going over to the side of those who deny that the Father and the Son are two persons, let him weigh that passage, 'And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul,' [Acts 4:32] that he may understand the meaning of the saying, 'I and My Father are one.' We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not 'reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared,' as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, 'Before Abraham was, I am.' [John 8:58] Again He says, 'I am the truth;' [John 14:6] and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared. We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely they are one, that he who has seen the Son, 'who is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person,' has seen in Him who is the image of God, God Himself". (Origen Against Celsus, Book VIII, Chap. XII).

Rory, good question. On the rejection of "a personal God", Elder Oaks used it in the context of "a tangible, personal God", and I think he intended those two things to be coupled together. And above you say there are many Christians "who always believed in a personal God who lived in the flesh", referring to the incarnation of Christ, but from a Latter-day Saint perspective I'm certain that Elder Oaks was referring to beliefs about God the Father, not his Son, Jesus Christ. My guess is that Elder Oaks was thinking of some of the descriptions about God included in documents like the Westminster Confession of Faith, a "God without body, parts, or passions", where God is understood to be a pure, unchangeable spirit who is not composed of physical parts and does not experience fluctuating human emotions and is incomprehensible. And there is the Creator vs. creature distinction, which Latter-day Saints also accept but not in the same way that modern Christians view that distinction since the development of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo, which makes that distinction include an impassable ontological gap between God and man (and some describe God as "wholly other"). Does that help?

I wasn't aware of Philo's view on the relationship between God and the Logos until recently myself. I thank Dan McClellan for making me aware of that.

I'm late to this thread topic, but I followed the recent Artemis II mission closely because the NASA space missions and especially the moon missions have been of high interest to me since I was a kid the 60's. One thing that stood out to me about the Artemis II mission was that it was really easy to connect with the crew members. The frequent live streaming coverage of the mission helped the entire world get to know them, and the crew members were good at articulating the human experience of the mission. And nothing brings this point home better than the brief interview they had at Ellington Airport near NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston on Saturday, April 11, 2026 (the day after their splashdown). I watched the whole event when it was live streamed, but since that time a few more concise videos have been posted on YouTube, including this one below. If you forward to about the five minute mark, it gets you right to the part where each member of the crew shares some brief remarks. You can tell that each of them was emotionally moved by their experience, and sometimes in a spiritual way, and it had a profound impact on each of them and their perspective of who we are on this earth. I especially liked the remarks by Christina Koch and her changed perspective about our life on earth. It's worth watching! Here it is:

It was that way from the beginning, even in pre-Christian era early Jewish sources. Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE – c. 50 CE): Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria, in the Roman province of Egypt: *62. (Gen. ix. 6) Why does (Scripture) say, as if (speaking) of another God, "in the image of God He made man" and not "in His own image"? Most excellently and veraciously this oracle was given by God. For nothing mortal can be made in the likeness of the most high One and Father of the universe but (only) in that of the second God, who is His Logos. For it was right that the rational (part) of the human soul should be formed as an impression by the divine Logos, since the pre-Logos God is superior to every rational nature. But He who is above the Logos (and) exists in the best and in a special form—what thing that comes into being can rightfully bear His likeness? Moreover, Scripture wishes also to show that God most justly avenges the virtuous and decent men because they have a certain kinship with His Logos, of which the human mind is a likeness and image." (Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, Book II). Justin Martyr (150 AD): "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures,[of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things--above whom there is no other God--wishes to announce to them." (Dialogue with Trypho , chapter 56) Origen (185-254 AD): "And although we may call Him [Jesus Christ] a "second" God, let men know that by the term "second God" we mean nothing else than a virtue capable of including all other virtues, and a reason capable of containing all reason whatsoever which exists in all things, which have arisen naturally, directly, and for the general advantage, and which "reason," we say, dwelt in the soul of Jesus, and was united to Him in a degree far above all other souls, seeing He alone was enabled completely to receive the highest share in the absolute reason, and the absolute wisdom, and the absolute righteousness." (Origen Against Celsus, Book 5, Chapter 39). Lactantius (c. 240-c 320 AD): "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'" (The Divine Institutes, Book 4, Chap. 6).

But this approach assumes that Joseph's group of friends were also devouring every relevant text in the Manchester Library, and Joseph happened to ask about just the right things to compose the Book of Mormon, the little details that have held up to the test of time. That's a pretty far out theory.

If only Joseph had such a tool in his day. Joseph Smith Sr.: "Why isn't Joseph doing his farm work?" Alvin: "Oh, he's been down at the Manchester Library day after day doing some kind of research". Lucy Smith: "Oh really? That's strange, at eighteen years of age Joseph never read the Bible through in his life and was much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study. Why is he at the library?"

See Kevin Christensen's response above.

See Brant Gardner's response to you posting this same thing (under the user name telnetd) on September 1, 2013, located here.

The connection to the Western Hemisphere comes directly from revelation to Joseph Smith as given to him by the angel of God. From Joseph Smith's Wentworth Letter (published in the March 1, 1842 edition of Times and Seasons), writing about the first visit he had from the angel of God on September 21st, 1823: "On the evening on the 21st of September, A.D. 1823, while I was praying unto God, and endeavoring to exercise faith in the precious promises of scripture on a sudden a light like that of day, only of a far purer and more glorious appearance and brightness burst into the room, indeed the first sight was as though the house was filled with consuming fire; the appearance produced a shock that affected the whole body; in a moment a personage stood before me surrounded with a glory yet greater than that with which I was already surrounded. This messenger proclaimed himself to be an angel of God, sent to bring the joyful tidings, that the covenant which God made with ancient Israel was at hand to be fulfilled... "I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country, and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people, was made known unto me; I was also told where were deposited some plates on which were engraven an abridgment of the records of the ancient prophets that had existed on this continent. The angel appeared to me three times the same night and unfolded the same things. After having received many visits from the angels of God unfolding the majesty, and glory of the events that should transpire in the last days, on the morning of the 22d of September, A.D. 1827, the angel of the Lord delivered the records into my hands."

The G should be "L" for light. B, M, and L.

That's a recent change to the website in an attempt to comply with the requests made of him in mediation. Check the website in the Wayback Machine (I'll let you supply the link). I just checked the January 31 2026 capture in the Wayback Machine, and it only says this at the bottom of the webpage: "© Copyright 2005 - 2026 | Mormon Stories. All rights reserved."

Hebrews 12:14-15 does not teach Christ’s grace is insufficient if a person fails of the grace of God. That wasn't the question, and you dodged the actual question (I suspected you would). For the person that doesn't follow peace with all men and holiness, so that they "fail the grace of God", is God's grace APPLIED SUFFICIENTLY to that person so that they end up not failing the grace of God? You know the answer and that's why you are dodging the question. The answer is NO (otherwise there is no danger in failing the grace of God). You keep ignoring God's APPLICATION of his grace which makes it sufficient to people in those individual circumstances. Earlier in the thread you said this: Here you seem to recognize the difference between the availability of grace and distinguish it from when it is applied, but you fail to understand that the "sufficiency" of that grace pertains to both of those situations. God's grace is ALWAYS available, no question about it. But when it is applied is based on God's rules, and all of his rules require that we do things to make the application of his grace sufficient to the application of those various purposes. For example: An atheist who denied the existence of God and Jesus all his life dies and goes before the judgement seat of Christ. Is God's grace applied to that person sufficiently so that he is saved and goes to heaven? Yes or no? This is no different than the question asked about Hebrews 12:14-15. A person who "fails the grace of God" does not have God's grace sufficiently applied to THEM to make them holy and perfected. They have "failed the grace of God". But this context goes against your entire point. In 2 Corinthians 12, Paul was "glorying" in the revelations and abundance of things he had seen and done and the things that he had suffered for Christ, and this is the exact same usage of "sufficiency" as we find in Moroni 10:32. In other words, Paul had been cleansing himself from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God and denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, and living soberly, righteously, and godly, with all his might, mind and strength, but he had a "thorn in the flesh" that he had no power to remove. Paul said that the "thorn in the flesh" was what prevented him from being "exalted above measure". So just as Moroni 10:32 says, God's grace was sufficiently applied to Paul's situation so that he was perfected in Christ and sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, becoming holy and without spot. It is the exact same application and SUPPORTS the reading of Moroni 10:32-33. But none of these examples have to do with sanctification and perfecting holiness in the fear of God. That's right, because Moroni 10:32 does not portray grace as "becoming sufficient only after human perfection". This shows that you are still trying to twist the meaning. We are to "come unto Christ, and be perfected in him". We do this by denying ungodliness and worldly lusts (Titus 2:11–14), purifying oneself (1 John 3:3), cleansing oneself from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit and perfecting holiness (2 Corinthians 7:1), and basically being obedient (1 Peter 1:13-17) and keeping the commandments that Jesus gave (1 Thessalonians 4:1-7). And, just like Paul, by striving to do these things God's grace is sufficiently applied to make us perfect in Christ, becoming holy, without spot, even though we may still have a "thorn in the flesh". It is only IN CHRIST that we are perfected "in him". Failing to take advantage of something that is always available and sufficient cancels out the sufficient application of that grace in that person's situation. They don't receive it and it's not sufficient FOR THEM to be perfected or made holy (in the Hebrews 12:14-15 example). In the Hebrews 12:14-15 example, the person is given a list of tools that are inadequate to fully complete the job. The tools are: follow peace with all men, and holiness, and looking diligently. People are not perfect and nor can they become perfect on their own. And if a person doesn't even begin to use those tools then they are the ones that "fail the grace of God" by not starting the job that God will finish by sufficiently applying grace to make the job complete. God does not sufficiently APPLY his grace to them in that situation.

Perhaps, but it could also be what Joseph Smith saw and recounted. If only we had the details of what he said it would help.

Very good point, and I agree.

No, the context also includes the rest of the sentence that you chopped off (which is that Lucy was talking about what Joseph was describing of what he had seen in vision) as well as the complete context of her account. In the prior paragraph she says: "We were now confirmed in the opinion, that God was about to bring to light something upon which we could stay our minds; or, that would give us a more perfect knowledge of the plan of salvation. and redemption of the This caused us greatly to rejoice, the sweetest union and happiness pervaded our family, and peace and tranquility reigned in our midst." Their joy and excitement and "amusement" had to do with their anticipation of what they were receiving from God, not Joseph's assumed story telling ability.

This is another presumption taken out of context. The "amusement" of those recitals had to do with the content of what was being related (Joseph recounting what he had been shown and told), not the performance of the "story teller". i.e. "Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined: he would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent; their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, and their buildings, with every particular; he would describe their <mode of> warfare, as also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them." He had been shown them in vision. It would be like describing a movie that you had seen to someone else. Simple.