InCognitus

As I said above, I'm out of town at the moment, but I am already making a response to your other post where you said something similar to what you say above. Of course what you say above does not address the CFR for official doctrines, nor does it really address what you claimed to be doctrine. And what I consider to be "official doctrines" isn't as important as how the church defines official doctrines. So the CFR still stands for official doctrine that teaches what you claimed. And if you want a sneak peak at what I'm going to say in response to what you say above, just reread the portion of my post on 05/26/2025 that deals with the source documents of Joseph Smith's Sermon in the Grove (the part that you never acknowledged), and how Joseph Smith was referring to God the Father's mortal experience in the context of making the statements about God having a father, and how God the Father was a divine being prior to his mortal experience.

I'm out of state again (this time visiting my dad who is in the hospital), but it's really easy to respond to questions that you already asked, because I can just copy and paste the same answer that I gave you previously. Do you really not remember my answer? Or what's the deal? You asked this same question in your post on 10/02/2024, and in that post you asked me: “What does ‘homoousios’ (consubstantial)" mean to you? Maybe then I could understand how you see it as unbiblical.” And I answered as follows (in my post on 10/20/2024😞 It really doesn’t matter what I think it means, but what really matters is how Christians have understood and taught the concept and how they have interpreted it. Originally, “homoousios” as it pertains to the Father and Son was explained (during the discussion at the Council of Nicaea) to mean that Jesus has the same nature as God the Father. In other words, the Father is a divine being, and Jesus is a divine being. Latter-day Saints would completely agree with that as it stands. However, that definition has morphed into the modern understanding that the three persons of the Godhead are “one being”, as shown in these Got Questions website definitions of homoousious and the meaning of the Trinity. In the article titled: What is the meaning of homoousious? , the article discusses the Arian controversy that led up to the Council of Nicaea, and then it says of the council: “The bishops of the church discussed and debated the issue and finally decided by overwhelming majority that homoousious (‘same substance’) best encapsulates the teaching of the New Testament on the nature of Jesus. The Nicene Creed was the result of this meeting and reads in part, ‘We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.’ That last phrase of one being is a translation of the Greek word homoousious. The word homoousious is not found in Scripture, but the Council felt this was the best word to describe orthodox biblical teaching concerning Christ.” Regarding the anathemas at the end of the first rendition of the Nicene Creed, Eusebius wrote “As far as the condemnation they attached to the end of the creed, it did not cause us pain, because it forbad the use of words not found in Scripture, from which almost all the confusion and disorder in the Church have come. Since then no divinely inspired Scripture has used the phrases, ‘out of nothing,’ and ‘once he was not,’ and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground for using or teaching them. We think that this was a good decision, since it has never been our custom to use these terms.” It’s ironic that an unscriptural word (homoousious) was used in a creed that forbad the use of words not found in scripture, and that word developed into unscriptural concepts about the relationship of the three members of the Godhead. The Got Questions website explains what it considers to be the essential biblical teachings of the doctrine of the Trinity in the article titled: What does the Bible teach about the Trinity? The article says: “The doctrine of the Trinity has been a divisive issue throughout the entire history of the Christian church. While the core aspects of the Trinity are clearly presented in God’s Word, some of the side issues are not as explicitly clear. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but there is only one God. That is the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Beyond that, the issues are, to a certain extent, debatable and non-essential. Rather than attempting to fully define the Trinity with our finite human minds, we would be better served by focusing on God’s greatness and His infinitely higher nature. “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” (Romans 11:33-34).” So the only aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity that the Bible teaches in a “clear” way (according the article) are that “The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but there is only one God.” Everything else is “debatable and non-essential” because they are “not as explicitly clear”. And in the article, What is Trinitarianism?, the Got Questions website also concedes that even though they call Trinitarianism a “biblically-based” doctrine, it isn’t clear enough to require a strict understanding of the doctrine in order to be “saved”. They write: “We strongly hold that Trinitarianism is a biblically-based doctrine. We dogmatically proclaim that understanding and believing in biblical Trinitarianism is crucially important to understanding God, salvation, and the ongoing work of God in the lives of believers. At the same time, there have been godly men, genuine followers of Christ, who have had some disagreements with aspects of Trinitarianism. It is important to remember that we are not saved by having perfect doctrine. We are saved by trusting in our perfect Savior (John 3:16). Do we have to believe in some aspects of Trinitarianism to be saved? Yes. Do we have to fully agree with all areas of Trinitarianism to be saved? No.” Again, I find it ironic that on the one hand the website proclaims that “understanding and believing in biblical Trinitarianism is crucially important to understanding God” (etc.), and on the other hand they say (as I quoted earlier in my post) “that there is no way to perfectly and completely understand it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain.” It is thus "crucially important" to "understand" something that is "impossible for any human being to fully understand". So we're all doomed! A lot of Christian groups agree on the basic principles that were stated by the Got Questions website to be “essential” to the doctrine of the Trinity, but there is a paradox in the idea that each of the three persons are called “God” but there is “only one God”, and sometimes there are attempts at resolving this paradox using unbiblical means. Some groups try to resolve the paradox by denying the deity of Jesus Christ. Others, like the Oneness Pentecostals, claim that the one God has different manifestations, roles, modes, titles, attributes, relationships to man, that are the functions of the one God. And groups that follow the decisions made at the First Council of Nicaea claim that the three are really “one Being” and that the “triune God of Scripture… possesses one indivisible essence. There is only one Being that is God, and this one Being is tri-personal, with each of the three Persons having full possession of the divine nature” (see the Got Questions article: How is the doctrine of the Trinity not tritheism?) But this concept can’t be found anywhere in scripture. And in your post on 11/25/2024, you said: "I don't believe the Nicene Creed teaches the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one being. You can interpret it that way if you wish. They are 3 separate personages but they are one God." And in my post on 12/14/2024, I responded to the above by saying: I don’t try to interpret the Nicene Creed at all. Rather, I use non-LDS Christian sources to have them explain how they interpret it, because it would be wrong to misrepresent what other people believe and teach. I quoted from the Got Questions website explanation of the Nicene Creed, remember? In the article titled: What is the meaning of homoousious?, they quoted the Nicene Creed as follows: “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.” Do you think the Got Questions website is interpreting the creed incorrectly? I also have several books on the Trinity to help me understand what other Christians believe about the Trinity (again, because I want to understand another person’s beliefs accurately). For example, in the book The Forgotten Trinity, in a chapter titled "What Is the Trinity?", under the heading a "Basic Definition," the author James White writes: "Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (The Forgotten Trinity - Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief, by James R. White (1998, Bethany House Publishers), p.26, emphasis added). Incidentally, this definition is also quoted in the Got Questions article, Should we worship Jesus? On the next page, White paraphrases Hank Hanegraaff of the Christian Research Institute, whom I often heard repeat this statement of belief on his radio show years ago (he was "The Bible Answer Man" before he converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church in 2017): "[W]hen speaking of the Trinity, we need to realize that we are talking about one what and three who's. The one what is the Being or essence of God, the three who's are the Father, Son, and Spirit. We dare not mix up the what's and who's regarding the Trinity" (ibid, p.27) In the book Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Robert M. Bowman, Jr, states a similar belief: "Another aspect of God's oneness is the fact that there are no separations or divisions or partitions in God. The trinitarian doctrine holds that God is a single infinite being, transcending the bounds of space and time, having no body either material or spiritual (except the body that the Son assumed in becoming a man). Thus the trinitarian God has no parts. You cannot divide infinite being into components. The Athanasian Creed affirms that God is not divided by the three persons when it states that the trinitarian faith does not allow for "dividing the substance" (using "substance" to mean the essence or being of God). The three persons, consequently, are not three parts of God, but three personal distinctions within God, each of whom is fully God" (Why You Should Believe in the Trinity - An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses, Robert M. Bowman, Jr., 1989 Baker Book House, pp.12-13) In the book The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, Robert Morey also makes a similar distinction in laying out certain expectations about the Trinity with regard to the Bible: “1. We expect to find in the Bible that there is only one, true, living, eternal Being who is God by nature and Maker of heaven and earth. 2. We expect to find in the Bible that the one true God is incomprehensible. 3. We expect to find in the Bible that the one true God exists in three Persons called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." (The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, by Robert Morey,1996, World Bible Publishers, Inc., p.60) So this is a common belief among many non-LDS Christians. So why are you trying to reboot the discussion on this, over and over and over again, by asking the same questions over and over again? At least it makes it easy for me to respond. You can cut and paste and I can cut and paste what I already said in answer to your cut and past. But where does this get us? ETA: Back to the original question. Do you believe that the "homoousious" God that the Roman Emperor Constantine invented WILL lead to salvation? Or do you believe it is leading people astray?

Franklin D. Richards also affirmed that the "stick of Judah" is the Bible in the same account.

That link takes you to that person's web page with a "Not Found" message, and there's a "Search" box on the page. And if you type "The Great Apostasy" into the search, it gets you to a list of articles including the one titled, "Is This the Great Apostasy? Here's what caused it". Or try this link: https://ancient-faith.com/?s=the+great+apostasy

For a general Christian point of view from the Got Questions website article: Are angels male or female? It goes on to explain that God doesn't have any gender either: And that seems to be the general consensus outside of Latter-day Saint thinking.

But you believe that the "homoousious" God that the Roman Emperor Constantine invented WILL lead to salvation?

The existence of Heavenly Mother is a doctrine. How did she become a God? Are you admitting that your "Grandfather... above Heavenly Father" speculation is not LDS doctrine? Otherwise the CFR stands. CFR where official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says there is a "Grandfather... above Heavenly Father".

I agree (that it doesn't matter).

Don Bradley's book, The Lost 116 Pages – Reconstructing the Book of Mormon’s Missing Stories (Greg Kofford Books, 2019), in the chapter titled "The Lineages of Laban, Ishmael, and Zoram" on pages 157-160 of the book, quotes from witnesses who were informed about the lineage of Ephraim and Zoram by Joseph Smith. The sources are from Franklin D. Richards, Orson Pratt, Erastus Snow, and Charles B. Thompson. Below is an 1896 account from Elder Franklin D. Richards, who recalled hearing Joseph Smith explain how the Book of Mormon could fulfill Ezekiel's prophecy of "the stick of Ephraim" or "stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim" (Ezek. 37:16, 19): He also quotes Erastus Snow as also hearing Joseph Smith talk about Lehi and his family, and Nephi marrying Ishmael's daughters, and their linage being that of Ephraim.

I don't recall ever seeing anything that says that Ezekiel 37:15-17 should only be interpreted in one single way as the two sticks representing only the Bible and Book of Mormon. And, when the seminary manual says that the sticks "can" be interpreted to mean the Bible and Book of Mormon, I think they are just acknowledging that the sticks also represent the two nations or the two tribes (of Judah and Ephraim), because they do represent those as well. This is what the Old Testament Institute manual says about this topic: In other words, the manual acknowledges that the interpretation that these two sticks represent the two kingdoms is accurate, but it is not really the "complete" picture because they also represent the two records of those two tribes. And, the Old Testament Seminary manual says something similar: “When the twelve tribes of Israel were divided into two kingdoms, the Northern Kingdom was ruled by the tribe of Ephraim and the Southern Kingdom was ruled by the tribe of Judah. When all of the Lord’s people receive the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, the twelve tribes will be reunited.” (Old Testament Seminary Student Material, p. 731) It goes on to say something similar to what you quoted from the teacher's manual: So I think the manuals are just trying to provide the complete picture of what Ezekiel is talking about in those verses. This idea didn't originate with Latter-day Saints. The New English Bible (which was jointly published by the University Presses of Cambridge and Oxford) translates Ezekiel 37:15-22 this way: 15 These were the words of the LORD to me: 16 Man, take one leaf of a wooden tablet and write on it, 'Judah and his associates of Israel.' Then take another leaf and write on it, 'Joseph, the leaf of Ephraim and all his associates of Israel.' 17 Now bring the two together to form one tablet; then they will be a folding tablet in your hand. 18 When your fellow-country-men ask you to tell them what you mean by this, 19 say to them, These are the words of the Lord GOD: I am taking the leaf of Joseph, which belongs to Ephraim and his associate tribes of Israel, and joining to it the leaf of Judah. Thus I shall make them one tablet, and they shall be one in my hand. 20 The leaves on which you write shall be visible in your hand for all to see. 21 Then say to them, These are the words of the Lord GOD: I am gathering up the Israelites from their places of exile among the nations; I will assemble them from every quarter and restore them to their own soil. 22 I will make them one single nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel, and they shall have one king; they shall no longer be two nations or divided into two kingdoms...." This clearly conveys the idea that these were tablets of some kind used for writing, and the joining of the two tablets plays a significant part in Israel being gathered again. This Scripture Central article also dives deep into that question: Ezekiel’s Sticks and the Gathering of Israel

Thanks, I feel better. I respect your views, and now I apologize for apologizing I have a meeting in 3 minutes, so I can't comment more now. I hope I get more time to review your post a little later.

Swift catch there.

It stresses me that I have made your experience here frustrating, and I truly apologize for that. I really welcome your input and am sincerely trying to understand your point of view. You are such a welcome voice on this board! In all my interactions with people of other faiths I try very hard to sincerely understand and be fair about seeing the other person's point of view. I was being honest about not grasping your viewpoint, and I hope I didn't sound like I was making light of it, as that was far from my intentions. I hope you get a chance to expound on it, as you are hinting at above. My method of making sense of another view or interpretation often involves me "proving contraries" (to use a Joseph Smith phrase) and working out the position in my head, and sometimes that comes across as criticism, which is not my intent. My apologies!

I'm glad you asked, and I really wish a lot of people on this board and elsewhere could have attended our class yesterday. Our entire lesson was about how to handle the hard things in church history, but with a focus on the polygamy topic of section 132. I'm in a ward in Utah now (I am really an Arizona boy at heart, so this is all new to me) and most of the people in the class have ancestors who had to deal with polygamy, and some of the families still have hard feelings about some of the branches of their family tree. But many of them wouldn't be there today if it were not for those families doing what they did. The teacher did a great job of handling it and there were some really good comments from some members of the class.

That makes no sense to me. Does that mean if we don't do marriage in this life, it is only for the eternities in the after life? Also, I don't think Paul considered this life to be a "present distress", and his teaching in verse 5 to husbands and wives, where he says: "Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (NKJV, emphasis added), would be in contradiction to what he says in verses 29-30: "But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not”. It is clearly for a temporary purpose, which has to be for the preaching of the gospel (in my mind). I don't think it even makes sense for Paul to give the council he gives above to prepare for the second coming. How would that make sense? ETA: I'm trying to understand what you are saying, and maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

You didn't READ what I said, which was "there is no such thing as a “Grandfather (the Father above Heavenly Father)”. So your question has no meaning. CFR where official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says there is a "Grandfather... above Heavenly Father".

I would say that you can safely ignore the other counsel given in the same context then. Isn't that the same thing you were saying, that "It was admittedly to an audience that thought the Second Coming was coming any day now so it can be seen as special circumstances"? Special circumstances mean that it wasn't a long term council, but for a unusual reason (either the impending second coming of Christ, or the urgent need to do missionary work). Here's the source, St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Philadelphians, Chapter 4, -HAVE BUT ONE EUCHARIST, ETC. Clement of Alexandria: Or he had knowledge of the tradition (like that of Ignatius), and recognized the Philippians source as evidence of that. The same goes for the quote from Origen, since he referred to the "tradition" that Paul had a wife, but that the tradition was disputed by some people. It seems that the dispute always had to do with the support for celibacy or the defense of marriage being ordained of God. The Clement of Alexandria source is definitely an argument against those that "teach that one must reject marriage and begetting of children" and "some who say outright that marriage is fornication and teach that it was introduced by the devil", and he quotes Paul in support of his argument, that "In the last times some shall depart from the faith, turning to spirits of error and doctrines inspired by daemons, forbidding to marry and commanding abstinence from food." So Clement was inclined to accept the tradition that Paul was a married man.

I can see how this view is a reasonable assumption. But I disagree with it for other contextual reasons. And in either case (that it was a "distress" because of the immanent second coming of Christ, or a "necessity" for preaching the gospel), it was a temporary and special circumstance, and not a long term council that celibacy is to be preferred. I haven’t seen any such sources that appeared convincing. I presume you have read the sources from Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria (and there's a source from Eusebius, but he is just quoting Clement of Alexandria)? And Origen also mentions Paul's married state, but treats the information as tentative (i.e. "Paul, then, if certain traditions are true, was called while in possession of a wife, concerning whom he speaks when writing to the Philippians, 'I ask you also, my loyal mate, help these women.'" - referring to Philippians 4:3). Can you explain why you don't find them convincing? I'm not trying to argue the point, I just want to understand your point of view. I can understand this view as well.

I agree. I have never liked the Bible translations (like the NLT and NET) that render Romans 1:1 as "a slave of Christ Jesus". I find this portion of the preface of the ESV translation to be applicable to this discussion: I think this is a thoughtful consideration of the translation because of our modern views on slavery.

The Greek word that Paul uses in Romans 1:1 (δοῦλος) to say he is a slave "of Jesus Christ" is also translated as servant, and that Greek word could definitely have both meanings. Being a "servant" or "serving", being "subject to" can be either willing or unwilling, and the Thayer's Lexicon definition gives "one who gives himself up wholly to another's will" as one of the possible meanings. I don't think we should pick on the apostle Paul for using the word to mean "slaves" as he might accept that practice in his day, because Jesus used the same word often and even implied that he himself was such (i.e. Matthew 8:9, 10:24, 10:25, 20:27, 24:45-46, 48, 50, Mark 10:43 for a few examples).

I don't think it's fair to say that Paul was advocating celibacy (in general) at all. First of all, multiple early Christian sources indicate that Paul was a married man, and thus Paul's statements about abiding "even as I" in 1 Corinthians chapter 7 should be viewed in that light. Second, Paul was responding to a specific question (1 Corinthians 7:1) and we don't have that question. But from the context of chapter 7 we can see that Paul was speaking to those who are called to participate in the "present distress" (verse 26), and the Greek word translated as "distress" in that verse (ἀνάγκην) is the same word used in 1 Corinthians 9:16 which is translated as "necessity" in preaching the gospel: "For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity (ἀνάγκη) is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!" (1 Corinthians 9:16). So in chapter 7, it appears that Paul is talking to those who are called to preach the gospel and whether they should be married while participating in that calling. And, I think this goes along with what Paul (a married man) says about having the power to take his wife with him on his missionary journeys, as do the other apostles (1 Corinthians 9:5), but he doesn't do that. He thinks wives are a distraction to the work (or maybe he just thought his wife would be a distraction to the work), which is why he advocated remaining celibate while participating in that calling.

I was just going to mention this, and then I saw you had already done so. This is the Josephus reference (correlating with Numbers 12:1): Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews — Book II, Chapter 10: "Tharbis was the daughter of the King of the Ethiopians: she happened to see Moses, as he led the army near to the walls, and fought with great courage: and admiring the subtilty of his undertakings, and believing him to be the author of the Egyptian success, when they had before despaired of recovering their liberty; and to be the occasion of the great danger the Ethiopians were in, when they had before boasted of their great achievements, she fell deeply in love with him: and upon the prevalence of that passion, sent to him the most faithful of all her servants to discourse with him upon their marriage. He thereupon accepted the offer, on condition she would procure the delivering up of the city; and gave her the assurance of an oath to take her to his wife: and that when he had once taken possession of the city he would not break his oath to her. No sooner was the agreement made, but it took effect immediately: and when Moses had cut off the Ethiopians, he gave thanks to God, and consummated his marriage, and led the Egyptians back to their own land."

Concubines were considered to be wives, so it may not be necessary to distinguish the difference. Take Abraham for example: "And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife." (Genesis 16:3) "Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah." (Genesis 25:1)

P.S. Latter-day Saints don't believe any gods are "formed" to be the God of Israel (or our God), either before or after God declared himself to be the God of Israel (as the context of Isaiah 43:10 makes clear).

Or, it is what Joseph Smith actually taught, that God the Father is the “head God”, and all other gods are subject to him and are representatives of him, and God the Father received his physical body by being born on an earth as the son of a father (as Joseph Smith taught), and there is no such thing as a “Grandfather (the Father above Heavenly Father)”. With this view, those who become Gods (or gods, however you want to put it) are always subject to the one God and Father above all, and they become representatives of God in relation to others and in the matters of creation. This is also the biblical model, for Jesus (who is God) was the representative of his God and Father, referred to God the Father as “my God”, and he created the earth under the direction of the Father, and while on earth he spoke the words of the Father and did only the will of his Father. And Jesus taught us to worship God the Father. And this concept of divine representation is also seen with other representatives of God in the Old Testament, such the angel that Jacob wrestled with in in Genesis 32:24-32 compared with the story of Manoah and his wife and their experience with the angel of the LORD in Judges 13:2-6, 15-22. In those two encounters, both Jacob and Manoah make statements about having seen God and they remarked about their state of preservation (or fear of losing it), even after it is clear (in Manoah’s case) that he was dealing with a representative of God instead of God himself: Gen 32:30 "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Judges 13:21-22: "But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God." This was also a concept implemented by Jesus in sending out the apostles and the seventy as his representatives, when Jesus said, “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me” (Matthew 10:40), and “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me” (Luke 10:16). If receiving mortal men (the apostles and the seventy) can be said to be the same as receiving Jesus and God the Father (his God and Father), how much more shall it be for those who become gods and are representatives of God the Father? Thus, God the Father, the Eternal God of all other gods (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32), is always the focus of all worship, honor, and truth, even when he brings others to become like him. He is the “head God”, the God of all, the “God of gods, and Lord of lords” (Deuteronomy 10:17).