InCognitus

Change makes a difference. Differing key details of a person means people can be mistaken for someone else. Or, it could be different details about the same person. Who gets to decide? Latter-day Saints believe in the Jesus of the Bible, and we believe everything the Bible says about him and more. Example 3: Peter: I was with Jesus during his ministry. I saw him do many miracles. Did you experience that? Paul: I never knew Jesus during his lifetime, so I never saw him do such miracles. But I did see him on the road to Damascus. Did you see that? Peter: No. You believe in a different Jesus than I do. Paul: You believe in a different Jesus than I do. Modern Christian: Do either of you believe that Jesus is “homoousious” with his Father? Peter and Paul (in unison): HUH? WHAT? What is that? Modern Christian: You don’t know about that? It is how Jesus and his Father are “one God”. If you don’t believe that then you believe in a different Jesus than I do. Peter and Paul (in unison): NO! You believe in a different Jesus, period! The LDS teachings which indicate Jesus became a God do not nullify the other LDS teachings that Jesus is currently a God. It’s nice to hear you say that. Jesus is clearly divine in Latter-day Saint teachings and we rely on him for our salvation. It's a different Jesus. According to who? This is the entire question, and your answer doesn't really address the question. Who or what gives you the authority to judge a person’s salvation? Who or what gives you the authority to judge who is teaching a different Jesus? (And if you say “The Bible”, then see Example 3 above and the discussion below). There are many held beliefs today that the Bible does not specifically label false teachings. But this doesn’t seem to stop you from making yourself the judge of the salvation of Latter-day Saints. Why is that? Yes, there are many beliefs held by some people today that the Bible does not specifically label as false teachings, including many beliefs that are held by modern Christians, as I pointed out earlier. This is a good time for me to quote from a post I made to you on June 23, 2023, because I think it explains what I’m trying to say here the best, and to the point of how you view your purpose here on the board as a judge opposing the salvation of Latter-day Saints. Quoting as follows: You say that a “true believer” is a “sincere believer in Christ”, but then you make it all about doctrine in everything else that you say. Everyone believes in different things about Jesus depending on the information they’ve been given about him. Some of the things that people teach about Jesus may even be unbiblical, even in traditional creed-based Christianity. While I think that sound doctrine is important, I don’t think there’s anything in scripture that says having faulty doctrine disqualifies a person from being a true believer in Christ. We previously discussed Apollos and how he was a true believer in Christ even though he had an imperfect understanding of the doctrine (Acts 18:24-26). God judges us based on how we respond to what truths we’ve been given and how we treat our neighbors. Our real belief in Christ is known by our love for one another. A true Christian not only professes belief in the Savior, but a Christian lives and acts according to the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ. Knowing true doctrine helps us to come to know God better. But true doctrine can only be known by revelation from God and having a correct understanding of the scriptures which can only come by revelation from God. People can come up with their own interpretation of scriptures based on philosophy and man’s wisdom and reasoning, but the end result may not be anything like what God intended. God’s wisdom comes through the Spirit of God. The one thing I like about the “Got Questions” website that you like, is that it is fairly honest and open about when some teachings aren’t biblical. For example, in this article on “Does Christ have two natures?”, it says right up front: “The Bible does not explicitly address the question of whether Jesus Christ has two natures or only one.” So why do people believe it? And if you believe that Christ has two natures, are you believing in a "different Jesus"? And in the article on What does the Bible teach about the Trinity? it 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.” And elsewhere, in the article on "How can Jesus be God if Deuteronomy 6:4 says that God is one?", the website defines how Jesus and his Father are "one God", and says: So the website clearly teaches that the Father and Son are not one in singularity, but rather they are two separate entities that are one in unity, in the same way as a husband and wife are to be in unity. This is exactly what Latter-day Saints teach about the Godhead as well. And apparently (according to the website), the other issues are "debatable and non-essential". Since there are so many things in traditional Christian doctrine that don't really come from scripture at all, I don't see why these are points of contention between us. The Bible affirms Jesus Christ's eternal divinity—His existence as God from all eternity, without beginning or change—in multiple passages that describe Him as the pre-existent Word, the Creator, the exact representation of God, and directly addressed as God. Key texts include John 1:1-3, Hebrews 1:8, and Colossians 1:15-20. God is from everlasting (Psalm 41:13, Psalm 90:2, Psalm 103:17, Isaiah 40:28). There is only one God (Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 44:6). No surprise, but none of the passages you reference above say anything about “Christ’s” eternal divinity. John 1:1-3 simply says that Jesus was divine in the beginning with God the Father. It says nothing about how long he was divine. Hebrews 1:8 simply has God the Father referring to the Son as “God” and stating that his throne is (present tense) “for ever and ever”. That says nothing about his existence as God “from all eternity” past, only that he has the throne going forward forever. (See similar verses in Daniel 7:13-14, Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:20-23, Philippians 2:9-13). Colossians 1:15-20 states that Jesus is “before all things, and by him all things consist”, which is essentially the same thing as said in John 1:1-3. Jesus created the things “that were made”. But it doesn’t say anything about Jesus existing as God “from all eternity”. Then you refer to several Old Testament passages which do not specifically say they are about Jesus Christ at all, and in fact none of them say anything about God existing as God from all eternity. And we have discussed the real meaning of verses like Psalm 41:13, Psalm 90:2, and Psalm 103:17 previously. YLT: Psalm 41:13, “Blessed is Jehovah, God of Israel, From the age -- and unto the age. Amen and Amen.” YLT: Psalm 90:2, “Before mountains were brought forth, And Thou dost form the earth and the world, Even from age unto age Thou art God.” YLT: Psalm 103:17, “And the kindness of Jehovah Is from age even unto age on those fearing Him, And His righteousness to sons' sons,” YLT: Isaiah 40:28, “Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard? The God of the age -- Jehovah, Preparer of the ends of the earth, Is not wearied nor fatigued, There is no searching of His understanding.” As for trying to claim that Jesus is being referred to in Isaiah 43:10 and Isaiah 44:6, why don’t you look at what the New Testament says about that? Jesus said that “the only true God” is God the Father: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3) And Paul taught that God the Father is the “one God”, and Jesus is his mediator: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). So you really don’t have any biblical support for your claims. So I ask again, who or what gives you the authority to judge a person’s salvation? Who or what gives you the authority to judge who is teaching a different Jesus? It seems to be your opinion and nothing more.

Eternal life and life eternal are exactly the same thing, but immortality is something different. All are resurrected to immortality (1 Corinthians 15:53-54), but receiving eternal life is to receive God's life, the kind of life that God lives.

Moroni 10:32 is talking about perfection, not salvation.

The topic I was assigned was "The Power of the Scriptures" (an awesome topic). The strange thing was that I had just given a talk eight months earlier in the same ward on the topic, "The Scriptures - The Most Profitable of All Study", so I had to remind the bishopric person who called me that I had just given a talk on a similar subject not that long ago, but he assured me that he still wanted me to give the talk (all I could think of at the time was the tagline to the movie, Jaws 2: "Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water..."). So I wanted to approach the topic from the standpoint of receiving revelation now based on reading the scriptures from long ago, as a catalyst to revelation, and I wanted to start out with Joseph Smith reading James 1:5 that prompted him to pray and seek an answer to his prayer. In other words, the scripture led him to receiving revelation. That was my desired approach. I don't recall the exact search words I finally typed in, but whatever I typed led me directly to a January 1995 Ensign article by Dallin H. Oaks that was exactly what I needed. It was titled, "Scripture Reading and Revelation". It seems so obvious now in hind sight (if I had only known the title of that article!), but I had a really hard time finding anything at first. I ended up using a lot of that article in my talk because it was a perfect fit for what I wanted to say. It also seems fitting that my experience played into the topic of my talk (although I didn't find the search words I had used in the scriptures!). But I'll never forget the experience and my frustration with the search engine on the church website! But it taught me a good lesson.

I was preparing a talk for sacrament meeting one time and was searching on the church website for a particular approach to my topic that I had in mind, and I was getting nothing. I tried for over an hour. I knew I couldn't have been the first person to have considered the specific approach that I wanted to take, so I was annoyed that I couldn't find anything. This is going to sound strange, but (in all seriousness) I had to rely on personal revelation (an answer to prayer) to find the exact search words to use to find information on the church website using the approach to my topic that I was looking for, and after using those search words I found a talk that was exactly what I needed. (Maybe that's the point, the church wants us to use personal revelation instead of their search engine? ) So, yes, I know exactly what you mean! I have also used the Google Advanced Search to find information on the church website, and that has been helpful as a workaround to the search engine on the website. Thank you for your comments on the video. I agree. The work the church is having done to the temple is impressive, and it's awesome that it is getting world-wide attention from a construction point of view, and that also brings attention to how the church views the importance of the temple.

It's one thing to have differences of opinion about church doctrine and history, but it's quite another thing to have an open attitude about trying to change the church itself and actively attempting to convert other members to your views. I know of several members that have quirky ideas about the church and its teachings and some even reject many of the teachings, but nobody is trying to excommunicate them. We just minister to them and smile while they express their views.

My field of work is related to construction, so I was already familiar with this channel for work reasons. But The B1M is a construction related channel on YouTube that puts out new videos every Wednesday. According to their website, "The B1M is the world’s largest, most subscribed-to (and best) video channel for construction. Over 32 million people watch our videos each month." They are based in Sydney and London, as you will be able to tell from the accent of the narrator, Fred Mills. This week they featured the renovations being made to the Salt Lake Temple. The beginning of it is rather strange, like them tying this all to the "notorious reality shows" (you can guess which ones) and saying that this "is the $2 billion dollar operation to save the world’s largest Mormon church… and the secret urban history that allowed it to exist in the first place" (they always need to get the word "secret" in there somehow). They get the name of the church right at the very first of the video, but then later they refer to the building as the "Mormon" temple and refer to its members as "Mormons", and a couple of times in the video they call us "the Church of the Latter-day Saints". They speak highly of the project, and also for the foresight of Brigham Young for his layout of the city blocks and city design in general. But most importantly, it gives a very good description of what is being done to the temple to protect it from earthquakes: These videos always have an in-video advertisement toward the middle, you can skip around that. The video also provides some world history of why this kind of renovation is needed, showing scenes from the February 2011 devastation to the Christchurch Cathedral in New Zealand. Aside from the quirky beginning, I thought they did a good job overall. And I think it's great that they are giving world-wide recognition to the foresight of this renovation and the scale of the project, and they speak highly of it.

But we are talking about 1 Corinthians 15:29, not 1 Corinthians 15 verses 14 and 17 where Paul made the point you are reiterating above. How does what you are saying above fit into 1 Corinthians 15:29? What did Paul mean by "baptism FOR (in behalf of) the dead"? <- "In behalf of" or in proxy for is the meaning of the Greek word "for" in that verse. Reword the verse to explain how what you are saying above fits into what Paul actually wrote: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" (1 Corinthians 15:29)

To truly "believe" in Jesus is a work, just like "knowing" Jesus is a work. "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3) Compare this with John's epistle where he explains what it means to "know" Jesus: "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." (1 John 2:3–6)

You've been corrected on this misrepresentation of that article before when you were posting as telned (in this post from me on 08/31/2024, and those that follow).

You know already (because we have discussed this), the "righteous" are defined within the context of that parable as those who followed the behavior of the Savior during their life by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick, etc. etc. "For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me." (Matthew 25:35–36)

What does that have to do with anything I said in my earlier post? You need to answer the questions I asked you here. The questions on salvation and what disqualifies salvation are the most important of any other question.

That's a rather creative way of trying to get around what the verse says, but I'll say the same thing as what was posted above, the Greek text doesn't support what you are saying. See above for my discussion on the meaning of the Greek word hü-pe'r in that verse. Just to make sure I'm understanding your meaning, let me reword the verse based on what I understand you to be saying just to see if it makes any sense: "Else what shall they do [by being baptized] for the [purpose of being] dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are then then baptized [for the purpose of being] dead?". Does that capture what you are trying to say it means?

Of course not, people are not saved without their consent. If we do nothing to be saved, then why aren’t we all just saved? The minimum requirements are that we must receive Christ and repent with real intent (i.e. “godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation” - 2 Corinthians 7:10). Receiving Christ is to enter into a covenant relationship with him (Acts 2:37-38). That depends on what one means by being “saved” (see below). As every Bible reader should know, there are different ways and tenses that the Bible (and Book of Mormon) say that a person is “saved” or can be “saved” (future tense), and it is often expressed as a condition upon something else. Among others, there is salvation from death (through the resurrection), salvation from sin and the consequences of sin (through the atonement of Jesus Christ as a past event), salvation from the wrath of God or punishment, and salvation to eternal life (which is something that is “hoped for” and conditional). I don’t think we can pin any single type of salvation on 2 Nephi 25:23 (although we could rule out the resurrection, since that is unconditional). And biblically speaking, salvation is often taught as a future state that comes about after enduring to the end (Matthew 10:22, 24:13). Sometimes salvation is equated with “eternal life”, but sometimes it is not. The future (and possibly conditional) state of salvation is expressed in verses such as Romans 8:24-25, 13:11, 1 Corinthians 5:5, Ephesians 1:13-14, 1 Thessalonians 5:8, Hebrews 10:36, 1 Peter 1:5, and 1 John 3:2-3. And in the Bible, every single time that the apostle Paul discusses eternal life, he does it in the context of needing to do good works and it is something that is received in the future. For example: Romans 2:1-11, where it says God “will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile”. Romans 6:9-23, where Paul says “now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” Galatians 6:7–10: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” 1 Timothy 6:17–19: “Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.” Titus 1:1–2: “Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began”. Titus 3:4–8: “But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.” And this is often the same theme found in the teachings of Jesus, such as in Matthew 19:28–29 (“every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life”) and the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31–46 (i.e. “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”)

Do you believe you could answer my questions first? 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. Now here are the questions: 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). Answer my questions and then I'll answer yours. Show us why this matters to salvation from a Biblical point of view instead of by your opinions and speculation. These questions about salvation are the most important questions of all , and I'm going to wait for your answers before I address some others.

Can you explain how your understanding as explained above fits with what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:29 and the context of his argument in favor of believing in the resurrection? Can you please put those verses in your own words so I can understand what you believe it means, and why it would be a persuasive argument to believe in the resurrection for his readers?

I think it's more important to consider the various usages of the Greek word translated as "for" in this verse. Thirty one years ago (literally - January through March 1995) I had a discussion with James White on AOL about his handling of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in his book, Letters To A Mormon Elder. His book said (regarding how to understand 1 Corinthians 15:29), "The needed clue to its meaning is found in the language in which it was originally written, that being Greek. The word 'for' is the Greek term 'huper'. It refers to the taking of someone's place, or to substitution." James White was trying to claim (in his book) that, "Baptism 'for' the dead is not baptism of a living person in behalf of or for the benefit of a dead person, but rather the immersion of a living person in the place of or into the former position of a now deceased person. It is the baptism of a new convert who takes the place in the church of one who has died." But this is really forcing the meaning to try to avoid the LDS view on this verse, and that reading doesn't help Paul's logic at all for why baptism for the dead is a reason to believe in the resurrection (it makes it sound as if we NEED to replace people in the church who have died, which has no bearing on the resurrection of the dead one way or another). But the definition that he gave of 'huper' actually affirms the LDS interpretation of the verse, since the church refers to baptism for the dead as a "vicarious" ordinance, or baptism by "proxy". According to the American Heritage Dictionary, "vicarious" and "proxy" are defined as follows: vi‑car‑i‑ous adj. ... 2. Endured or done by one person substituting for another: vicarious punishment. 3.a. Acting or serving in place of someone or something else; substituted. prox-y n., pl. prox-ies. 1. A person authorized to act for another; an agent or a substitute. The translation of the Greek "huper" as used in the genitive case (as it is in 1 Cor 15:29) would be "in behalf of", such as is expressed by the exact same Greek word [huper] and case found in places like Matthew 5:44 ("pray for [huper - in behalf of] them which... persecute you"), or Acts 8:24 ("Pray to the Lord for [huper - in behalf of] me..."), where rendering the meaning as "substitute" would not translate very well. Based on this understanding of the Greek "huper", we know that 1 Cor 15:29 could indeed be rendered as it is in the New English Bible: "Again, there are those who receive baptism on behalf of the dead. Why should they do this? If the dead are not raised to life at all, what do they mean by being baptized on their behalf?" I'm trying to be as unbiased as possible when evaluating this verse, but I really can't find any other meaning that makes sense in Paul's argument in favor of the resurrection and why "baptism for the dead" would support that argument unless it was a Christian practice that was done on behalf of someone else who had died. I've read commentary after commentary on the passage, and many different opinions have been given, but none of them makes any sense to me. For example, consider the commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:29 given by Rev. J.R. Dummelow in his One Volume Bible Commentary (MacMillan Publishing Co., New York, 1908, 1906, and 1936). On page 919 of his commentary, he writes: So even those without my bias seem to have come to the same conclusion. And many translations of the Bible pick up on this seemingly obvious meaning: ESV: "Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?" RSV: "Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?" Paul said it for some important reason that the saints at Corinth would understand, for sure.

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