InCognitus

Also: Doctrinal New Testament Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robbing Paul to pay Peter in this case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The oddest thing to me is that normally a brand new user that has less than 25 posts can't create a new thread in the General Discussions area. How did that happen?

Who Jesus is. The Title Page of the Book of Mormon states that one of the purposes of the Book of Mormon is "to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations" 2 Nephi 26:12; "And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God". Mosiah 27:31, "Yea, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Yea, even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then shall they confess that he is God; then shall they confess, who live without God in the world, that the judgment of an everlasting punishment is just upon them; and they shall quake, and tremble, and shrink beneath the glance of his all-searching eye." Doctrine and Covenants 35:1-2; "Listen to the voice of the Lord your God...I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world..." Doctrine and Covenants 38:1-3, "Thus saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I AM, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end..." Doctrine and Covenants 18:33, "And I, Jesus Christ, your Lord and your God, have spoken it." 3 Nephi 11:14, "Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world." Is that what you had in mind with respect to salvation?

But you are comparing apples to oranges. The church magazines changed from a local publication that included local advertisements and articles by all kinds of people in the past (including the musings of the BYU professor that you quoted) to a world wide Church publication that has a much different purpose and audience today. Nobody would claim that everything published in those periodicals was church doctrine. I'm surprised you haven't tried to claim that Utah Power and Light Company and Holiday Inn are also Mormon doctrine (since they are quoted in those magazines as well). Right, that's a good rule. You should follow it too. But how and when do you know if something is true or not? What did Paul say? “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” (1 Corinthians 13:12).

I suppose you believe I will answer this question differently than I have answered this question every other time you've asked it (over and over)? You basically admitted that your idea that Heavenly Father was "born to heavenly parents" was a so-called “extrapolation”, so it is just speculation and opinion. And given what Joseph Smith taught about God the Father as the “head God” and what the revealed word of God teaches, which is that God is the “God of all other gods”, there doesn’t seem to be room for such speculation about God the Father being “a spirit child of heavenly parents”.

You said that already (multiple times). You like to deny many things, but you don't ever say what it really does mean. What does Jesus and his Father being "one" in the way that Jesus defined it in John 17:11, 20-23 mean for Jesus and his Father? What does that mean for all the rest of us?

I've had this and another post written for several weeks now, and I've been holding off on making the posts for several reasons. I'm going to make this post anyway, partly because there's something I want to say in another thread that I bring up in this post. Thanks for that article. Origen doesn't add telestial like Joseph Smith did when he retranslated the biblical passage. Do all heavenly beings inherit the same glory like Doctrine and Covenants 129:1-3 says? Doctrine and Covenants 129:1-3 don’t say all heavenly beings inherit the same glory. In what way would a star like Antares (much bigger than our Sun but classified as a telestial object) have a lesser glory than the Sun or Moon? Is this relative to how bright they appear in the sky to our natural eyes? Is the glory of the star Kolob (telestial) lesser or greater than the Moon (terrestrial) and the Sun (celestial) and why? See prior posts. You are still falling into the fallacy of presentism. That would explain why some LDS leaders of the past go beyond only focusing on our Earth as their perspective and teach an infinite regression of Gods. Or, it’s that they are misreading Joseph Smith because of the incomplete or inaccurate sources for some of his sermons (as I explained in the other thread). Apart from some individuals who built altars (beginning with Noah), the Bible does not specifically inform us that they held the Melchizedek priesthood or if that priesthood was known by another name. LDS canon, in Doctrine and Covenants, refers to it as the Holy Priesthood (84:6). Noah is first biblical mention of using altars, but obviously Noah got the teaching to do it from somewhere previously. Sacrifices and offerings were widespread prior to the law of Moses (as you finally seemed to acknowledge last time), and altars were used in that practice. Even Cain and Abel would have used altars for their offerings. And clearly Melchizedek held an order of the priesthood that was separate and distinct from the Levitical priesthood (Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 5:6, 10, 7:11, 17). Thus, referring to it as the Melchizedek priesthood is appropriate and sets it apart from the Levitical priesthood. Look up the words “majority” and “exception” in the dictionary. You can even google them online. It’s easy. Furthermore, this statement is old. Nowadays there are more joining the church from all the tribes. Exodus 18:1-11 doesn’t say that Jethro didn’t know who the true God was until after the exodus out of Egypt unless you also believe that God is not omniscient and that God had to learn that Abraham “feared God” and would not withhold the sacrifice of his son Isaac from him (Genesis 22:12). “Now I know” is in these contexts are expressions of acknowledgement, not a change of attitude. Melchizedek is referred to as a priest of the most high God but Abraham never was. Where does the Bible say Abraham never was a priest of the most high God, or never held any priesthood? Clearly Abraham held the priesthood, he was commanded by God to offer sacrifices. Otherwise, the symbolism of Abraham sacrificing Isaac as an offering is not complete if Abraham held no priesthood. This is not just a Latter-day Saint belief, it’s a widely held Jewish understanding that Abraham held the priesthood and that it is passed on to his posterity. See the Talmudic literature of Nedarim 32b:6-7 for example: This seems quite clear in teaching that Abraham received the priesthood and that his posterity would have claim to it. Yet, there are others who are referred to as priests in the New Testament (in Christianity) besides Christ. You know this, because we’ve discussed it previously. It’s not just me saying that Ephraim and all of Joseph’s brothers held the priesthood, the Bible says the elders of Israel were priests prior to them breaking the covenant with the incident of the golden calf on Mount Sinai. All of the elders of Israel held the priesthood prior to them breaking their covenant on Sinai. Then under the law of Moses the priesthood was taken away from the people generally and primarily limited to the Levites after Israel broke their covenant, although the priesthood was held among the prophets of God and other specific individuals through Old Testament times. For example, Joshua was an Ephraimite, and he took over the leadership and became a prophet to Israel after Moses, and he definitely directed Israel under the authority of the priesthood. And many other leaders in Israel were Ephraimites after Joshua. In the New Testament with the coming of Christ, the priesthood was “changed” and given back to the people generally until it was lost due to apostasy. And now in the last dispensation of the gospel the priesthood has been restored again and available to all those who are worthy to receive it. Here is the specific seminary teaching I am referring to: Point out that Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 contain the patriarchal blessings given to the twelve sons (or tribes) of Jacob (Israel). Read and discuss part of the blessing given to Joseph as recorded in Deuteronomy 33:17. List the following symbols on the chalkboard, and explain them: 1. Firstling = firstborn 2. Bullock = domestic ox 3. Unicorn = wild ox 4. Horns = power 5. Pushing the people = gathering Israel This verse is being fulfilled in this, the last dispensation, as Joseph steps forward to claim his birthright as the firstborn son, which includes the responsibility of the priesthood. It is by the power of the priesthood that Israel will be gathered and that the saving ordinances will be administered under the direction of the tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh). Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel – Teacher Manual, chapter 21, page 76. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/32499_eng.pdf https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel/chapter-21?lang=eng Based on the seminary manual, the responsibility of the priesthood is forwarded to Joseph, later to Ephraim. The birthright, with the responsibility of the priesthood, does not fall on any of Jacob's other sons. And of course, you are taking the quote from the manual out of context. All of what you quoted falls into section “D” of page 76 of the manual, which begins with the following: “D. As God’s covenant people, Israel has been given a special charge and commission. ■ Read Abraham 2:6–11, and identify the responsibilities of covenant Israel. (To bear this ministry and priesthood unto all nations of the earth.) Consider Elder John A. Widtsoe’s statement in Supporting Statements D on page 58 of the student manual about our responsibility as God’s covenant people (see Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 400).” “Supporting Statements D on page 58 of the student manual” says the following: Notice that this section is prefaced by having the students read Abraham 2:6-11, verses I have referred to many times in our discussion where it states that all the descendants of Abraham have the right to the priesthood, not just Ephraim. The promises given to Abraham in those verses include that the blessing unto his seed is that “in their hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations”. And the context states this point repeatedly: “Israel has been given a special charge and commission”, and “the responsibilities of covenant Israel” is to “bear this ministry and priesthood unto all nations of the earth”, and that God has “reasons for the choosing of a special nation [Israel] to bear the Priesthood”. None of these statements limit the priesthood to Ephraim as you keep trying to do. And the statement where it says that “Joseph steps forward to claim his birthright as the firstborn son, which includes the responsibility of the priesthood” has the priesthood “included” under the birthright of Abraham’s seed to hold the priesthood as it is for all of Israel as the context shows. And Ephraim’s unique birthright as the “firstborn son” has to do with him being the first to be gathered and to “push” the nations together, to gather Israel. But what does any of this have to do with what you said about the LDS Church interpreting things for Ephraim “that precludes Jesus (who was of the linage of Judah) from becoming the great High Priest?” It doesn’t! All of Israel has the right to the priesthood since they are the seed of Abraham. See what I said above. The relative limitation of the priesthood to the Levites was only during the period of time under the law of Moses. Both before the law of Moses and after the coming of Christ the priesthood was given to all of Israel. And as I said previously, you only provided some alternate translations of Deuteronomy 33:17 and didn’t show that the LDS Church is wrong in its understanding. Furthermore, I showed how the early Christians understood Deuteronomy 33:17, which is in opposition to your interpretation of Deuteronomy 33:17. I’ll add some additional reasons for rejecting your interpretation when I post my response in the other folder (if I decide to post it, I've had it written for weeks). Yes, they all possessed the “birthright” to the priesthood, that birthright being that they are born into the seed of Abraham, which “Zion, has a right to by lineage” (Doctrine and Covenants 113:8) because they are of the seed of Abraham. Since Jesus was of the seed of Abraham, he is not precluded from being the Great High Priest as you assumed. So, I ask again, what exactly is “the way the LDS Church has interpreted things for Ephraim” that precludes Jesus (who was of the linage of Judah) from becoming the great High Priest? The tribe of Ephraim does not serve as priests in the tabernacle or temple at Jerusalem. See Exodus 28 and Numbers 3. I feel like a broken record…. (quoting again what I said above): “The relative limitation of the priesthood to the Levites was only during the period of time under the law of Moses. Both before the law of Moses and after the coming of Christ the priesthood was given to all of Israel.” This was in reply to what I asked in my last post - "What do you believe the utmost bound of everlasting hills is?" Joseph Fielding Smith said in Doctrines of Salvation, "In an epistle issued by the First Presidency in October, 1852, the following appears: The invitation is to all, of every nation, kindred and tongue, who will believe, repent, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of hands, Come home: come to the land of Joseph, to the valleys of Ephraim". Where is this land and the valleys of Ephraim? Isn’t it obvious? The “land” and “valleys of Ephraim” are wherever those of the tribe of Ephraim happen to be dwelling at the time. The scripture specifically mentions that Moses sent "young men of the children of Israel" to offer the sacrifices (Exodus 24:5), and it doesn't explicitly state that these young men were the 70 elders. The elders were present as witnesses to the covenant ceremony, but the text does not specify their direct involvement in the sacrificial offerings. Also, there is no specific name given to the type of priesthood these elders or the young men held. I’ll keep saying what I said above: Clearly Melchizedek held an order of the priesthood that was separate and distinct from the Levitical priesthood (Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 5:6, 10, 7:11, 17), and this was the priesthood that existed prior to the law of Moses until the covenant was broken and afterward it was primarily limited to the Levites. So whatever name you want to call it, it was the same priesthood as held by Melchizedek. Right, under the law of Moses the priesthood was withdrawn generally from the people and the lesser priesthood (the Levitical priesthood) was restricted primarily to those of the tribe of Levi. But others who took over the prophetic leadership of Israel held the Melchizedek priesthood (like Joshua who was an Ephraimite). Melchizedek is not some pattern that God set up for several men throughout the ages. But you said, “If neither of the parents were a Kohen or Levi, then they did not follow how God had set it up for the Old Testament.” Do you believe Melchizedek was of Kohen or Levite descent? What priesthood did Melchizedek hold? Did Melchizedek “not follow how God had set it up for the Old Testament”? As for your comment above, clearly there were priests “after the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 5:6, 10, 6:20, and especially 7:11 which says “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?”). The phrase “the order of Melchizedek” certainly identifies this as “some pattern that God set up for several men throughout the ages”. The Jewish sources I provided previously (in my post on October 26 and elsewhere) show that prior to the law of Moses the firstborn had the duty to perform sacrificial services in the priesthood. Others in the family held the priesthood, but the firstborn had the duty to perform the sacrificial services. But, that page of the manual doesn’t say anything about the birthright and the priesthood as you associate it in your statement above. The priesthood isn’t mentioned until the bottom of the page, where it talks about Abraham having received the priesthood. I already discussed this process above. I don't accept the Pope or LDS President as someone who speaks for all of Christianity. My leader is Christ, his Word, and the Holy Spirit. You still didn’t answer the question. I didn’t ask you who you don’t accept, I asked you who is a Christian leader today who speaks for all of Christianity? It sounds like nobody. So how do you know who is following a false God, or who is leading people astray? Are you the arbitrator of doctrinal truth and the proper interpretation of the Bible? Or who is? You have no right to proclaim judgement against anyone else. You were the one who first brought up the words “speculation” and “opinion”, not me. That was how you defined doctrine, you said, “Put simply, doctrines are just faith-based beliefs that are spoken or printed without the caveat of them just being opinions or speculations.” I’m just using your words. That’s why I asked you about the Christian “doctrine” that Bill Gates is associated with the mark of the beast. Paul, in his New Testament writings, often expressed a sense of urgency and anticipation regarding the return of Jesus Christ. Some of his letters suggest that he believed the Second Coming could occur within his lifetime or the lifetime of his contemporaries. For example, in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, Paul speaks of those who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, which can be interpreted as an expectation that some of his readers might witness this event. I interpret this to mean those living in whatever time Christ does come, not that Chris would definitely come in that era. However, it's also clear from his later writings that Paul understood the timing of the Second Coming was uncertain and known only to God. In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3, he cautions against being quickly shaken or alarmed by claims that the day of the Lord has already come, indicating an awareness that certain events must precede Christ's return. Overall, he expressed hope and anticipation for the imminent return of Jesus; He also acknowledged the unpredictability of its timing. If you're critical of Paul I’m not critical of Paul. I sympathize with Paul in his time and situation, and I’m pointing out the reality that prophets and apostles (in the Bible and now) are human and they try to understand things based on their limited information at the time. That’s exactly what Paul was doing when he thought the second coming of Christ would come during his lifetime. And Paul totally understood this principle too, because he taught, “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” (1 Corinthians 13:12). I'm extrapolating that from the LDS doctrine of a Heavenly Mother and teachings from Gospel Principles. Where do you believe she came from and how did she become a God? So, are you admitting that your statement is not LDS doctrine and just your so-called “extrapolation” which in this case is just speculation and opinion? Otherwise, the CFR still stands: CFR for where official LDS doctrine teaches that God was “a spirit child of heavenly parents”. You are speculating and giving your opinion, not official LDS doctrine. (And note the key word, “official”). Given what Joseph Smith taught about God the Father as the “head God” and what the revealed word of God teaches, which is that God is the “God of all other gods”, there doesn’t seem to be room for such speculation about God the Father being “a spirit child of heavenly parents”. No. Joseph Smith said nothing about God the Father being a spirit child of heavenly parents. Your speculation doesn’t fit with the full context of that sermon or with Joseph Smith’s other teachings in the King Follet Discourse or in the revelations that he received. In my post on May 26, 2025, in the portion that you ignored and did not engage at all, I explained the problems with the original source for the Sermon in the Grove. And according to the Thomas Bullock notes of that sermon (the one and only source for that part of the sermon), the discussion about God the Father having a father was in the context of God the Father’s mortal experience on an earth. His notes show that the statements about God the Father having a “father” are immediately followed by “I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him”. In other words, Bullock’s notes indicate that God the Father’s “father” would have been either his earthly father when he was born into mortality, or that God the Father (as the head of all other Gods) would have appointed some other God to produce his mortal body in the same way that Jesus came into mortality. So, there is nothing there to support your claim that God the Father has a God “above” him or that he was the “spirit child of heavenly parents” as you are claiming. The Bullock notes of that sermon indicate that Jesus Christ has a God “above” him (God the Father), but that’s talking about Jesus, not God the Father (and that’s biblical). And the Church does not have an official interpretation of the things recorded in the Thomas Bullock notes of the Sermon in the Grove. Consequently, your opinions and speculations don’t fulfill the CFR. It’s not a doctrine of the church at all unless it is recognized by the church as such. You may consider speculation and opinions to be doctrines (remember, you said, “Put simply, doctrines are just faith-based beliefs that are spoken or printed without the caveat of them just being opinions or speculations”), but I do not, and neither does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Read Acts chapter 15 in the New Testament and you will see how Church doctrines were determined when there were differences of opinion on some teachings (verse 7 says “there had been much disputing”). The differences of opinion were resolved by a council of the apostles, and not by simply accepting what some people were saying was the doctrine. Contrast that to how things are done in modern Christianity with no apostles and prophets, where everyone breaks off into their own churches according to their private interpretations of the Bible and are carried about by “every wind of doctrine”. Again, you are the one who introduced the words “speculation” and “opinion” into this discussion, not me. I believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one God, consisting of three personages. They are not 3 Gods. I don't know if that makes me accepting how you view the term "homoousious" But you didn’t answer the question. The term “homoousious” was added to the creed by the Roman Emperor Constantine, and it is an unbiblical concept and an unbiblical term. Do you believe that unbiblical doctrine (as added by a Roman emperor and later enforced by the government by other Roman emperors) is leading people astray? Yes. Paul was trying to move the Corinthians away from their pagan views of heavenly gods and goddesses. He was not replacing the highest Greek god with Heavenly Father or Hera as Heavenly Mother. Likewise for Paul preaching on Mars Hill. He did not focus on one of the false deities they were worshipping and re-identified that deity as Heavenly Father. While he does mention "offspring of God", he does not teach we are "offspring of heavenly parents". You are quick to say what you think Paul was not doing, but if Joseph Smith (instead of Paul) had said “we are the offspring of God”, would you come to the same conclusion as you do above? You keep reading your modern views back into the Bible, and we should instead consider what the scripture says on its own terms and in its own textual and historical context. Matthew 3:9 is referring to a physical creation of the body (God is able to raise up children from stones, the physical), not their eternal spirits that come from the presence of God (the same kind of being as God). Man’s physical body was created from the “dust of the earth” (like the stones of Matthew 3:9), but his spirit came from God (Genesis 2:7). And remember, God is the “Father of spirits”. And why are you so determined to eliminate women from the creation process?

I don't know about that. I'm sure lots of people have pondered the questions posed in the opening post. But with that said, there's not going to be any kind of direct answer to such questions, as the official statement from the church says, "No one is justified in making any other statement than this. We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly.”