Pyreaux

Here leaving a door unlocked is a huge no-no. Like, bringing your calling into jeopardy at the very least. The keys are controlled and they are all on point. Though most of the Bishopric here also work for Pop-a-lock, so maybe we're just lucky it's never left unlocked. Hopefully insurance will cover it?

Idaho, Pocatello Stake Center Vandalized https://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/crimes_court/police-young-children-extensively-vandalize-pocatello-lds-stake-building/article_46dd379d-86e1-4e38-ac85-8e0d0c9c1693.html According to Police, Friday, August 14, 2026, at the Pocatello Stake Center on Bartz Way, located adjacent to Idaho State University’s Stephens Performing Arts Center. Sometime between 11:00 AM and 7:00 PM, three neighborhood children, two girls and one boy, ranging in age from 8 to 10, entered through an unlocked door and caused several thousand dollars in property damage. A case that may have begun as opportunistic trespass but escalated into very methodical destruction. What Went Down They found an unlocked exterior door and entered the unattended building. Once inside, the children spent many hours moving through the facility. Rather than a quick hit-and-run, the physical evidence pointed to sustained activity. The children deliberately stuffed materials into multiple toilets to clog them and left the water running to flood restrooms and spill into adjacent hallways. They located paint cans inside the building, tipped them over, and poured or smeared paint across carpeted areas. Beyond simply tipping items over, the children systematically broke numerous glass objects, decor, and internal fixtures, leaving shattered glass and debris scattered across rooms. The Cost A church member discovered the disarray Friday evening and called local law enforcement. Pocatello police officers who responded noted that the interior was in severe disarray, stating that while the damage easily topped the $1,000 threshold, the full restoration cost would be significantly higher once carpet cleaning and drywall/water remediation were evaluated. How They Were Caught The investigation proved short-lived due to physical evidence left at the scene. Officers arriving at the stake center noticed footprints leading away from the spilled paint and liquid inside the building. Patrol officers literally tracked the wet footprints out of the building and down the street directly to nearby homes in the immediate neighborhood. All three children (ages 8, 9, and 10) were identified later that evening. Because of their age, police released them directly into the custody of their parents, who officers noted were fully cooperative with the investigation. Each child was formally cited with misdemeanor malicious injury to property. Their identities remain protected under juvenile privacy laws. Not Targeted? While breaking glass and clogging drains can look targeted at first glance, investigators concluded it was an extreme case of unsupervised escalation, three young kids finding an empty, unlocked building, upon realizing they were unmonitored, and then progressively testing how much damage they could cause until they were finished.

They seem more restricted. 4 new topics a day?

You've moved the goalpost from 'Are other gods are mere idols?' to 'Are these non-idol other gods truly gods?' Define what true deities are. Like, hypothetically speaking if multiple real gods did exist, what would it require for there to be other true deities? Do they have to always be good, or equal to God to be a true deity? Or according to some sort of philosophy there can only be one, therefore there are no others? Then you are shifting the meaning of a god away from what the Bible means by a god. So, you admit gods like Baal are not merely idols. Is Baal not also a genuine supernatural entity that truly exists, with true spiritual power, with true territorial authority, that the Bible is truthful when it calls him a deity, that heaven truly is populated by a hierarchy of non-human entities such as him, and so is indeed among the doomed gods in Psalms 82?

I'm not very old but I'm getting there. I attend a physical therapy gym. It's a very cheap membership and they are open to 8pm. So, I've been going at random times when I'm free 3 or 4 times a week for an hour. I use the weight machines because it keeps me engaged but I should do more easy but long duration aerobics and keep taking fish oils. You see, my trygliserids are high by genetics and because most foods have bad oils in them. You can only absorb so much fat, so picking to consume a good, easy released, fish oil will compete with other oils to be absorbed in a day. You can only get rid of the already stored trygliserids is slowly after 30+ minutes of aerobics, ideally 1 hour on a treadmill or bike. My ADHD often rebels against it at 10 minutes, but I'll do all the strength training machines too, so maybe it adds to keeping my heart rate up.

Both of those things are ideally received by the Laying on of Hands rather than just a prayer.

Aren't demons real? Doesn't the Bible refer to these other gods as demons? Or are demons just idols with names? You can't have it both ways. Pick one. Deuteronomy 32:17 says Israel sacrificed to "demons" who are also "gods." Psalm 106:37 similarly says they sacrificed their children to demons. 1 Corinthians 10:19–20 says an idol is nothing in itself, but that pagan sacrifices are offered to demons rather than to God. The "gods" can refer to spiritual beings or objects of worship depending on context. Demons are depicted as real, and as gods, who have idols. If gods are just idols, then demons are just idols.

The Church is going to pwn Mormon Stories, and now the ACLU and EFF. Keep digging that hole.

On basis of its location in the Bible. Job is placed directly inside the Ketuvim (the Writings), alongside Proverbs and Psalms, encompassing poetry and wisdom literature. On the basis of its structure, Chapters 3 through 42 are written in structured Hebrew verse. There is a stylized, symmetrical rhythm to it. Like the repetitive messengers bringing bad news, or the very precise numbers of livestock. I believe there was a Job, and there was a council of malicious sons of God, and there were people and territory under the protection of one son of God while off limits to the other sons of God, unless given permission by that son of God. Or they'll go to war. If this "adversary" was Baal, or one of the other sons of El, he would not be allowed to destroy Job's property, livestock, servants, and even kill his children, unless the Lord of Israel first gave him permission. Whether literal or poetic liberties were taken, the boundaries described do have a real theological basis. The phrase in Job 1:6, the sons of God came "to present themselves before the LORD," can be understood as taking a position before or even against the Lord. It is like a courtroom with an accuser "among" them raising a challenge to Yahweh's judgment concerning Job.

Yes. Your assertion that LDS women in Gilbert wear workout gear specifically to deceive their bishops out of laziness or hypocrisy, that is an assumption about their internal motives, not a verifiable fact. I cannot "disprove" your cynical interpretation of another person's heart because motives aren't visible. You treat your cynical guess as a fact and then demand we disprove your guess. That isn't truth. Full of loaded phrasing ("what all the cool kids do") and hostile framing, you construct a deceptive narrative. You certainly don't know why every individual wears what they wear, so asserting they are all lying isn't 'truth', it's just your preference to assume the worst. We don't have to disprove your bad-faith interpretation. The fact that you always frame everything in the most hostile way possible speaks to your bias. It’s interesting how you demand strict literal proof from everyone else but expect everyone to accept your unprovable assumptions about Church members as absolute fact. People who operate this way rarely want an honest dialogue. They want to score points.

Your "gotcha" attempt relies on a false equivalency between literary framing/genre and theological truth claims. Who even wrote the Book of Job and when? Job himself? Did he himself enter the council of the sons of God to witness Job 1 happen? No. Mainstream biblical scholars generally agree that the Book of Job is a piece of wisdom literature and dramatic poetry, not a transcript of the event. Latter-day Saints recognize Job himself as a real individual who suffered immensely (Ezekiel 14:14, James 5:11). Thought to be a patriarchal era figure, but the "book" of Job seems to be penned by an anonymous scribe after the fall of Jerusalem to answer why bad things happen to good people. Come Follow Me seems to be trying to help readers look past a somewhat jarring image of God making a "bet" with Satan, and instead focus on the doctrinal takeaways. To your question, if the prologue is poetic, then God speaking in chapter 42 must also be poetic (i.e., made up)? No, you can use a dramatic literary device in the beginning to set up a real spiritual resolution at the end. Concerning truth, even a made-up story can teach the truth. Is it not true that Satan and the rival sons of God are our adversaries*, and suffering is not always a direct punishment for sin? Are Jesus' parables "true" stories? No, Jesus' parables were not literal, historical events. He made them up to teach spiritual principles. * Job 1:6 "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them"). The "to present themselves" (yatsal contextualized in council settings) is the exact same root used in places like Psalm 2:2 "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord". That the assembly wasn't just a peaceful, harmonious meeting of angels standing at attention. Instead, imply a scene of confrontation, rivalry, or dissent, where heavenly beings are taking counsel against or challenging Yahweh.

Well, the restriction is intended to simply ensure that, first and foremost the sacred marks sewn in remain intact and positioned correctly and to stop people from shortening hems or lowering necklines to fit modern fashion trends, but the rule itself is written as a blanket instruction. Officially, the instruction is to let the Church handle fit and medical needs through specific official channels. If standard off-the-rack garments do not fit, the Beehive Clothing department provides custom orders for sizes or fabrics, or you can request a special size or custom tailoring directly through Church Distribution Services rather than altering the items at home.

Does a TBM wear them while swimming, bathing, contact sports, or intense physical exercise? No. Yet, when asked, "Do you wear them?", in an interview, answering "Yes" is an honest assessment of following a rule within its reasonable bounds. The church leaves decisions about when to remove it to individual conscience, prayer, and common sense rather than cultural trends, nor having leaders act as daily wardrobe auditors.

I feel for you. Having recently realized I'm an autistic person, I hate tight fitting clothing (touch sensitivity), yet I do like many layers of cloths (pressure seeking). I don't suppose you are open to tailoring it?

Correct, bishops do not get a dime. It can be hard to follow for non-members, but we are talking about full-time General Authorities who have to quit their jobs to serve. And to keep them from going bankrupt, they get a living allowance to pay for food, travel and lodging... and taxes... and his immediate family... and insurance... a car and sometimes a driver, and maybe certain Church-related expenses, etc. depending on the particular General Authority and circumstances. $170k sounds like a lot, but perhaps most of it disappears into ordinary expenses of Eyring.

They are the Sons of El who were allotted the nations as the lot of their inheritance from their Father, El Elyon, the Chief God of all the Semitic nations, El Baniyu (the Begetter), or as we would call him, God the Father. Deuteronomy 32:8 "When Elyon gave the nations their inheritance … he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance." What is "the number of the Sons of God"? The Sons of God divided the people of Babel into 70 nations in the days of Peleg. Genesis 11:7-8 "And the Yahweh said, ... look... let us go down and confuse their language there... So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth" The number of nations created after Babel are the 70 listed in Genesis 10, because that is the "number" of divine beings. The Bible repeatedly identifies specific gods by name, and each associated with specific peoples. The Bible speaks naturally about Chemosh, Milcom, Dagon, Baal, Ra, Marduk, and the "sons of God" without any need to pretend that these were merely fictional characters. Other gods are in Haazinu (Deut 32:17). "They shall sacrifice to demons, gods which they did not know". Then they are named in 23-24 "They shall be) wasted with Hunger, fought by Reshef, and Qeteb (and?) Meriri." Resheph is a known name of a Canaanite god, who is known in the Bible as a demon shooting arrows of disease (Hab 3:5, Job 5:7). The others appear again in the Bible (Hosea 13:14, possibly also Job 3:5). I can go on, like how Gad and Asher are named after Canaanite deities, or Jesus acknowledging Baal exists. Who specifically is being unjust to the Gentile nation's fatherless people? Certainly not the judges of Israel. A deity’s primary responsibility was maintaining mishpat / justice in their assigned region. Failure was to allow that foreign nation's human king under their jurisdiction to prey on the weak, the orphan, and the widow rather than protecting them. Baal, after all, is a spiritual entity, how exactly can he harm human fatherless children? The spiritual rulers and human kings rule in tandem. Baal can dictate a nation's legal system, trade practices, or military conquests. By endorsing, inspiring, or ignoring greedy tyrannical human regimes the gods were actively failing their job or even rebelling. We see Yahweh who fights these cosmic battles and subdues sea monsters and sea dragons to establish order. In Daniel 7, the nations dominating the known world are depicted as four terrifying beasts emerging from the chaotic sea. In apocalyptic code, these are them. The rival sons of God in Job 1, are them, with as desire to tempt and test humanity, but couldn't try Job without Yahweh's permission.

Ancient Near Eastern scholars are specialists focused on context, what the words meant to the ancient audience who original wrote and heard them, using surrounding cultures, archaeology, and historical languages as a decipher key. Theologians focus on application, how that text fits into a broader or modern religious doctrine or system of faith. The ANE scholars are going to be better at interpreting Psalm 82 because it uses imagery common across the ancient Near East, like the divine council. Near Eastern scholars analyze the language of psalm using surrounding Ugaritic and Akkadian texts from that exact era. This helps untangle what phrases like "bene elohim" meant in the Bronze and Iron Age Near East, rather than filtering those words through centuries of later doctrine and imposing later theological assumption onto it.

Attempting to mediate here. Your pattern recognition of gang activity within a specific demographic risks generalizing an entire ethnic demographic. What you seem to be proposing is racial profiling, and for entire communities to be treated as security threats, all based on the actions of specific criminal groups or individuals. If threat management is the goal, applying heavy security solely based on ethnic attendance creates significant legal and social friction without necessarily stopping targeted acts of violence. Like many non-Tongan gangs, gangs sometimes utilize neutral community venues, such as funerals, weddings, or religious services for targeted retaliation, knowing the targets will be present and off-guard. This is an issue seen across various cultural gang networks. Rather than targeting Tongans, look for specific high-risk events, such as funerals involving individuals with known gang affiliations or recent violent conflicts. Your critique of church leadership assumes potential institutional apathy or a hesitation to act due to public relations concerns. The Church, like many organizations, generally relies on local law enforcement for active security threats rather than maintaining armed private security forces. Local leaders typically coordinate directly with local police. Working directly with local police gang units to identify high-risk events prior to scheduling, allowing for discreet or visible law enforcement presence during services. I believe there are more Church policy updates coming, like evaluating security guidelines for facility access, off-duty officer hiring for special events, and local leader training for threat de-escalation.

I stand corrected, living allowance is taxed. The only part of a minister’s living allowance that can be excluded from income tax is a designated parsonage (housing), the portion meant to cover food and transportation is taxable. But you are still wrong, taxability does not equal a corporate salary. Paying taxes does not turn a non-profit cost-of-living stipend into a commercial wage. The 'parsonage' designation exists exclusively for religious ministers receiving housing support. You are taking a sociological definition of 'paid clergy' and trying to judge it using corporate terminology. When scholars, historians, and leaders say the Church has 'no paid ministry,' they mean we do not have a professional clergy class, there is no leader hired to make a career out of preaching. 99.9% of all ministry in the Church is run by unpaid volunteers. The 0.1% that receive a living allowance do not receive a wage. In that sense, nobody in Church leadership receives financial compensation for their service. The allowance is sustenance, not pay, is fundamentally different from being paid. It aims for a zero-sum, break-even outcome rather than accumulation.

I understood the wealthy often dont accept the stipend, I suppose that means they are given it and tithing is how they give it back?

As usual, the critics don't understand "financial compensation" and a living stipend and financial support are distinct concepts, and often blur the lines depending on the point they are trying to make. Financial Compensation Definition Direct payment given in exchange for labor, skill, or services rendered, typically calculated based on market value, performance, or fixed hourly/salaried rates. For generating personal income, create wealth, and provide a competitive reward for work performed. Living Allowance Definition A fixed, regular sum provided to cover mandatory living expenses (housing, food, healthcare, basic utilities) so an individual can focus entirely on a dedicated role (such as a missionary, academic researcher, graduate fellow, or full-time ecclesiastical leader). To prevent financial hardship or bankruptcy while serving, rather than to serve as a wage for profit. It is not tied to performance, hours, or profit. When critics frame the leaked documents as a "scandal," they are trying to apply corporate rules to a volunteer model. Covering basic living costs is vastly different from earning a wage for work rendered. The Church has never claimed that full-time authorities receive zero financial support. The Church publicly addresses living allowance for full-time General Authorities in church publications, manuals, and official statements dating back decades. D&C 42:71–73 and D&C 70:12 explicitly state that those who labor full-time in church administration are to have their necessary physical needs provided for out of church funds. The "leak" is canonized?

It's the standard Evangelical counter-argument. You correctly identified Jesus’s use of an a fortiori (lesser-to-greater) argument in John 10, but it falls into a critical error. Exodus 21:6 & 22:8–9 Do NOT Mean "Human Judges" Appeals to Strong's H430 and the traditional claim that elohim refers to human judges is an outdated translation error. Modern Hebrew lexicography and Near Eastern scholarship (including Heiser, Gordon Wenham, and John Walton) have thoroughly debunked this. Exodus 21:6 "His master shall bring him unto the elohim..." In ancient law codes, covenantal oaths were taken at a local shrine, described as going before the presence of God. Bringing someone to the elohim meant bringing them to the altar, not bringing them to human magistrates. The claim that Exodus establishes a precedent for calling human judges elohim is an artificial lexical invention created solely to force Psalm 82 into a human mold. "Human Judges" Destroys Jesus's A Fortiori Argument Who is the "lesser group", "them unto whom the word of God came"? Scenario A: They are Israelite "human judges" who are facing condemnation ruling their inherited Gentile nations poorly. God sarcastically or metaphorically calls wicked, oppressive human politicians "gods." Jesus's Logic A: If God calls wicked human hypocrites 'gods' as a figure of speech, why are you mad that I call myself God's Son? Jesus lowers His sonship to win a legal loophole. He equates His title with a sarcastic label given to corrupt men. This gives His accusers no reason to not stone Him, because claiming to be God's son in the debased sense of being a corrupt magistrate completely abandons His claim in John 10:30 ("I and my Father are one"). Scenario B: They are the Divine Council, the real, heavenly elohim received God's word (or decree) at the council, were placed over the Gentile nations, but then rebelled. Jesus's Logic B: If heavenly beings are legitimately classified as real elohim and sons of the Most High, how can you charge someone whom the Father sent directly down from that heavenly realm with blasphemy for saying 'I am the Son of God'? The argument is airtight. You only assume "unto whom the word of God came" must mean mortal humans receiving scripture. But in reality, the elohim are the ones receiving that word first and mediate it. In Deuteronomy 33:2, Psalm 68:17, Acts 7:53, and Galatians 3:19 all state that the Law/word came to Israel through the heavenly council of holy ones/elohim at Sinai. The "watchers", "holy ones", "gods", mediated the word/decrees. "This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones" (Daniel 4:17) "Die Like Men" Objection The contrast proves immortality. Telling a mortal human "you will die like a human" is a meaningless. It only carries weight as a sentence of condemnation if it is spoken to beings who were naturally immortal (bene Elyon) and are now being stripped of their divine status due to rebellion.

Pew's numbers only measure active cultural self-identification. A Pew survey simply asks a respondent, "What is your present religion, if any?" If someone grew up LDS, stops going, but never formally wrote a letter to resign their membership, they may tell Pew they are either "Nothing" or "Protestant", yet they choose to remain on the Church’s administrative rolls. Therefore, the gap between the books and self-identifying adults isn't some secret cover-up or an uncounted exodus. The Pew data highlights that childhood retention dropped in U.S. But framing it as uniquely devastating misses the broader national picture. Every major traditional Christian denomination has experienced sharp declines in youth retention and rising rates of disaffiliation as Gen Y and Gen Z moved into adulthood. The same Pew data note that LDS retention rates in the U.S. still hover near or above the averages for many major Christian groups, and active-participation retention remains comparatively high among those who do stay. So, what the data actually shows is that secularization is happening in the West. The Church in the United States and Europe is highly secularized and experiencing slow or flat growth. While our new missions are heavily concentrated in the Global South. Thousands are joining internationally every month, and thousands of new missionaries have been stepping forward to serve.

I think he served a small part of his mission in Louisiana. The highest car insurance rates in the country. Worst roads too. They can't drive when it rains.

Inspired by another post by @theplains, seeing a tangent, I thought perhaps it deserves its own thread. Because this is very important if everything is held back due to an interpretation, as its one of the main prooftexts of the disagreement. When critics engage Latter-day Saint theology regarding the Council of Gods, Exaltation, or the distinct Beings of the Father and the Son (and sometimes Creation from Material), they frequently point to Isaiah’s Denial Verses, but they are also called by scholars as the Incomparability Statements of Deutero-Isaiah. "I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me..." (Isaiah 45:5) "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." (Isaiah 44:8) In modern Christian theology, these verses are routinely cited as absolute ontological proof of strict monotheism, the idea that literally no other divine beings exist in the universe in any sense. However, above such theologians are the scholars of the Ancient Near East, we would say most notably the late Dr. Michael Heiser, and also Latter-day Saint scholars, that highlight that modern reading misses the Hebrew rhetorical idiom. Comparative Incomparability of Isaiah about Babylon & Nineveh The key to understanding this idiom is looking at how Isaiah and contemporary prophets like Zephaniah uses the exact same Hebrew phrasing to describe other entities Babylon in Isaiah 47:8 "I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow..." Nineveh in Zephaniah 2:15, "This is the rejoicing city... that said in her heart, I am, and there is none else beside me..." It is a claim that the city is without equal, not that other cities don't exist. When Nineveh or Babylon claim "there is none else," the author obviously does not intend to state that no other cities exist on Earth. It is a hyperbolic idiom of unrivaled preeminence and peerlessness, not spatial or numerical solitude. The only reason we are seeing monotheism is if we strictly view them through a post-Enlightenment ontological lens. Dr. Heiser and almost any Near Eastern scholar demonstrates that Yahweh is an elohim, but so are the beings in His Heavenly Council (angels, bene elohim, holy ones). When Yahweh says, "there is no God beside me," He is not asserting that He is alone in His council in heaven. Doing so creates severe internal contradictions when set against passages like Deuteronomy 32 and the Psalms. Reading Strict Monotheism into Isaiah Collides with Deuteronomy 32 and Psalms 82 If Isaiah’s statements were meant as strict, absolute monotheism, the Old Testament canon becomes fundamentally self-contradictory. Deuteronomy 32:8–9, in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint, "When the Most High [Elyon] gave to the nations their inheritance... he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God [Bene Elohim]". El Elyon allocates governance of the nations to lower divine beings, and Yahweh receives Israel as His allotted "inheritance" from Elyon. Psalm 82 & Psalm 89 Psalm 82:1 states that Yahweh "judgeth among the gods [elohim]" in the "midst" of the divine council. One cannot be in the midst of one. Psalm 89:6 asks, "Who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty [bene Elim] can be likened unto the Lord?" Though incomparable, the elim are presumed to exist. The elohim of Psalm 82 are not humans Firstly, the inheritance connection to Deuteronomy 32, Deuteronomy 32 is the backdrop of Psalm 82. As the Lord has not yet "inherited" all the nations. "Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations." (Psalm 82:8) Human magistrates in Israel were given jurisdiction over matters within the borders of Israel. Israelite judges were never assigned to govern or "inherit" Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, or Philistia. Psalm 82:8 directly mirrors Deuteronomy 32:8–9, where Yahweh originally divided the non-Israelite nations among the bene elohim (sons of God) as an inheritance. In Psalm 82, because those divine rulers governed corruptly, Yahweh is called upon by the Psalmist to strip them of their authority and reclaim their inheritance over all the nations of the earth. Human judges in Israel never held that worldwide territorial mandate in the first place. Secondly, the assembly of elohim are in heaven. Psalm 89:5-7 eliminates any ambiguity. "Let the heavens praise your wonders, O LORD, your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones. For who in the clouds [ba-shahaq] can be compared to the LORD? Who among the gods is like the LORD, a God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him?" Psalm 89 rules out the notion that Yahweh’s council of sons of God refers to an assembly of humans because it explicitly places that council "in the clouds." There is no text that suggests that there are a group of human judges in the heavens ruling with Yahweh over the nations. That position is only being offered because of a perceived threat to monotheism. Thirdly, Heiser frequently emphasized the irony of Psalm 82:6–7, "I have said, Ye are gods [elohim]; and all of you are children of the most High [bene Elyon]. But ye shall die like men..." It makes no sense for humans. If Yahweh is talking to mortal human judges, telling them "You will die like men" is completely redundant. Human judges already die like men, mortality is the natural state. A true condemnation is telling a divine, immortal elohim that they will be stripped of their divine status and condemned to a mortal death is an actual sentence of judgment. Isaiah Venerates El Elyon Old Testament scholar Margaret Barker argues extensively that Isaiah laments the purge of the First Temple, specifically the removal of the Heavenly Mother (Asherah) and the divine council during the reforms. The pre-exilic First Temple religion venerated El Elyon, His Son Yahweh, and Asherah. Isaiah uses the title in the famous taunt song about Lucifer/Hilel, Isaiah uses Elyon precisely in contexts involving the Divine Council, the "mount of the congregation". Ugaritic texts discovered in 1929, older traditions believed the gods gathered on Mount Zaphon, the abode of their cheif God, El, father of Baal-Hadad and 70 sons of El. In ancient Canaan, because Mount Zaphon was to the far north, the proper noun Zaphon literally became the Hebrew word for "North". Isaiah 14:13–14, the rebel boasts, "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God [El]: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation [Har Mo'ed], in the reaches [yarketei / mount] of the north [Zaphon]; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High [Elyon]." Isaiah Venerates Asherah Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa) from Qumran of Isaiah 7:11 has a one letter difference. Masoretic Text says "Ask a sign for yourself from [me'im] the LORD your God..." The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa) says, “Ask a sign for yourself from the Mother of [me'em] the LORD your God..." Instead of Isaiah telling King Ahaz to ask for a sign from the Lord, the verse asks him to request a sign from the Mother of the Lord. If Ahaz is told in 7:11 to ask a sign of the Mother of Yahweh, then when the prophet declares in 7:14, "Behold, The Virgin [ha-'almah] shall conceive," is the Mother of the Lord herself and she will bring forth the Immanuel, meaning a royal Davidic child (Isaiah 8). In royal Near Eastern mythologies such as at Ugarit, their goddess Asherah was the "Virgin" and the "Mother" of the kings. Isaiah's definite article "ha-‘Almah" is not merely "a virgin", it's "THE Virgin". In both Ugarit and pre-exilic Jerusalem, a female figure brings forth the anointed king, and formally titled The Virgin. My Disagreement with Heiser, elohim is a noun applied to many other beings, but not a noun for ordinary beings Heiser's view treats elohim as a realm identifier (anyone living in the spirit realm is an elohim). I have a counter-argument that elohim is an adopted family/lineage title. Through a covenant, like the priesthood, certain beings, whether prophets, high priests, angels, or angelic localized territorial guardians are adopted into the genos (lineage/family) of El. Instead of a natural spatial status, elohim reflects a covenantal promotion. Human prophets like Samuel or Moses (Exodus 7:1) and divine messengers become elohim through the bestowal of Yahweh's authority, name, and often identifiable by priestly garments. 1 Samuel 28:13–14, when the medium of Endor cries out that she sees an elohim ascending from the earth, Saul asks, "What form is he of?" She replies, "An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle [me'il]." The me'il was the explicit garment of priestly and royal authority (Exodus 28:31, 1 Samuel 2:19, 15:27). Samuel always wore a priestly coat since he was a child. Samuel is identified by the medium as an elohim because he wearing mantle of gods, as he retained his priestly identity beyond the veil. He is not an elohim simply because he is a ghost in the underworld; he is an elohim because he is still a priestly son of God and identified by his robe of a god. To truly be adopted by Christ, Born Again, is actually to become a god, because that's what being a true son of God means. Heiser argues that the fallen bene elohim (the territorial powers who rebelled) are sentenced to fall (Psalm 82:6–7). But redeemed humans are adopted as new sons of God through Christ, literally take their vacant seats in the divine council to rule with Jesus (1 Cor 6:3, Rev 2:26–27). LDS theology mirrors this concept of exaltation. Salvation alters a human's dynamic status, elevating them as literal family members rather than remaining lower-tier subjects. The concept of sonship (ben) is defined by nature, image, and inheritance, 2 Peter 1:4 "partakers of the divine nature". To be a true "son" of any entity meant to bear the same fundamental nature and authority of that father who begot you. In ancient Near Eastern covenantal culture, adoption into a divine lineage meant being re-begotten into the nature of the Father. The divine sonship of the kings (Psalm 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14), Yahweh adopts the anointed king, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." The act of coronation and divine adoption was expressed as a literal begetting into divine governance. When early Christians spoke of becoming "sons of God", they understood that a true son inherits the rank, domain, and species-identity of the Father. Hence, the early doctrine of Theosis of the Church Fathers is explicitly linked being "Born Again". Believers are adopted into Christ to become "joint-heirs" (Romans 8:17), then whatever Christ inherits by nature, the adopted sons inherit by grace. 1 John 3:2 says, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" The logic of John 10 that Psalm 82 meant real gods is precisely why Jesus invokes it when accused of blasphemy for claiming to be a "Son of God" (John 10:34–36) The Charge "For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." (John 10:33) Jesus's Response, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came... Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified... Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" (John 10:34–36). If the sons of God in Psalm 82 are not real divine beings, Jesus's argument loses its point. Jesus stands in front of them as the direct fulfillment of Psalm 82:8, the true, uncorrupted Son of God has come down from the heavenly realm to judge the other elohim of the nations and adopt redeemed humanity into the divine family. You can believe as you wish. It's just hoped you understand the argument before rejecting it.