InCognitus

This was posted in a Deseret News article dated October 17, 2025, 4:07 p.m. MDT: ‘God’s hand, untouched.’ A photographer finds light in the darkness of a burned Latter-day Saint church. The video is a photo documentary of the debris from the fire at the church in Michigan. It includes photos such as this one (open to the hymn, "I Stand All Amazed") : And this one, which seems to be appropriately open to "Master the Tempest is Raging" : But this is one of the images that stood out to her: The video is worth watching.

That question can't really be answered adequately within the framework of the doctrine of modern Christianity. With the invention of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo in the late second century AD, the problem is compounded exponentially. The classic problem of evil is a philosophical argument that suggests the existence of evil is incompatible with a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good. The Wikipedia article, Religious Responses to the Problem of Evil, states the logical problem of evil this way: "The earliest formulation of the problem of evil dates back to the Greek philosopher Epicurus;[a] David Hume paraphrased it as follows: "Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"[17] The logical argument from evil is as follows: If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god exists, then evil does not. There is evil in the world. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god does not exist.[18]" And as I stated above, this problem is compounded by the more recent (and unbiblical) developed doctrine that God created all things (the earth, the universe, Satan, humans) out of nothing. BYU professor David L. Paulsen stated the problem this way: But the doctrines of the restored church as revealed by God to Joseph Smith resolves all of these issues. See (the same article quoted above), Joseph Smith and the Problem of Evil, David L. Paulsen, Professor of Philosophy, September 21, 1999.

Only if you ignore the rest of the Bible.

Yes, but human parents: Don't create their children out of nothing (as it is defined in modern Christian doctrine) Don't have omniscient knowledge of the child they are creating Don't grant freewill by their own power and knowledge to the child they are procreating God on the other hand: Created Satan out of nothing (according to modern Christian doctrine) Has perfect foreknowledge and omniscient knowledge of what the creation will do Grants freewill to his creation according to his own power and foreknowledge of the actions of that creation (again, according to some modern Christian doctrine). So again, why did God, in his omniscience, create a being He knew would rebel and complicate things, and how is that different than just saying God created evil?

Special Announcement: The New First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Live stream.

Yes, yes, and more yes. And at times the login doesn't work for me right away.

And you later said.... Free will for his creations. What's the difference? If God created Satan out of nothing and God (being omniscient) knew that Satan, using the free will that God bestowed upon him, would become evil in his rebellion, how is that different than God creating evil?

I'm surprised that nobody has posted anything about the funeral (or maybe they have and I missed it... I've had a busy week). Did any of you watch it or listen to it? The talks were awesome. I especially liked the talk by Elder Oaks (starting at the 01:03:00 mark of the video), where he described the differences between management styles between the "former lawyers" in the quorum of the twelve apostles and President Nelson after he became president of the church. Here's a partial transcript of a portion of his remarks having to do with his management style: I also enjoyed the remarks from one of his daughters and from his son. It is very much worth watching.

The second type is mentioned in Doctrine and Covenants 129:3 ("the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory"). Which type were you when you believe you lived as an eternal intelligence or when you became a child of heavenly parents and lived with them in heaven? What type are seraphim and cherubim? You’re repeating yourself again. See our prior discussion on this topic in my post on May 10, 2025. Where do you come up with a "select few" from the "many" that were resurrected in Matthew 27:51-53, 3 Nephi 23:9-10, and supposedly among all the scattered tribes (3 Nephi 16:1-3) at the time of the earthquake around Christ's death? I already answered this exact same question in my last post. Why do you ignore my answer and ask the same question again? Paul mentions only two bodies. But he mentions three “glories”. And the “heavenly” consists of three glories, compared to the apparent differences in glory between the sun, the moon, and the stars. If you want to break down word meaning, see this thread from 2012. (Or, you could also look up this Christian gospel singing group called "The Telestials". Figure that one out). And I already addressed your absurd criticism of using a scientific application of the difference between sun, moon, and stars in my post on 08/17/2025, where I said, “The description of the varying degrees of glory of the sun, moon, and stars have to do with how they appear to us ‘in the firmament’ (76:70, 71, 81). And Paul’s comparison of the degrees of glory in 1 Corinthians 15:41 should be understood in the same context.” What kind of body did Jesus have before he first obtained a mortal body? A body of flesh and bone, arms, legs, head, etc to resemble his Father? You already know the answer to that question. Yes. We discussed this before. There is nothing that says Jacob blessed Ephraim with the birthright or priesthood over his entire family. The word "birthright" or "priesthood" is not even there. Yes, Jacob blesses Joseph's sons and gives Ephraim a blessing greater than Manasseh even though the latter is the firstborn. But Manasseh remains the firstborn for his respective family however. He even gains a greater land inheritance than Ephraim. Genesis 49:26 says, "The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren". You’re spinning around on this again? We’ve already been over all of this. Are you forgetting Genesis 48:15-22, where Jacob blessed Ephraim with the firstborn blessing, by placing his right hand on Ephraim instead of Manasseh? And you also seem to still be stuck on the idea that his particular firstborn blessing was limited to his immediate family, when clearly Jacob was blessing each of his sons and their posterity as the tribes of Israel. This is obviously true given the fact that over 400 years later Moses blessed each tribe again and extended to Joseph blessings that are greater (again) than all the other tribes (Deuteronomy 33:13-17). If these blessings were intended for the immediate family only, then Judah (the person) should have had rule over his brethren with the scepter promises in his own family only instead of having those blessings pertain to his posterity. See my posts on 02/25/2024 and 03/03/2024 where I discussed this in detail, and I’m sure there are others. Right, I recall that you believe that when Psalm 37 says to Israel that they shall “inherit the earth”, it excludes the United States somehow. I still haven’t figured out how “the earth” will exclude the United States in future times. Can you explain that to me? I made no claims about Ephraim being given the priesthood as a role of his birthright, only you did this. I said that all the tribes had a right to the priesthood since they are all the seed of Abraham as I showed in our discussion, but all of them except Levi lost that right temporarily because of their breaking the covenant on Mount Sinai. I think you are also somehow misconstruing or confusing the role of the firstborn in the priesthood prior to the law of Moses when the firstborn son had the right to function as the High Priest in sacrificial service, with the idea that “priesthood comes with a birthright blessing”, making it sound as if no one else held the priesthood. That’s simply not so. I discussed the role of the firstborn as the High Priest prior to the law of Moses in great detail in my post to you on 03/16/2024. I also made my position on this topic very clear in that same post where I said, “But I think the real reason that Ephraim is the first to hold the priesthood in the latter-days has more to do with Ephraim's birthright blessing from Moses, saying that Ephraim would be the primary means of gathering Israel by pushing together the people to the ends of the earth (Deut 33:17). It’s not that Ephraim holds the priesthood by birthright, but that Ephraim was the first to be gathered and recognized in the latter days, and thus received the restored priesthood first. And Ephraim has a right to the priesthood, not because Ephraim has the right of the first born, but because Ephraim is among the promised seed of Abraham as noted in Abraham 2:9.” So if you are going to bring up old topics again, at least get it right and engage what was said previously instead of just repeating your original assertions all over again. Awesome. So, the idea that there is a connection between Bill Gates and the mark of the beast really is a doctrine of all Christianity. Thank you for clearing that up for me. Also, I’m sorry that your doctrine that the rapture would occur last September 23rd didn’t pan out like people said it would. But the CFR was for “official” doctrine of the church, which is very different than the reasoning through various teachings (according to the knowledge they had at the time) or speculative opinions about some of our teachings as can be found among a few of the publications you mention above. The lesson manuals of the church would be in the classification as “official” teachings, but even they may not always contain what would be considered “official” doctrines. I can see that you recognized the problem you had in finding anything to support your claims about our doctrines in your post in the other thread, as you tried to get around the request that it be “official” doctrines of the church. Needless to say, you didn’t fulfill the CFR. I’ll have a few things to say about that in the other thread. Doctrines = creeds = teachings = gospel principles = gospel fundamentals. Unless you believe that lies and false doctrines are contained in books entitled "Gospel Truth", "Gospel Principles", "Doctrines of the Gospel" etc. See below. It's not difficult for me to find LDS doctrines in LDS books like "Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual", "Doctrines of Salvation", "Gospel Principles", "Gospel Fundamentals", etc. Well, it must have been difficult (or impossible?) because you didn’t find anything to support your claims using official church sources. I think it’s quite appropriate that you quote this statement from Boyd K. Packer in this context. You seem to be asserting that just because something is written in a book by a former general authority of the church then it must be true and considered church doctrine without question. In other words, you assert that truth (in this case) is based on who said it, and not whether it is true. But Elder Packer’s statement implies that each statement be considered on its own merit. Also, you imply a black and white judgement of anything written that isn’t even suggested by Elder Packer. There are many revealed truths for which we have limited understanding, and all of us (including you) use our own reasoning to fill in the gaps of understanding, and sometimes that reasoning may be incorrect or even partially true. And some of it may not even be possible to determine which reasoning is correct until further truths are revealed to us. Take the modern doctrine of the Trinity as an example. The doctrine has some revealed biblical basis for truth: Jesus and his Father are “one” (in some way) and there is one God above all. But the doctrine goes far beyond what was revealed and tries to define exactly how the Father and Son are “one” in unbiblical ways, and it ignores or reinterprets (in absurd ways) other revealed scripture in the Bible that contradicts the modern idea of the “one God”. So, you could ask the question, is the doctrine of the Trinity true or false? Well, it depends on which aspect of the teaching you are talking about. It’s not always black and white. The same could be said of many statements from past leaders of the church. They could have been reasoning things out based on an incomplete understanding or lack of knowledge about the accuracy of the sources. We see this happening in the New Testament with the Jews trying to reason out what they were taught during Old Testament times with the coming of Jesus as the Messiah. Some of them had created an expectation about the Messiah in their own minds along with hard set traditions that didn’t fit how things played out in the ministry of Jesus. But others saw that some of their preconceived ideas were tentative, and they tested and compared the teachings and ministry of Jesus with what was revealed, but most importantly of all, they were open to the promptings of the Spirit. Consequently, they accepted Jesus as their Messiah, their Redeemer and Savior. Because of this New Testament example (and others), I prefer to take the same cautious approach to determining our official doctrine as the leaders of the church do today. We should always go with what has been revealed in scripture and be led by the Spirit, and we should not form hard-set opinions about how to fill in the gaps in between. As I have said before, at some future day we will all become fully aware of what misconceptions we have had about God and the hereafter, and we should be happy to come to that awareness instead of stubbornly fighting those revealed truths about God that don’t fit our hard-set traditions. I welcome that day and I hope you do too. Those in the first resurrection shall be priests of God and of Christ. Those in the second resurrection are harmed by the second death (Revelation 20:4-6). Remember, as I pointed out before, Revelation 20:4-6 is only talking about the two extremes. Paul, on the other hand taught that there are several distinct bands or classes of those raised from the dead (“every man in his own order”, 1 Corinthians 15:23), so there are other resurrections going on in between those two extremes. At the beginning of the first resurrection are those of the celestial kingdom who will be the priests of God and of Christ, and only those at the end of the second resurrection are the “only ones on whom the second death shall have any power”, they are the sons of perdition (Doctrine and Covenants 76:37). The others who are resurrected in between have different results. This fits precisely with what John says in Revelation 20:4-6 for the two extremes. Where did you get that so called “quote” from Mormon Doctrine? Please provide your actual source, or who made it up. The so called “quote” from Mormon Doctrine you show above (with the bold and underlined portion added by me) doesn’t match any edition of Mormon Doctrine in existence (First Edition 1958, or Second Edition 1966 (current)). Here’s what Bruce R. McConkie actually wrote in his topic entry on the "Resurrection" on page 640 of the 1966 edition of Mormon Doctrine: Notice that McConkie does not say anything close to what you claimed. He says “the afternoon of the first resurrection… takes place after our Lord has ushered in the millennium”, or in other words right at the beginning of the millennium. He makes this perfectly clear in the next paragraph where he states that the second resurrection does not begin until “the end of the millennium”. Elsewhere, in his book The Mortal Messiah, Volume 3, p. 453, McConkie states, “A gracious Lord offers to all men all that they are capable of receiving. Even the heathen who are without the law shall come forth in the afternoon of the first resurrection and be blessed with a terrestrial inheritance that shall be tolerable for them”. Even in your messed up quote it contradicts what you are claiming McConkie taught about those of the terrestrial kingdom. You said, “The first resurrection, the resurrection of the just, which is now in progress, began with the coming forth of Christ, our Lord, and of certain saints immediately following his resurrection (Matt. 27:52-53.) Those coming forth in this resurrection shall come forth to an inheritance of eternal life. This resurrection includes all the celestial and terrestrial beings from Adam to the Millennium.” Even the Doctrines of the Gospel Teachers Manual that you reference below backs up the quote from Mormon Doctrine that I provided above. It says: “Later another trump will sound (see D&C 88:99): ;This is the afternoon of the first resurrection; it takes place after our Lord has ushered in the millennium. Those coming forth at that time do so with terrestrial bodies and are thus destined to inherit a terrestrial glory in eternity.’ (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 640.)” You even quote this portion of the manual below. So where did you find that “quote”? CFR for the actual source of your quote. See? Your quote above disputes your other claim about McConkie. That’s because there are really only two divisions of the resurrection, one before and one after the millennium, but as Paul said, it is “every man in his own order”. I checked that post. You said the second trump is for the terrestrials. The third trump is for the telestials. But it doesn't align with the way Mosiah speaks about the second trump. You said, "Mosiah is just doing more of the same, with the ‘second trump' representing those who come forth in the end." But those who come forth in the end is the fourth trump. You identified them as the sons of perdition in that post mentioned above. As I said before (and since you are repeating the same questions again, I will repeat my same answers again): You will never get things to work out if you start counting trumps out of context. Trumps and trumpets are mentioned all throughout the Bible and all the scriptures, and they indicate different things in different contexts (for example, the seven trumpets of Revelation chapter 8). In most cases only the extremes are discussed throughout the scriptures, the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15), the resurrection of life or the resurrection of damnation (John 5:29), or those who awake to everlasting life and others to everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2). Mosiah is just doing more of the same, with the “second trump” representing those who come forth in the end. In Mosiah’s context, the “first trump” (not mentioned in the text) would be the very beginning of the first resurrection and the “second trump” would be the end of the second resurrection. It isn’t about counting exactly how many “trumps” there are, but about the extremes. Maybe the terrestials will go to the moon, believed to have a terrestrial glory. I believe all saved Christians will be in God’s kingdom. "He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son" (Colossians 1:13). So, you don’t believe the verses about the righteous inheriting the earth (with the United States removed from the earth somehow)? In my January 2 post, I said "I think he is referring to us being offspring in a spiritual sense, of a living God and his argument is their use of statues in their worship, which cannot talk, see, or hear. The pagans understood "offspring" in the sexual case of literal reproduction for the Greek gods; like that which occurs between male and female. While Paul uses the term, he is not inferring the involvement of a heavenly mother or any type of procreation of a celestial nature". I realize that you deny that Paul used the word “offspring” with the same meaning as his Greek audience would understand him. According to you, the pagans understood “’offspring’ in the sexual case of literal reproduction… like that which occurs between male and female”, but you assert that Paul didn’t mean it the way that his audience would have understood it, and that “he is not inferring the involvement of a heavenly mother or any type of procreation of a celestial nature”. But then why would Paul be so stupid as to pick a word that would set himself up for being misunderstood when he was teaching them about the true God of the Bible? Furthermore, you have no evidence that he would engage in this duplicitous behavior other than your personal abhorrence for the implications of the true meaning of the word génos, a word that even the commentary you quoted from declined to define. I don’t believe Paul would subscribe to such duplicitous behavior. I don’t believe Paul would have lied to or misled his audience in that way. I believe he was sincerely teaching his audience about the true God of the Bible and not pulling a bait and switch scam on them. I believe what the Bible says. I believe those verses in Acts 17 give us one of the first recorded situations where a believing Jew and Christian had the opportunity to explain the true God of the Bible to outsiders in a way that would explain why it is illogical to worship gods of silver, gold, or stone. I believe Paul specifically chose the words of that Greek poet because it contained the word génos, because Paul believed and taught that we are the very same kind of being as God. But I don’t believe Paul’s audience would have necessarily understood génos in a sexual sense (although they might have), because I think they understood the term in the way that it was commonly used in that day to mean kind of being or species. And I believe that’s exactly the way Paul intended it, that we are the same species or same kind of being that God is, and the logic of his argument supports this view. I also think Paul was using the term in the exact same way his audience would have understood it, because I believe Paul was an honest man and wouldn’t try to trick his audience into believing in Christianity by baiting them using false teachings. I agree that Paul was not saying anything about the pagan gods. Instead, Paul was teaching them about the true God of the Bible and was teaching the pagans that we are all God’s “offspring”, his génos, the very same kind of being that God is. This is indisputable because of the context and logic of his argument against worshipping gods of gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. The Christian commentaries that try to sidestep the clear meaning of this passage by claiming Paul was only saying we are God’s creations completely destroys the logic of Paul’s argument along with his integrity. That's about making an idol to worship. Yes, it is. But you didn’t answer the question. What do you think “image” and “likeness” means in that verse ( Exodus 20:4)? I think the latter means Seth reflected the image of Adam more than any of his [Adam's] children. And Adam reflected the image and likeness of God more than anyone else but Seth? Or in what way is Seth and Adam different than anyone else? And why would the meaning of "image" and "likeness" in Genesis 1:26 and 5:3 be any different than "image" and "likeness" in Exodus 20:4? I didn't see any exclusion from the unsaved that perished in the flood. Only eight were saved. So you admit that the verse doesn’t say what you claimed. That’s all I needed to know. What portion of those who died in the flood – the saved or the unsaved? Doctrine and Covenants 138:28 says, "And as I wondered, my eyes were opened, and my understanding quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them"). According to this D&C passage, Jesus did not go to the wicked AND to the disobedient. But 1 Peter 3:18-20 says he did go to the disobedient. As I explained before, Doctrine and Covenants 138 (like many other places in scripture) refers only to the extremes, the most righteous and the most wicked. And the vision came in answer to the specific question about how Jesus managed to preach to everyone who had died since the beginning of time in the three-day period while his body was in the grave. The answer to that question was that Jesus organized the righteous saints to go and teach them after he was resurrected. And when section 138 says that Jesus didn’t go to the wicked and disobedient, it is in reference to the very wicked ones, because Doctrine and Covenants section 76:73 and 88:99 both refer to Jesus having preached the gospel to those who were in prison (of the terrestrial world), which is totally in accordance with 1 Peter 3:18-20.

I hear President Oaks has a great sense of humor (from someone who has worked with him at church headquarters).

Please post links if you do it. I enjoyed your prior blogs, and I'll miss it here.

Has this been here on the church website before, or did they just release this this week? I just noticed it this evening. I'm impressed that they have it ready so quickly, and obviously they've been compiling it all along: Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Russell M. Nelson It's part of the Teachings of Presidents of the Church series. Contents: Chapter 1: Heavenly Father’s Plan of Happiness Chapter 2: The Atonement of Jesus Christ Chapter 3: The Ministry of Jesus Christ Chapter 4: Faith in Jesus Christ Chapter 5: Repentance Chapter 6: Divine Identity Chapter 7: Agency and Accountability Chapter 8: The Abrahamic Covenant Chapter 9: The Gathering of Israel Chapter 10: A Covenant Relationship with God Chapter 11: Divine Law and Absolute Truth Chapter 12: Sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ Chapter 13: The Holy Temple—the House of the Lord Chapter 14: Revelation for Our Lives Chapter 15: Prayer Chapter 16: Spiritual Strength and Momentum Chapter 17: The Sabbath Day Chapter 18: Joy and Hope through Jesus Christ Chapter 20: The Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ Chapter 21: Prophets Chapter 24: The Name of the Savior’s Church I've been listening to all of President Nelson's conference talks this week, and now I need to start going through this one too. ETA: I just checked the Wayback Machine, and it's been up since August of 2024, so I guess I just missed it.

This KSL story posted this evening expresses a similar thought of sympathy I had for the killer after reading about his drug problems: Woman confronted by Michigan church gunman says she instantly forgave him for killing dad "He let me live," Lisa Louis, 45, wrote. The article doesn't say what question was asked of her, I'd like to know.

Phone voting only works on American Idol or shows like that. But who knows what new changes we'll get at General Conference this weekend (hope you get a new phone before Saturday ).

That's what the earliest Christians taught, yes. But you also said... It seems you want to have it both ways. Which is it? In Joseph Smith's teachings God was a divine being before he became man, and has always been the most advanced of all other beings, "the Eternal God of all other gods" (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32).

From this news article: Gunman in Michigan LDS chapel shooting was Marine and Iraq War veteran: Officials "It was during his time in Utah, where he moved after his military service, that Sanford also descended into heavy drug use, according to the friend, Peter Tersigni. 'I know three things. He moved to Utah. He started dating this girl and then investigated and learned about Mormons because she was a Mormon. And I know that also, he got into meth really hardcore. It messed his life up and it messed his head up. And it just happened to be at the time he was around Mormons,' Peter Tersigni told ABC News". It sounds like his life got messed up with drugs big time during that period of his life, and he likely linked all the bad things that happened to his life with his association with Utah and "Mormons".

The "church" issued a separate statement on the Michigan shooting (Statement on Violence at a Chapel in Grand Blanc, Michigan), but the statement from Elder Oaks encompasses all those experiencing loss and heartache at this time (Statement from Dallin H. Oaks, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles), which I see as being for two separate purposes.

A report I just read said all victims involved in the shooting and fire have now been accounted for: "Everyone now accounted for after attack on Michigan church left 4 dead, officials say": https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/church-shooting-fire-michigan-09-29-25 ETA: Calm was posting at the same time, double information.

I have come across a few aggressive Catholic critics through the years, but they are rare. The Catholic Answers group published the book, Inside Mormonism - What Mormons Really Believe back in 1999 (written by Isaiah Bennett), and one Catholic I met told me I should get it and read it. I have the book, and I've read pieces and chapters of it here and there, but haven't read it cover to cover (I'd like to honestly, I just have had other priorities). The book takes a slightly more accurate approach to Latter-day Saint beliefs when compared to the typical Protestant book published against "Mormonism", but it still perpetuates some of the common criticisms. I like that the book focuses on key points of difference between Catholics and Latter-day Saints (like the Great Apostasy), but it also repeats a lot of old arguments (Book of Mormon anachronisms, for example). So aggressive Catholic critics do exist.

I wish I was still living in the Phoenix area, I'd come over to offer you support. My prayers are with you.

As soon as you quit getting responses in this thread, you'll know. I'm worried. This thread will undoubtedly be locked soon and nobody will be allowed to post in this thread any longer, and @The Nehor will start his looting.

I wish I could give your post at least 30 more upvotes, but alas, it only lets me give you one.

From all ages in eternity past to all ages in eternity future. You're adding to what the Bible says again. It never says he was God from all ages in eternity past to all ages in eternity future, it says "Before mountains were brought forth, And Thou dost form the earth and the world, Even from age unto age Thou art God." (Psalm 90:2, YLT). Of course Jesus, who was once a man, is also God. So why couldn't this also be said of Heavenly Father who was a divine being (like Jesus) before he became man?

Where do you come up with a "select few" from the "many" that were mentioned in Matthew 27:51-53, 3 Nephi 23:9-10, and supposedly among all the scattered tribes (3 Nephi 16:1-3) at the time of the earthquake around Christ's death. What did they do in their lifetime until 1830? You seem to think they were all taken back to heaven but you didn't provide a scripture or church teaching. “There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones” (Doctrine and Covenants 129:1). They were a “select few” relative to the number of those who will be resurrected to a celestial glory in the morning of the first resurrection. The earth is terrestrial. In the earth, there are plants, animals, and humans. Their glories are different but they are still all terrestrial. Likewise for the Sun, moon, and stars. They are celestial objects. The planets are celestial objects. Some planets even have their own moons. The Sun is one of the smallest stars as our telescopes show. Betelgeuse and Antares are hundreds of times larger than the Sun. All the celestial objects have a celestial glory even though there are billions+ more of them. Except that’s not how Paul was using the sun, moon, and stars. He was comparing the relative glory between the sun, moon, and stars, as to how it will be with us and the resurrection of the dead. “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:41–42). What kind of body do pre-mortal spirits have? What kind of body did the premortal Jesus have? Same as him. That scripture (first natural, then spiritual) is a reference to the beings created by God on earth. That scripture (first natural, then spiritual) is relative to our position here now on earth as compared to how it will be in the resurrection. Jesus went through the same process. He first obtained a mortal body, and when he was resurrected his body was transformed from a natural body into an immortal (spiritual) body. It has no bearing on the fact that he was once a spirit before being born into mortality. At least in modern times, yes. Funny. You have no problem assigning firstborn to all worthy males in Ephraim's lineage and associating the priesthood with all of them. Ephraim (the person) was the (singular) firstborn of the children of Jacob, but his father (Jacob) blessed Ephraim and his posterity with the rights of the firstborn inheritance, so the blessings of the firstborn were passed to his tribe because Ephraim (the person) was designated as the firstborn. And I didn’t assign it that, Jacob did when he blessed Ephraim and promised the blessings of the firstborn to his tribe. This is like the blessing that Jacob gave to his son Judah in Genesis 49:8-12, where Judah was given the scepter promises, which were obviously not intended only for Judah personally, but it was to the entire tribe of Judah that through his posterity they would have rule over the kingdom in king David and later in the ultimate king, the Messiah. And in Genesis 49:22-26, Jacob blessed Joseph to be a “fruitful bough” and says, “The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills”. Thus, to Joseph was given much more than to any of his progenitors or to any of his brothers (a further indication of the birthright blessing), extending to his entire posterity. You never did ASK “which of #1, #2, or #3 of the LDS Church’s definitions of firstfruits applies to the terrestrial inhabitants”. Please show me where you asked anything about the “terrestrial inhabitants”. The question you asked was, “Please supply one church teaching that says others besides Christ are ‘firstfruits of the Resurrection’ or ‘firstfruits of the dead’.” But if you are asking that question, the people of the terrestrial kingdom are not the firstfruits. They are “Christ’s” (along with those of the celestial kingdom), but only those of the celestial kingdom (those that come forth in the morning of the first resurrection) are “firstfruits”. Based on what I provided earlier of the LDS Church's definition of firstfruits, Doctrine and Covenants 88:98 is not pointing to the terrestrials. Your question had nothing to do with those of the terrestrial kingdom (not that I can find, anyway). Your question was simply this: “Please supply one church teaching that says others besides Christ are ‘firstfruits of the Resurrection’ or ‘firstfruits of the dead’.” And Doctrine and Covenants 88:98 addresses that question. The people of the celestial kingdom come forth in the morning of the first resurrection and they “are Christ’s, the first fruits, they who shall descend with him first, and they who are on the earth and in their graves, who are first caught up to meet him; and all this by the voice of the sounding of the trump of the angel of God.” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:98) As mentioned earlier, the LDS Church's use of Doctrine and Covenants 88:98 to define firstfruits does not match the qualifications of the terrestrials. They had not endured to the end. Verse 98 is not even speaking of them. Of course not, Doctrine and covenants 88:98 is talking about those in the celestial kingdom. Where did you ask anything about those of the terrestrial kingdom? You asked for a reference from a “church teaching”. I provided one from a current church manual. Just because the manual quotes one thing or another from Elder McConkie it doesn’t mean that everything Elder McConkie ever wrote in his lifetime is accurate. That’s ridiculous. Other church manuals containing church teachings have quoted C. S. Lewis (see here for example). Does that mean C. S. Lewis taught everything correctly about church teachings? Also, in your preparation for your response in the other folder, keep in mind that I asked where the LDS Church teaches those specific things that you were saying, in scripture, official doctrinal statements, and official curriculum manuals. If it doesn’t fall into those three categories, it won’t work. See more below. I have both books and I am familiar with them. But, as mentioned above, just because such books are quoted in a church manual, it doesn’t mean that anything and everything written in those books or by that author are church doctrines. Keep in mind the way that the church itself defines how official doctrine is determined. From the Church Newsroom on 05/04/2007, Approaching Latter-day Saint Doctrine: “Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.” In an October 2012 General Conference address, Elder Neil L. Andresen stated, “There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.” If the quotes you find don’t fit those guidelines, then it’s not official church doctrine. Not by that name, no. But Joseph Smith spoke about it as the morning of the resurrection, so that’s where we get the terminology from. But the doctrine comes from Doctrine and Covenants 88:96-102 as I have already explained. Here’s a diagram: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/imgs/0d3c85f2f1b51bbe06003f86ed6e49de6ebbecfb/full/!1600%2C/0/default By the way, I already explained this (no surprise) in my post on 06/02/2025, and also at the end of my post on 05/20/2025. Yes, those in the first resurrection are priests and kings unto God. Those of the terrestrial kingdom don’t come forth in the very first of the resurrection, they are resurrected second, but prior to the millennial reign of Christ on the earth. And the book of Revelation is describing the extremes, much like Jesus talking about the sheep and the goats, those on the right hand or the left hand. It’s a way of describing the full extent of God’s doings. Don't forget that for many a resurrection of life will also be a resurrection of damnation - for all those who fail to return to live with Heavenly Father. Isn’t that exactly what I said last time? “In most cases only the extremes are discussed throughout the scriptures, the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15), the resurrection of life or the resurrection of damnation (John 5:29), or those who awake to everlasting life and others to everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2). Mosiah is just doing more of the same, with the ‘second trump’ representing those who come forth in the end.” I already did this in great detail earlier in the thread way back in May. See the end of my post on 05/20/2025. See above. The non-covenant sons have no inheritance. Ok. So your terrestrials and telestials are sent somewhere else, not to any other earth where the covenant sons are inheriting in their respective sphere. Maybe they are sent to the moons of planets. After the millennium and final judgement, this earth will be celestialized, and the righteous will inherit the earth. But the terrestrial and terrestrial individuals will go to some other undetermined place. This reminds me of a Star Trek movie. The younger Spock calls "Father" as he faces the back of the older Spock. The older Spock responds by saying, "I am not our Father". Jesus is not our Heavenly Father but I understand this is what Mosiah teaches "And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son". Jesus is not the Son because of the flesh; he is the Son before the incarnation. Jesus is not the Father because he was conceived by Heavenly Father or a heavenly mother. In that prayer "Our Father …", Jesus is not referring to himself. "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God" (John 20:17). But none of the above has anything to do with my comments on Matthew 5:45 and Matthew 6:9, where Jesus is showing that God is the Father of everyone, but there are things that we must do so that we “may be” his children in a behavioral or covenantal sense of the word. This disproves your assertion that "Only those in the adoption class are entitled to call God their Heavenly Father." I didn't have anything else to offer beside what I wrote earlier. I understand why. What else can you say without further contradicting what Paul clearly taught, and without further compromising modern Christian teachings? The commentaries you posted already did a good job of doing that. Why can't you just believe what Paul taught? Same comment as above. But they did not understand Paul as teaching there was one or more heavenly mothers. Unless you believe Heavenly Mother is really the Queen of Heaven of the Old Testament. Okay…. So you stand by what you said in your post on January 2, that “The pagans understood ‘offspring’ in the sexual case of literal reproduction for the Greek gods; like that which occurs between male and female.” But the pagans didn’t understand Paul to be teaching there is a heavenly mother? Please explain how they would have understood “offspring in the sexual case of literal reproduction… like that which occurs between male and female” without having a female? I think it means Seth was more like Adam than any of Adam's sons. In similar fashion, Adam and Eve were more like God than their descendants. What do you think “image” and “likeness” means in this verse?: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4). How is it the same or different from Genesis 1:26 and 5:3? Only eight were saved. The others were unsaved (not saved). This is because the world was corrupt and filled with violence. Your assertion was that 1 Peter 3:18-20 refers to “all the unsaved who perished in the flood”, but those verses also say that Jesus went and preached “to the spirits in prison”. Where does it say that Jesus preached to “all the unsaved” at that time? The point is that Jesus only went to preach to a portion of those who died in the flood, and he prepared a way for all the others to be taught the gospel through the missionary work that he organized in the spirit world. That much is clearly detailed in the Doctrine and Covenants as already discussed.

The church has posted a "Statement on Violence at a Chapel in Grand Blanc, Michigan" in the church newsroom site. “We are deeply grateful for the outpouring of prayers and concern from so many people around the world. In moments of sorrow and uncertainty, we find strength and comfort through our faith in Jesus Christ. Places of worship are meant to be sanctuaries of peacemaking, prayer and connection. We pray for peace and healing for all involved.” I noticed that the U.S. president in his statement about the incident called us Christian. At least he got that right. I'm wondering if that will cause any backlash for him.