Continued - Ephraim, birthright, and the gathering

[theplains]

Hello @InCognitus

For some reason, I got the error message "You do not have permission to view this topic" when
I tried to view your last reply so I'll create this new post and capture what you wrote.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75766-ephraim-the-birthright-and-the-gathering/page/6/#findComment-1210217483

 

Quote

 

In your prior post you said you "believe all or most of the descendants of Isaac (the child of promise) know they are Israelites based on their records of 
family tree and/or traditions passed down from parent to children". 

And of course you can't document that.  It's pure speculation.  But given that those tribes were scattered among the Gentiles because of their continued 
rejection of God's covenant and their disobedience and departure from the faith (i.e. Jeremiah 5:19, Jeremiah 16:11-13, Jeremiah 29:15-19), why would you 
think that the things in Exodus 12:24-27, Deuteronomy 4:9-10; 6:6-7; 11:18-19 would even cross their mind?

 

 I believe that even non-religious Israelites can know they are descendants of Abraham through 
Isaac.  Accepting God's covenant and being faithful is not necessarily a prerequisite to someone 
knowing their lineage. I know that my lineage is Italian but I don't know if my Grandfather or 
Great-Grandfather was an atheist, Roman Catholic, or some other faith.

Exodus 12:24-27, for instance, is a memorial to be kept for the faithful Israelites and to have 
them teach the meaning to their children.  Non-religious Israelites may even know about this from 
historical records or tradition even though they don't observe Passover.  Reports of the exodus 
as well as a global flood is most likely known around the world regardless of one's lineage or 
faithfulness to God.

The land covenant is also emphasized in the passage : "And it shall come to pass, when ye be come 
to the land which the Lord will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this 
service".
 

Quote

So why would they be taught by their parents who they are?  Why would they keep a tradition of a God they have rejected?

They may not have a tradition of the God they rejected but I assume a child would know his heritage 
from his father.  For example, I only know I am of Italian blood because my father comes from Italy.  
This is despite me not knowing what faith, if any, my previous ancestors had.
 

Quote

In order for Israel to be gathered again they must return to God's covenant.  How are they going to do that if they are not taught the gospel of 
Jesus Christ, and how will they know who they are unless God reveals it unto them?

There are two types of gathering: a] spiritually into the body of Christ and b] gathering to their 
lands of inheritance.

I don't believe in a special gathering of first literal or spiritual Ephraimites or Manassehites 
to begin a restoration.
 

Quote

 

Jeremiah explains how the gathering is carried out:

"Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be said, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the 
land of Egypt;  But, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven 
them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers.  Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the Lord, and they shall 
fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks.  
For mine eyes are upon all their ways: they are not hid from my face, neither is their iniquity hid from mine eyes."  (Jeremiah 16:14–17)

The Lord sends his servants to find them and to seek them out specifically.

 

Jeremiah 16:15 is a reference of them being gathered to their land of inheritance from where they 
have been scattered to.  

"But, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from 
all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave 
unto their fathers" (15).

This has nothing to do by servants specifically identified as being of Ephraim's or Manasseh's 
lineage.  The time frame is also not specified as being after 1830.
 

Quote

 

The closest we can dome to this is an African tribe known as the Lemba people in South Africa and Zimbabwe, and they speak the language Bantu (not Hebrew).  
Modern DNA studies have revealed that a substantial number of Lemba men carry a Cohen genetic marker (Cohen modal haplotype), although some other studies have 
disputed those claims.  These people do have a Jewish connection and have Jewish customs, but your ideas about how this would play out for all the so called 
"lost tribes" (Reuben, Simeon, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Manasseh, and Ephraim) seems rather unrealistic.

Do you have any other ideas on how these lost tribes might be recognized on their own without God's help?

 

No.  But we may find out in the future.  

I don't believe that an LDS elder can give a patriarchal blessing to one of these people and tell 
them that they are a literal descendant from either this or that tribe.
 

Quote

 

Don't forget about Jeremiah 16:14–17 (that I quoted above):

"14 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be said, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of 
the land of Egypt;  15 But, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had 
driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers.  16 Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the Lord, and 
they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes 
of the rocks.  17 For mine eyes are upon all their ways: they are not hid from my face, neither is their iniquity hid from mine eyes."  (Jeremiah 16:14–17)

Israel is being sought out specifically, God has his eyes on "them", and he sends his servants out to find "them".

 

They are sought out to be gathered to the land that God gave to their fathers.  This is literal 
Israel, not spiritual Israel.  Also, these servants are not initially and literally from Ephraim 
or Manasseh either.
 

Quote

 

You forgot about Deuteronomy 33:17 which we also discussed several times in this thread, where Moses blessed Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) to "push the people 
together to the ends of the earth".   See my post on 02/25/2024, and also my post on 07/26/2024 where I also pointed out:

"Even in early Christianity, some of the early Christian fathers saw Christ working in Joseph in the last days in the fulfillment of the prophecy in Deuteronomy 33:17 
regarding the pushing together of the ‘nations' (for two such examples, see Tertullian – Against Marcion, Book 3, Chapter 18, and Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 
Chapter 91). "

 

The priesthood is not one of the blessings that falls on the firstborn son or daughter of each 
of all the families within all the tribes of Israel.

"His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like  the horns of unicorns: 
with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten 
thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh".

Some other translations have "gore" instead of "push" and "wild ox" instead of "unicorns".  
See https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/deu/33/17/t_bibles_186017

They tend to agree with the intent being made.  See Strong's Lexicon for "push" in that verse. 
H5055/H5056 (gore or push) is also used in other cross-references.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5055/esv/wlc/0-1/
 
"Now Zedekiah son of Kenaanah had made iron horns and he declared, "This is what the LORD says: 
‘With these you will gore the Arameans until they are destroyed.'" (1 Kings 22:11)

"Now Zedekiah son of Kenaanah had made iron horns, and he declared, "This is what the LORD says: 
‘With these you will gore the Arameans until they are destroyed.'" (2 Chronicles 18:10)

And "Through you we push back our enemies; through your name we trample our foes" (Psalm 44:5).

https://www.blueletterbible.org/niv/deu/33/17/p0/t_corr_186017

We find the same thing in Exodus 21:32,36:

"If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels 
of silver, and the ox shall be stoned".

"Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; 
he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own".

"Push" is a reference to gore.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/exo/21/32/t_conc_71032
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5055/kjv/wlc/0-1/

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/exo/21/36/t_conc_71036
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5056/kjv/wlc/0-1/

The passage that you refer to is not depicting what you believe.

While Judah would be the leader of Israel, the superiority of Ephraim over Manasseh was also 
confirmed.

Matthew Henry's commentary says, " It appears from the Ephraimites' contests, both with Gideon 
(Judges 8:1) and with Jephthah (Judges 12:1), that they were a warlike tribe and fierce. Yet we 
find the children of Ephraim, when they had forsaken the covenant of God, though they were armed, 
turning back in the day of battle  (Psalms 78:9; Psalms 78:10); for, though here pronounced strong 
and bold as unicorns, when God had departed from them they became as weak as other men".

See https://www.studylight.org/commentary/deuteronomy/33-17.html
 

Quote

And Zechariah 10:6-12 shows that the Lord prepares the house of Joseph and Ephraim specifically to do this by sowing them among the nations, and "they shall 
live with their children, and turn again".  Then the Lord begins the gathering, starting with them.

Zechariah 10 speaks of the restoration of Judah and Israel (the northern and southern kingdoms).  
This is again alluded to in Ezekiel 37:15-28.  This is clearly identified in verses 21-22.

"And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among 
the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their 
own land: And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king 
shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided 
into two kingdoms any more at all".

Zechariah 10 doesn't mention Ephraim being gathered first.

You make the mistake by interpreting "them" (verses 8-12) as only "Ephraim" and not any of all 
the other tribes.  Even "Judah" (in verse 3) is not only the tribe of Judah, but rather the southern 
kingdom.

"Mine anger was kindled against the shepherds, and I punished the goats: for the Lord of hosts 
hath visited his flock the house of Judah, and hath made them as his goodly horse in the battle".

The northern kingdom (representative of Ephraim) is never specifically referred to as the flock 
of God.

We see special emphasis on Judah again in Isaiah 5:7 ("For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is 
the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but 
behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry").
 

Quote

 

But the question you asked was: "How is the symbolism of the brazen sea the same in the Old Testament as in LDS temples?"

The symbolism is the same.  Both are for cleansing and purification, and the twelve oxen with three each facing the four directions (north, south, east, 
and west) represent the gathering of the twelve tribes of Israel. The same symbolism of the old temple is used in the new, which is now for the baptismal 
purification on behalf of the dead.

 

You failed to consider the symbolism representing the people who were not permitted to enter the 
brazen sea: all Israelite women, all Israelite men who did not belong to the Aaronic/Levitical 
Priesthood, and all the Gentiles.
 

Quote

 

"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give 
him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it."  (Revelation 2:17)

Right, so let's connect everything that a person is expected to keep private to the Freemasons.

 

This is not about LDS temple workers giving men and women who participate in a temple ordinance 
a new name like Jane or John without the white stone.  

You are right.  This are expected to keep this name private.  But it is rumored that all the men 
are given the same name, and likewise for the women, on that day.  Male and female names alternate 
for the next round of initiates.  I'm not sure how many names are in the rotation throughout the 
year.  So it's like semi-private.  The temple worker knows all the names and they are the same. 
I cannot prove this but it's what I hear from ex-Mormons.
 

Quote

 

"The cult of Christ is a secret society whose members huddle together in corners for fear of being brought to trial and punishment.  Their persistence is the 
persistence of a group threatened by a common danger, and danger is a more powerful incentive to fraternal feeling than is any oath.  As to their doctrine, it 
was originally barbarian, and while even barbarians are capable of discovering truth, it happens to be the case that Greeks are best equipped to judge the merit 
of what passes for truth these days.  They also practice their rites in secret in order to avoid the sentence of death that looms over them."    (Celsus On the 
True Doctrine – A Discourse Against the Christians, translated by R. Joseph Hoffmann, Oxford University Press, 1987, p.53)

Minucius Felix (between 200 and 250 AD), one of the earliest Latin apologists for Christianity, wrote a dialogue on Christianity between the pagan Caecilius 
Natalis and the Christian, Octavius Januarius.  He records Caecilius Natalis as saying the following against Christians:

"They know one another by secret marks and insignia, and they love one another almost before they know one another. Everywhere also there is mingled among them 
a certain religion of lust, and they call one another promiscuously brothers and sisters, that even a not unusual debauchery may by the intervention of that 
sacred name become incestuous: it is thus that their vain and senseless superstition glories in crimes."  (Minucius Felix—Octavius Chapter 9)

Lactantius (c.250 – c.325), a North African Christian apologist, wrote the following:

"This is the doctrine of the holy prophets which we Christians follow; this is our wisdom, which they who worship frail objects, or maintain an empty philosophy, 
deride as folly and vanity, because we are not accustomed to defend and assert it in public, since God orders us in quietness and silence to hide His secret, and 
to keep it within our own conscience; and not to strive with obstinate contention against those who are ignorant of the truth, and who rigorously assail God and 
His religion not for the sake of learning, but of censuring and jeering. For a mystery ought to be most faithfully concealed and covered, especially by us, who 
bear the name of faith. But they accuse this silence of ours, as though it were the result of an evil conscience; whence also they invent some detestable things 
respecting those who are holy and blameless, and willingly believe their own inventions."  (Lactantius—Divine Institutes Book 7 Ch. 26, paragraph 3)

The early Christians must have gotten their secret marks and secret rites from the Freemasons too, right?  (No doubt you think so.)

 

This secrecy was for protection.  Sacred things were not kept secret or withheld from fellow 
Christians.  But this secret keeping, where persecution is not in question, is contrary to what 
we see in the LDS Church.  Temple-going Latter-day Saints keep secrets from all other non-temple-going 
saints.  In America, where we have the freedom to gather and worship, our churches don't engage in 
secret marks or rites.  We most likely see this continuing in places like China and Russia though.

An applicable verse to some in the LDS Church and all outside it is Matthew 7:6 ("Give not that 
which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under 
their feet, and turn again and rend you").
 

Quote

And of course neither the Great Commission nor what the disciples did in the temple prior to its destruction around 70 A.D. had anything to do with the temple 
rites that were administered among the early Christians, as I have repeatedly said throughout this thread.  So what is your point exactly?

The disciples only gathered in the temple for prayer and worship. Temple ordinances were only 
performed by the Levitical priests.

Acts 15:10 says, "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, 
which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"

This verse is part of the discussion during the Jerusalem Council, where the early church leaders 
were deciding whether Gentile converts needed to follow the Law of Moses. Peter is speaking here, 
emphasizing that they shouldn't impose the same burdens on the Gentile converts that even their 
ancestors struggled to bear".
 

Quote

In case you didn't know, the early Christians also had secrets rites that aren't in the Old or New Testament scripture (as noted above).  Why would you think 
they would be stupid enough to publish those secrets in the Old or New Testaments for all to see?  (Obviously they must have gotten that from Freemasonry too, 
of course).

Maybe you consider the Old Testament writers stupid for describing all that adorned the temple or 
what the priests did therein.   It was all sacred but it was not a secret.

Supposedly it was all a secret in the Book of Mormon because you don't hear a peep about the inside 
of a temple. You don't even have any mention of the Nephites observing traditional Jewish festivals, 
such as Passover or the Feast of Tabernacles.  Now that's what I call a secret.
 

Quote

So prior to Israel breaking their covenants on Mount Sinai, where are the commandments written down on when and how to make offerings explained?

The commandments as we know it do not come into existence until the Law of Moses. Instructions 
on offerings and sacrifices were not explicitly detailed in written form as they were later in 
the Law of Moses.  

The giving of offerings is not widespread prior to the Mosaic Law as you believe.  While no 
individuals are specifically mentioned in the Book of Mormon, the Bible identifies key figures as 
making offerings: Cain, Abel, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  The Pearl of Great Price only mentions 
Adam, Cain, and Abel.

The story of Adam offering a sacrifice to God is found in the Pearl of Great Price. Moses 5:5-6 
says, "And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should 
offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto 
the commandments of the Lord.  And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: 
Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord 
commanded me."

This post by LeSellers back in 2011 shows a statue that used to be (may still be?) in the Visitor's 
Center on Temple Square.  It depicts Adam and Eve offering what appears to be fruit (the offering 
of Cain).

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56085-temple-square-art-work/?do=findComment&comment=1209059315
 

Quote

Where are the detailed instructions leading up to why Noah built an altar to the Lord and offered burnt offerings on the altar (Genesis 8:20)?

 

They are not mentioned in any of the LDS canon of scriptures.
 

Quote

Or why did Abram build an alter to the LORD in Genesis 12:7-8?  Did these people just spontaneously start making altars and making offerings and sacrifices?  
Or did they receive some instructions from the LORD on how and when to do those things that we don't have in the biblical texts?   If it was just a man-made 
practice because it seemed like the right thing to do, then why did God continue some aspect of those prior practices in the law of Moses?

Abraham built an altar to the Lord as an act of worship and gratitude. No instructions were provided.  
As I mentioned before, the making of altars or giving offerings was not as widespread as you believe.

There is an example in the Book of Mormon where Lehi builds an altar of stones but there is no 
indication that he followed a certain pattern or received instruction from God (1 Nephi 2:7).  I 
don't find Lehi or his sons making any other altar after they are said to have arrived in their 
land of promise.  There is also no mention of altars or temples among the Jaredites or any such 
remains being discovered by the Nephites.
 

Quote

 

Here is one detailed example:  "Ancient Temple Imagery in the Sermons of Jacob", by David E. Bokovoy, in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint 
Faith and Scholarship 46 (2021): 31-46.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/ancient-temple-imagery-in-the-sermons-of-jacob/

 

In the Book of Mormon, there is no specific mention of Levite priests making offerings in the 
temple.
 

Quote

 

Mountain tops are often used as temples in the Old Testament.  This is also true for the Jaredites in the Book of Mormon.  See for example:  Why Did Moroni 
Use Temple Imagery While Telling the Brother of Jared Story?

https://scripturecentral.org/knowhy/why-did-moroni-use-temple-imagery-while-telling-the-brother-of-jared-story

 

There is no record of altars or temples among the Jaredites or them using mountain tops to give 
offerings to God.  

Only one mountain is mentioned in the Book of Ether, named Zerin ("For the brother of Jared said 
unto the mountain Zerin, Remove—and it was removed. And if he had not had faith it would not have 
moved; wherefore thou workest after men have faith").

 

Quote

Where does the Bible say that there were "no temples" from the days of Adam until the one is built in Jerusalem?

The Bible is absent of temples prior to the one in Jerusalem.  Abraham did not make the Kaaba (a 
temple?) as Muslims believe.
 

Quote

What was God's purpose at Mount Sinai?  What was the purpose of the tabernacle in the wilderness, if not for a temple?

The purpose was to establish a covenant with the Israelites.  The one temple in Jerusalem would 
become the one and only one sanctioned by Him.  There was no temple or tabernacle before the days 
of Moses.
 

Quote

We already know that the Old Testament, prior to God bringing Israel to Mount Sinai, doesn't give us any indication for why sacrifices and offerings were made (see 
Genesis 4:4; 8:20; 12:7-8; 13:4,18; 22:9; 26:25; 33:20; 35:7), nor does it tell us why Melchizedek was the "priest of the most high God" and Abraham just spontaneously 
decided to pay tithes to Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18-20, Hebrews 7:4-10).  So why would you expect it to tell you about temples too?

Sacrifices and offerings were made as an act of worship.  They were not commanded by God, as 
indicated in the Pearl of Great Price, until the Mosaic Law is given.

I agree with you.  Many "whys" are not answered.
 

Quote

 

The veil isn't done away.  The blood of Jesus lets us enter with "boldness" into the holiest place in the temple, "through the veil" (Hebrews 10:19-21).  
That's not going to happen if there is no "veil". 

Furthermore, veils were often present in early Christian places of worship.  See for example the photos and descriptions in this article:  The Development of 
Early Christian Sanctuaries, from Temples to Homes to Basilicas.

https://www.deseret.com/2016/5/14/20588586/the-development-of-early-christian-sanctuaries-from-temples-to-homes-to-basilicas/

 

I viewed it.

Roman Catholics (pre-Vatican II), Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, and some Anglicans/Lutherans 
traditionally had priests face away from the people during liturgy, symbolically leading the 
congregation in worship toward God.  Some even used large veils, but the laity could not pass through.

"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new 
and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; 
And having an high priest over the house of God".

The veil was torn from top to bottom as Jesus entered the Holiest by his blood. He became the 
way that we enter the Holiest too, without the veil but by the blood of Jesus. The Israelites, 
who were not permitted to enter the Holiest place, could now enter by faith in Christ.  They 
did not need the Levitical high priest anymore.  

Christ is the only high priest over the house of God.
 

Quote

The early Christian saints would have used similar resources for performing temple ordinances in the absence of a building constructed specifically for that purpose.

Besides baptisms for the dead, what other temple ordinances do you believe they participated in?
 

Quote

Right, which is why you say you don't build temples and ignore the office of priests in the New Testament.  But this is totally contrary to the New Testament 
intent for the temple as we have discussed previously and was shown above.

Levitical priests continued to operate in the temple ordinances prior to its destruction. 
 

Quote

 

I believe that God is the same today as he was in Bible times and that he directs his church today through revelation to men who are called by God, just exactly 
like he did in Bible times.  God has given instructions to his church today to build temples.  Consequently, when I read verses like Revelation 3:12 where Jesus 
teaches that those who overcome will be made a "pillar in the temple of my God", it fits right in with what God has told us to do today.

But for those who believe that God isn't the same as he was in Bible times and that God's revelations are confined to the 66 books of the Bible, things are different. 
 When they come across a verse like Revelation 3:12 where it talks about future temples and faithful followers of Jesus being told by Jesus that they will be made 
 "a pillar in the temple of my God", and those people aren't building any temples, they need to find a way to reinterpret that verse to not be talking about an actual 
 temple of God, but to make it be "symbolic of the Body of Christ, the Church" instead.  What else can they do?

 

I see only one temple in Revelation 3:12.

Miracle and revelation from God continue in our day. I believe in the same gifts of the Holy Spirit 
that were present in the early church.  But I don't see anything on the level of "Thus saith the 
Lord" to start adding to our canon.  I also don't see what was experienced in 1 Kings 8:10-11; 
where the glory of the Lord fills the house and the priests could not stand to minister because 
of the cloud.

I suppose individual groups could print their own Bibles and add what they believe to be extra 
revelations.  Or they could just consider sermons as revelation from God without the need to create 
a 67th or 68th book

The last thing canonized in the Standard Works of the LDS Church was back in 1978 I think.  Is the 
Doctrine and Covenants therefore a closed canon until something new is added? 

I may be wrong but most of the D&C deals with the time before the saints travelled to the Salt 
Lake Basin in 1847.  Very little is written between that time and our present day.

As the Apostle John said, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if 
they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books 
that should be written. Amen".
 

Quote

 

Right, but they will be ruling and reigning as co-heirs with Christ as pillars "in the temple of [his] God" during the millennial kingdom, as the verse 
says.  That's hard to do unless there are actual temples around during the millennial kingdom.

 

The co-heirs with Christ are taught by the LDS Church to be the Gods (the exalted beings).
 

Quote

Revelation 21:22 also explains why there is no temple in New Jerusalem, because "the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it".  This correlates with 
Revelation 3:12, where Jesus says the overcomers are made pillars in "the temple of my God".  In other words, the temple described in Revelation 3:12 is not the 
temple of God through the Holy Spirit (as it the word "temple" is used symbolically in 1 Corinthians 3:16 and Ephesians 2:19-22), but it is the actual temple of 
God the Father (the God of Jesus Christ).  The verse means that those who overcome will be in his actual presence of God the Father in the celestial kingdom of 
God (the holy place of the temple).

 Those in the two lower divisions of the Celestial Kingdom and the Terrestrial Kingdom are not in 
the presence of God the Father. They don't have eternal life as they had not endured to the end 
(2 Nephi 31:16,20;  33:4;  3 Nephi 15:9).
 

Quote

The New Jerusalem that comes down from heaven (of Revelation 21:22) is not of the telestial world, which is ministered through the Holy Spirit (D&C 76:86), and 
it is not of the terrestrial world (as it is during the millennial reign of Christ on earth), who "receive the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the 
Father" (D&C 76:77), but it is the celestial kingdom of God that is present on the celestialized earth.

The telestials and terrestrials will be moved somewhere else I suppose.
 

Quote

This also explains why temples are needed now (on the telestial earth) and why they will be needed during the millennial reign of Christ (on the terrestrial earth), 
because temples are dedicated and set apart as a sacred space where the things of the world and unprepared individuals are separated from the presence of God the 
Father who is through the veil into the holy place.  But all the earth will be celestialized at the time of Revelation 21:22, so that is exactly why no temple is 
needed at that time.

Faith in Christ's blood atonement brings us into the holy place without us needing to go into a 
temple or requiring the assistance of a sinful, earthly high priest who asks for signs and tokens 
that must be answered correctly so he can pull you into the proverbial presence of God through a 
veil.
 

Quote

And scripture being quiet between Malachi and the advent of John the Baptist is totally irrelevant to the question of the records of the scattered tribes 
of Israel, because the ten northern tribes were long gone by that point in the recorded history.

There were likely individuals from other tribes living in Jerusalem and its surrounding areas. 
This is because after the division of the united monarchy of Israel, some members of the northern 
tribes may have migrated to the southern kingdom for various reasons, including religious ones, 
as Jerusalem was the center of worship with the temple.  2 Chronicles 34:21 indicate some of the 
northern tribes were still in Israel prior to the Babylonian captivity.

1 Chronicles 9:3 indicates some of Ephraim and Manasseh lived in Jerusalem after returning from 
Babylon.
 

Quote

But obviously John the Baptist himself didn't go out to where the scattered tribes were located in the north countries and all over the world.

We don't have historical records of these prophets being sent all over the world to the scattered 
tribes, Jesus coming to them, calling 12 disciples, and then setting up a church among them.

The call of John the Baptist, whether he is equated with Elijah and fulfilled a specific prophecy, 
was specific to all the tribes (Isaiah 40:3).  I believe some of each of the twelve tribes was 
represented in the population at the time of Christ.  It's very improbable that 100% of all the 
population of the northern kingdom was taken captive to Assyria and none returned or managed to 
flee to the south before it was conquered.  Likewise for those who remained in Israel and/or were 
taken captive to Babylon and then returned.
 

Quote

Yes, the Israelites (and all nationalities) will inherit the entire earth, for they are among the meek, the righteous, those who are blessed of the Lord, and 
those who wait on the Lord (Psalm 379, 11, 21-22, 34).  But again, the verses you list for the land promises don't say anything about whether they are literally 
the seed of Abraham or not.  But given that Israel was scattered among all nations, maybe all the world has literal Israelite blood in them at this point?  How 
would you know?

The land promises to Israel were specific as to lineage.  And the land inheritance was conditional.

I suppose there is not a single person on earth that has 0% blood traces from Abraham in them as 
a result of cross-marriages throughout time. We should even have some blood traces of people who 
lived before and alongside Abraham.
 

Quote

I'm not the one mixing the blessings, scripture says that those who come to Christ become the seed of Abraham and are counted as "the children of the promise" 
(Romans 9:7-9, Galatians 4:28-31).  What is that "promise"?

That promise is eternal life, the same for all faithful Israelites and Gentiles.  But the blessings 
of the land inheritance is still there for a specific people.

As a believer in Christ and a non-Israelite, I don't have a specific land inheritance in Canada, 
the United States, or Australia.

In JW theology, only 144,000 receive an inheritance in heaven. The rest of the believers inherit
a paradise earth, no specific country or state.
 

Quote

Do you also believe there are only "seven churches" that ever existed or will exist, as discussed in the beginning of the book?  Or do you accept the possibility that 
even the numbers can be symbolic along with the other prophetic keys to understanding these things?

I believe those seven churches in Revelation were literal churches at the time. I don't subscribe 
to the notion that it is symbolic or that a church represents a church age.

Not all that was written to a specific church can be applied to the remaining six.  You can see 
this in the specific commendation and condemnation given to each.
 

Quote

The only parts of 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 that I said have already been fulfilled are the great apostasy and the man of sin being made manifest through Titus 
(verses 3-4) when he looted and destroyed the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD,  when he "opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; 
so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God" (2 Thessalonians 2:4).  He looted and destroyed the temple at Jerusalem and was 
"deified" for his conquest by the Romans, as I documented in my prior post.

When and who is the fulfillment of 2 Thessalonians 2:7-9?

I believe it is the beast of Revelation 13 and 19, whom Christ casts into the lake of fire at the 
Second Coming.

Satan is cast into the lake and fire after the end of the millennial period, joining the beast and
false prophet who are still there (Revelation 20:10).
 

Quote

 

This was the question:  "So if you believe 2 Thes 2 is referring to the beast mentioned in Revelation 19:19-20, then how is it that this beast began his 
work at the time of Paul (i.e. ‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work')?  Is the beast a man, or something else that can live from the time of Paul 
until the coming of Christ?"

Do you agree that Paul was saying that the man of sin (and his lawlessness) was already at work in 2 Thessalonians verse 7?  If so, what is that referring to?  
And given that it was starting in Paul's time how could there be any connection to Revelation 13 and 19?

 

The spirit of the antichrist can reside in different people at different times.  It began to work 
prior to Paul's time and possibly more so in his time.  But I believe there will be someone much 
more evil (two in this case; the beast and the false prophet) who Christ will cast into the lake 
of fire at the Second Coming.   The power, signs, and lying wonders of this man of sin (2 Thessalonians 
2:9) fits nicely with those of Revelation 13:7,12-14;  19:19-20. 

I don't see Titus having a role in the events above or those described in Matthew 24:15-31.
 

Quote

The fact that the Lord's people are his "bride" does not mean that they will never go into apostasy or be "forsaken" by the Lord for a time.

Do those in the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms make up the bride of Christ?
 

Quote

Daniel 2:44:  "And in the days of these kings [which kings? The kingdoms of the feet and toes] shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never 
be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall [after it rolls forth] break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it 
shall stand for ever."

I see the ten toes as the kings of Revelation 17:12.  This verse describes them as ten horns, 
which symbolize ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom but will receive power as kings for 
a short time alongside the beast. 

 

Quote

So in the context of 2 Thessalonians 2, how exactly would it make sense for Paul to ease the "shaken in mind" or those "troubled" that the "day of Christ is at 
hand", if he was merely referring to individual apostasy that was already happening all around them?  He had to have something much bigger or different in mind, 
would he not?

That much-bigger-thing are the mighty signs and wonders done by the beast and false prophet to 
deceive the people on the earth just before the Second Coming.

The beast and false prophet are present and active in this battle against the returning Christ:

"And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war 
against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him 
the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received 
the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake 
of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the 
horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh". 

 

Quote

You keep saying that, but you have never shown where the verses in Revelation 13 or 19 indicate anything about the great apostasy that Paul was talking about 
in 2 Thessalonians 2:3.  Furthermore, Paul said that the mystery of iniquity was already at work in his day.

Revelation 13:12-14: "And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth 
the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast. And he doeth great wonders, so 
that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them 
that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of 
the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, 
which had the wound by a sword, and did live".

Revelation 19:20 – "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles 
before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that 
worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone". 

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12: "Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and 
signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because 
they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall 
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who 
believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness". 

These future, lying signs and wonders may even exceed those wrought by the Apostles of the early church.
 

Quote

 

You misunderstand "total apostasy" if you think that the church going into the wilderness would disqualify that.  The priesthood keys were withdrawn and 
the apostolic leadership and direction in Christ's church as an institution ceased to exist.  The church of Jesus Christ was withdrawn from among men. 

This doesn't mean that there was a total loss of all truth or that nobody was ever led by the Holy Spirit during the apostasy (Joseph Smith and the Book 
of Mormon teach otherwise).  But Christ's church as he organized it ceased to exist among men.

 

Jesus did not come to create the church as an institution. Besides, high priests were a function 
of the Levitical priesthood. Christ is our only High Priest, of the lineage of Judah.  Ordaining 
deacons as young as twelve years old was out of the question. 

Polygamy and concubinage for the servants of the Lord from the beginning of creation until to 1891 
(D&C 132:1,38) was a no-no. David's wives and concubines were not given to him at the hand of the 
prophet Nathan and other prophets (verse 39).
 

Quote

And why do you suppose that the majority of Christians prior to the invention of the doctrine of creation out of nothing and prior to the first council of Nicaea 
(when Constantine added the word "homoousious" to the creed) believed and widely taught that God is the God over other gods, and that men become gods?

I think deification is more about the concept of believers sharing in certain aspects of divine 
life or nature without becoming a deity.

But I see LDS theology differently.  Heavenly Father, once a man, became a god and then went on 
to procreate his own spirit children before sending them to our Earth and other worlds.  Unless 
you believe Heavenly Father was a god even before he was born to his heavenly parents of another 
world and you too (as an uncreated, eternal intelligence) are also a god before you were born to 
Heavenly Mother and Father of Earth.

Unless spirits are birthed to heavenly parents in adult form, I see them born as infants and then 
growing into adult form. So one can say that the LDS being who would eventually become a God and 
Heavenly Father of Earth was an infant born to his heavenly parents. Same for his spirit sister 
who would become his wife in mortality.

George Q. Cannon, former member of the First Presidency taught:

"PROGRESSION FROM AN INFANT TO A GOD … That little puling infant may become, in the eternity of 
our God, a god, to sway power and dominion in the eternal worlds, to be the father of unnumbered 
millions" (Gospel Truth, volume 1, page 131).

Later he writes, "Man alone … By obedience he can ascend from this condition of existence to dwell 
with his Father eternally in the heavens to become, in fact, a god" (page 154).

In simple terms, gods are made (formed).

He teaches this again on page 107:

TO BE MADE GODS. God has removed doubts from our hearts and our minds concerning these things. We 
know them. The testimony of God is with us. He bears testimony to us that we are His children. And 
he wants to draw us to Him, in His arms of love. He wants to save us and exalt us and make us like 
Himself, clothe us with glory and make us indeed gods in the eternal world, wielding dominion and 
power".

Obedience and reaching a certain level intelligence was also a factor in ranking Jesus a God in 
the pre-mortal life. This is taught in the Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student 
Manual.

"He is the Firstborn of the Father. By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle 
of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent 
state".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/4-jesus-christ?lang=eng#:~:text=He is the Firstborn,state
 

Quote

To Him is placed in subjection all the host of angels and gods; He, the paternal Word, exhibiting the holy administration for Him who put [all] in subjection to Him."   
(Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 2)

Which God or Gods are the Brother and Sister Gods (of Earth's Heavenly Father) and Heavenly Father 
(of Earth) in subjection to?
 

Quote

The answers to what you are "trying to figure out" should be obvious from what I quoted previously in what you are responding to from my last post.  How can there 
be a God who made God the Father a priest if he is the "one Eternal God of all other gods"?  How can God the Father be made a king and a priest to another God if we 
become "kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before" us?

As I mentioned before, Heavenly Father is only eternal in the sense he was never created, he always 
existed. He is gnolaum.  But he has not eternally existed as God. I'll elaborate further in your
example of Jack the plumber.
 
One Christian view is that Jesus is the Eternal God. There never was a time when he was not God.  
Another view (the LDS one) is that he has not eternally existed as God but rather he was an eternal 
being who became a God.

The LDS Jesus constitutes a different Jesus.  

From what I understand of LDS theology, all the spirit brothers and sisters of Heavenly Father (who 
became Gods themselves), and Heavenly Father himself (who also became a God), were made priests and 
kings to their God (the Father above Heavenly Father and all his spirit brothers and sisters. Jesus 
Grandfather in simpler terms).

When other male and females of Earth are said to be made Gods (become priests and kings), Heavenly 
Father of Earth will be the God of these Gods.

When these newly formed male Gods on Earth begin procreating their own spirit children, they will 
attempt to make their spirit children kings and priests to God (to them, not to their Grandfather 
God).

When you use the phrase "one Eternal God of all other gods", you are only focusing on Heavenly 
Father's sphere.   

Do you believe Heavenly Father of Earth is greater than all the beings who became Gods long before 
Heavenly Father was even born to his heavenly parents?
 

Quote

Actually, Paul, in Romans 8:14-17 was teaching that the joint-heirs with Christ become exalted beings (i.e. "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be 
that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8:17)).

You forget all the other descriptions of the people in that passage:

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received 
the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, 
Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer 
with him, that we may be also glorified together. 

Only those led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.  These are the heirs.  In your logic, 
only exalted become Gods.

It should be worth noting what George Q. Cannon taught about glory and being glorified.

"The glory of God consists in the number of His posterity" (Gospel Truth, volume 1, page 116).
 

Quote

The concepts teaching that men become gods are clearly found in the biblical texts (and after all, God is a "God of gods").

There's a teaching which goes something like this:

"In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and 
concocted a plan to create the world and people it".

Who is that head God?  Is he the God of all the other Gods? Are these Gods of the past (before 
Heavenly Father became God of Earth), Gods in the present in other spheres, or children of Heavenly 
Father who hope to become Gods in the future or who have already progressed to Godhood in the past 
or present?
 

Quote

Here is a list of some of the early Christian Fathers that taught that men become "gods" or are deified (they are "exalted"), and taught that other "gods" exist in reality:

Moses and Satan are referred to as gods but they are not deities.

There are examples in scripture of being exalted but that does not mean being made into a deity.

I don't think the early church father had the following concept in mind:  "As man is [not a God 
now] God once was [not a God once]. As God is [now a God], man may become [a God in the future]".
 

Quote

So again I ask (with clarification), why do you think these earliest MAINSTREAM Christians taught that men become gods and other gods exist in reality, but later 
Christians did not?

Some Christians believe other [false] gods exist or that the gods in Psalm 82 is a reference to 
human judges. Moses and Satan are also referred to as gods.
 

Quote

 

As you well know the Bible never says that God has been God eternally.  We've already been through that.

Second, when a man goes to medical school and becomes a doctor, we don't say a "doctor" begins to exist.  The "doctor" title is a title that someone earns, and 
it does not mean he suddenly becomes a separate entity.  He's the same entity but has the title of "doctor".

Similarly, a God does not come into existence when a person is exalted and has the title of "god" or "God".  They are the same entity that they always were, but 
with added authority, power, and dominion.

 

Alright.  The LDS Heavenly Father earns the title of God, meaning he was not God "by title" before.

Here is a rephrase of Isaiah 44:6: "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the 
LORD of hosts; I am the first [doctor], and I am the last [doctor]; and beside me there is no God 
[doctor]".

And a rephrase of Isaiah 43:10:  "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have 
chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God 
[no doctor] formed, neither shall there be [no titles of doctor bestowed upon anyone] after me".

For me, based on how I understand the scriptures, God is always God and never needs to earn the 
title of God. There never is a time when he is not operating as Doctor. 
 

Quote

And in your example, the fact that Jack has existed eternally and then becomes a plumber, it can rightly be said he is now an eternal plumber (because he is).  
Your logic is flawed.

 For your Jack example, you are primarily focusing only at the moment Jack becomes a plumber.  You 
don't consider the time before Jack is born.  He is eternal but he has not always existed [eternally] 
as a plumber.  Before he goes to school and/or is certified as plumber and gains the title of plumber, 
he is not a plumber.  For example, I am not a dentist or electrician until I get all the training 
and certification and a license.

Being eternal + becoming a plumber does not equal "Jack has always existed as a plumber even before 
he started plumbing".  

Same for hockey.  John learns how to play hockey and the coach says you will always be a goalie 
from now on.  Has John always been a goalie?  Only from the moment his coach makes him the goalie.  
Was John a goalie before playing hockey? No. He didn't even know what hockey was or how to skate 
on ice before he was born.
 

Quote

Remember our discussion about "eternal life"?   When Christians say they have "eternal life" and start telling people that they have "eternal life" then we 
really shouldn't believe them, because their life hasn't existed eternally and they gained "eternal life" at some point.  Is that how it works?  That's the 
exact same flawed logic you are trying to use here.

Eternal life is not living life as a God, procreating spirit children and peopling worlds that 
are created.

I don't believe we have always existed. God created us.
 

Quote

 

It all comes down to this:

"The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw 
proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance 
in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon 
another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits."  (Teachings of the Prophet 
Joseph Smith, p. 354)

 

Did Heavenly Father institute his own laws for progression or did he just pass on the same laws 
that he obtained from his own Father so he could also advance to Godhood?
 

Quote

God has always been the "most high" God.  He has always been the God of all other gods.  He has always been the most intelligent of all spirits.  But he became 
our God when he proposed his plan for us to become like him, and we accepted his plan.  We made a covenant with him.

You seem to be referring only to the sphere in which you reside.  Unless you believe Heavenly 
Father of Earth is more higher than all the Gods before him, even exceeding his own Father or 
spirit brothers and sisters who went on to become Gods themselves.

Can you clarify this?  Are you only focusing on this sphere or all spheres in existence, where 
each sphere has its own set of Gods?
 

Quote

 

Remember how the Bible teaches of the creation of man?

Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground [body], and breathed into his nostrils the breath [spirit] of life; and man became a living soul."

God formed man's body from the dust of the earth, but the spirit of man came from the presence of God.

 

I understand the gnolaum principle, but I don't believe these spirits are pre-existent in adult 
form, somehow born with the help of a heavenly mother.
 

Quote

 

You say above that John 1:3 is teaching that "all beings are created through Christ".  Do you believe John 1:3 is teaching that Jesus created God the Father?  If 
you believe that Jesus created God the Father then what you say above is consistent.  But if you don't believe that Jesus created God the Father, then what you say 
above doesn't follow.

In what you say above you even include the stipulation that "there are no beings created without Christ being their creator".  Our physical bodies were created, but 
our spirits were not created (our spirits came from God, as I showed above).

John 1:3 is quite clear: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

This verse explicitly excludes things (or beings) that were not "made" (like God the Father and our spirits which came from the presence of God).  Remember, we are 
the same kind of being as God (we are his génos or offspring), as the apostle Paul taught in Acts 17:28-29.

 

I believe the Godhead [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] always existed. They have always been God.  
There is only one Godhead. Nothing came into existence without Christ's involvement. I don't 
believe a spirit became a God and then gave birth to several other beings who would progress into 
becoming Gods and heavenly parents of our Earth.
 

Quote

Other passages of scripture describe things that "fly" that don't actually have wings, such as Isaiah's "fiery flying serpent" (Isaiah 14:29, 30:6).  Jesus 
ascended into heaven, and he didn't have wings.  It's just not necessary for a person (an angel, a messenger of God) who has the power of God (or is taken up 
by the power of God) to need literal wings in order to "fly".

I wasn't there so I can't say if they had wings like birds or fins like fish that could assist 
when them leaping into the air and appear to be flying.
 

Quote

You also said in your post on 02/14/2025, "If the offspring of God are the same kind of being as God is (a god), how is it that those who remain single (the same 
offspring of God) are now considered angels, and not gods?  Does this mean they transition from having the same nature as God to adopting the nature of angels?"

I don't know.  In your doctor analogy, it might mean receiving a diploma or title.  I don't believe 
being made in God's image implies he has a head, two arms and legs, etc.
 

Quote

And now you are trying to put creatures that have wings (cherubim and seraphim) into the "angels" box just so you can support the modern Christian idea that 
angels have wings.  That's just silly.  Seraphim are described by Isaiah as having six wings, whereas later Christian art depicts angels as having only two 
wings.  So which is it?

Angels could be viewed as a different type of creation next to the seraphim and cherubim. The 
cherub above the ark of the covenant are depicted as having two wings each.

Do you believe the seraphim have six literal wings?
 

Quote

 

In Paul's teaching to the men of Athens, his use of the Greek word génos designated that we are the same kind of being as God.  It means we are literally the same 
kind of being.

And remember, you were the one who told me how his Greek audience would understand his use of the Greek word génos as "‘offspring' in the sexual case of literal 
reproduction for the Greek gods; like that which occurs between male and female."

So why would Paul use that word if he knew that's how his Greek audience would understand the word if Paul didn't intend that meaning?  Was he trying to trick them 
into joining Christianity?

 

Here is some commentary to help explain what this means:

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/god/what-does-it-mean-to-be-the-offspring-of-god.html

"Prior to Paul telling the Athenians that we are God's offspring, he quotes from two ancient poets. 
The two quotes Paul proclaims to the Athenians come from Cretan philosopher Epimenides' quote, "For 
in him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28a) and Cilician Stoic philosopher Aratus' 
quote of "We are his offspring" (Acts 17:28b).

Paul was utilizing concepts that could be understood by the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers who 
were present at the Areopagus. This was an advanced means of contextualization during Paul's time 
as he presented the truth of God in a way that was understandable to the Epicurean and Stoic 
philosophers.

In Acts, Paul was at the meeting of the Areopagus, and he was speaking to the people of Athens 
(Acts 17:22). While Paul is speaking to the Athenian philosophers, he says, "Therefore since we 
are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone — 
an image made by human design and skill" (Acts 17:29). In order to ascertain what Paul means when 
he says we are the offspring of God, we have to understand the broader context.

Who Are the Offspring of God?

During Paul's visit to the city of Athens, it was known to be a city full of false worship and 
idols (Acts 17:16). The people of Athens had not yet heard, understood, or accepted the Gospel 
of Jesus Christ. Paul traveled to Athens to help present the truth of Jesus' death, burial, and 
resurrection to the Athenians.

Acts 17 records one of Paul's discourses to the people of Athens. Prior to Paul telling the Athenians 
that we are God's offspring, he quotes from two ancient poets. The two quotes Paul proclaims to 
the Athenians come from Cretan philosopher Epimenides' quote, "For in him we live and move and have 
our being" (Acts 17:28a) and Cilician Stoic philosopher Aratus' quote of "We are his offspring" 
(Acts 17:28b).

Paul was utilizing concepts that could be understood by the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers who 
were present at the Areopagus. This was an advanced means of contextualization during Paul's time 
as he presented the truth of God in a way that was understandable to the Epicurean and Stoic 
philosophers.

In modern-day missiological studies, missionaries follow Paul's example of contextualization in 
order to help the lost come to know Jesus and other biblical truths. Paul utilized the modern-day 
Epicurean and Stoic philosophers' extensive knowledge of the ancient Epicurean and Stoic philosophers 
to connect them to the truth of the true God of the Bible.

The Stoic philosophers believed that human beings are God's offspring; however, despite believing 
that humanity was God's offspring, the Stoics did not believe in the God of the Bible. When the 
Stoic philosopher Aratus wrote of "We are his offspring," Aratus was referring to the Greek God, 
Zeus — not the true God of the Bible (Ibid.).

After Paul makes reference to Aratus' quote, he connects it with the true God of the Bible. Paul 
says, "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like 
gold or silver or stone — an image made by human design and skill" (Acts 17:29).

The Greek word Paul uses for "God" here comes from theios, "which means just a general deity that 
Paul has identified as the world's creator" (Ibid.). Paul is pointing out the truth that if the 
philosophers believed that human beings are the offspring of God, then how could human beings speak, 
move, and be able to have creativity if "God" was made out of stone (Ibid.).

Stone idols cannot speak, move, or express creativity as mankind can. If human beings are the 
offspring of a stone idol "God," then would not human beings be stone as well? Since human beings 
are not stone creatures, then it would attest to God being a living, true God as stated in the 
Bible.

This is the argument that Paul presents in order to facilitate the philosophers to think and ponder 
on the truth Paul was bringing to them. Philosophers during this time would literally sit around 
all day, think, and ponder on new ideas (Acts 17:21).

By presenting this information to the philosophers, he wanted them to think over the information 
and deeply ponder these concepts in their own minds. An idol could not portray God's Image because 
God is not made out of a stone. Mankind is not created in the image of an idol, but rather, mankind 
is created in the Image of the One and Only Eternal God (Genesis 1:27).

Paul was telling the philosophers that mankind is indeed the offspring of God because we are created 
by Him; however, mankind was not created by a mute idol in the center of Athens. To worship an idol 
was to sin against the true God of Heaven.

Continuing on, Paul tells the philosophers that in the past, God chose to overlook this ignorance, 
but now, God commands all people across the world to repent and place faith in Jesus (Acts 17:30). 
Paul also informs the philosophers that in the future, there will be a resurrection and a judgment 
to befall all mankind (Acts 17:31).

Some of the philosophers were interested in Paul's speaking about the resurrection of the dead and 
yearned to hear more; however, others sneered at Paul (Acts 17:32). There were some who listened 
to Paul's message and placed faith in Jesus, such as Dionysius, Damaris, and others (Acts 17:34).

Neither the Epicureans nor Stoics philosophers believed in a literal resurrection of the dead, 
which ultimately meant they did not believe in a future judgment (Ibid.). The Epicureans did not 
believe in life after death as they believed once a person passed away, their soul "ceased to 
exist;" however, the Stoics believed their purpose in life was to live in agreement with the logos 
("the law that governs the universe") in order to return to the logos when they died (Ibid.).

Both the Epicureans and Stoics had erroneous beliefs surrounding God, life after death, and the 
need for salvation. Paul shares the truth of God with the philosophers; however, the New Testament 
never gives a record of Athens becoming home to a significant church during the writings of the 
New Testament (Ibid.).

Athens was highly influenced by philosophies and false belief systems opposed to the true God of 
the Bible. Despite the town being highly shaped and molded by a pagan belief system, it is 
plausible many other philosophers and Athenians came to accept Paul's message of Jesus Christ in 
addition to Dionysius, Damaris, and others; however, we cannot be certain.

Who Are the Children of God?

Just as Paul tells the Epicureans and Stoics, "we are God's offspring" by quoting Cilician Stoic 
philosopher Aratus, we are told in the Bible, we are God's children (Romans 8:14). John 1:12-13 
says, "Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to 
become children of God — children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's 
will, but born of God."

At the moment of salvation, we become God's children. Our broken relationship with the Creator of 
our souls is made right by placing faith in Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. We are God's 
offspring because we are made in His Image (Genesis 1:27).

Being created in God's Image means we have the ability to speak, think, make decisions, move, be 
creative, and have free will. Every single person was created by God and each person is made in 
His beautiful image. God is our Father, and He wants us to run to Him".

I don't believe we are born in the sexual case of literal reproduction between a heavenly mother 
and father who are believed to have physical bodies of flesh and bone.
 

Quote

So, a child of God is not necessarily an heir of God.

A child of God, by adoption, satisfies all the conditions of Romans 8:12-17. You can't pick some 
of the descriptions in those verses and omit the rest.

These are the children of God:

• They are led by the Spirit of God.
• They receive the spirit of adoption
• They are the children of God.
• They are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ.
 

Quote

 

That's not just LDS theology, it's exactly what Paul was teaching in Romans 8:14-17 so it should be part of all Christian theology too.

As I was saying above, there are rules attached to receiving the inheritance.

 

Right. The children by adoption receive the inheritance, as heirs. Those who live in the flesh 
and not after the Spirit are not adopted as children in God's family. They don't live with him 
in His kingdom.
 

Quote

What do you mean?  You don't believe heirs of God "inherit all things" (Revelation 21:7) and they don't sit with God in his throne (Revelation 3:21), or receive 
power over all the nations (Revelation 2:26-27)?

As I mentioned before, the heirs are the children of God, by adoption (Romans 8:12-17).
 

Quote

 

Again, you totally misconstrue the meaning of Revelation 21:7. When Jesus says, "I will be his God, and he shall be my son" it is covenantal language, very much 
like Jeremiah 31:31-33:

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:  Not according to the covenant that 
I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband 
unto them, saith the Lord:  But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their 
inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."  (Jeremiah 31:31–33)

Does that mean that God is not the God over those who don't covenant with God?  Or does that mean that those who do not covenant with God are not the offspring 
(génos) of God?  Of course not.  The point these verses are making is that when we make and keep covenants with God, we will be "his people" or "his sons" in the 
sense that we make God our mentor and we follow him and behave like him, and he will be our God in the sense that we worship and give glory to him, which may not 
be the same for those who don't covenant with God.

 

There is a general sense of all being children of God (made in his image) and a more specific case 
(only those children by faith by adoption).  The passage of Romans 8:12-17 only refers to those by 
faith who are adopted in God's family. They are the heirs. You can refer to them as spiritual Israel 
(made up of both Israelite and Gentile believers).
 

Quote

 

All of the promises that Jesus makes to the "seven churches" (the entire church) include the future promises to those who "overcome", which includes humans (who overcome) 
sitting with God in his throne in the same way Jesus sits on the throne with his God and Father.

And the "seven churches" are representative of the entire church of Jesus Christ, with the church of Philadelphia being an example of situations that exist across the 
entire church.  See the Got Questions article, What do the seven churches in Revelation stand for?

And Jesus causing some humans to worship other humans isn't limited to the "church of Philadelphia" (which represents many of the people within Christ's church).

 

 Regarding the GotQuestions article:

The seven churches described in Revelation 2-3 are seven literal churches at the time that John 
the apostle was writing Revelation. Though they were literal churches in Asia Minor at that time, 
there is also spiritual significance for churches and believers today. The first purpose of the 
letters was to communicate with the literal churches and meet their needs. The second purpose is 
to reveal seven different types of individuals/churches throughout history and instruct them in 
God's truth.

I agree with the first purpose but not with all of the second purpose.

Some churches today are not defined by the descriptions below:

The church in Pergamos
"But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of 
Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things 
sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine 
of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

The church in Thyatira
"Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, 
which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, 
and to eat things sacrificed unto idols". 

Some of what is written to each church is repeated to the others. Some even believe the church 
of Philadelphia and Laodicea represent the last two churches in the final age leading to the 
return of Christ.

Jesus provides a promise to the believers in Philadelphia, which can be extended to all believers:  

"Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I 
will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which 
is coming down from out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name" 
(Revelation 3:12).

A similar theme is written in the letter to the church of Thyatira:

"And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the 
nations:  And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be 
broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father".

To Laodicea:
"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come 
in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with 
me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne". 

And to Sardis:
"He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name 
out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels". 
 
This theme of overcoming can be related to 2 Corinthians 6:16.  "… for ye are the temple of the 
living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, 
and they shall be my people".

One key description: "to those who overcome".  Not overcoming means missing out on the blessings 
and promises that the Lord has prepared for those who are faithful and endure to the end.  

These are they who will reside with God in his kingdom.  In LDS theology, many will not return to 
live with Heavenly Father. They had not overcome, endured to the end, or received eternal life.

But getting back to Revelation 3:9 ("Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which 
say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before 
thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee").

You said "All of the promises that Jesus makes to the "seven churches" (the entire church) include 
the future promises to those who "overcome", which includes humans (who overcome) sitting with God 
in his throne in the same way Jesus sits on the throne with his God and Father".

How do you believe women will be worshipped by those of the synagogue of Satan?

Would those in the synagogue of Satan come to the highest division of the Celestial Kingdom so 
they could worship before the feet of the exalted beings?
 

Quote

Isaiah 49:23: "And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and 
lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me."

This passage is about the restoration of Israel to their homeland: literal Gentiles assisting 
literal Israelites. I don't believe this is their gathering into the church.  But  maybe Later-day 
Saints interpret this as referring to the gathering of Israel in the latter days, where people 
from all nations are invited to come unto Christ and be part of His covenant people.

I think we can agree this has nothing to do with all Israelites being worshipped by those of the 
synagogue of Satan.
 

Quote

Isaiah 60:14: "The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of 
thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel."

I don't see the geography of the United States in Isaiah 60 or the future city of New Jerusalem
which comes down from heaven.  Do you?
 

Quote

 

Abraham 3:19 also teaches this: "And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there 
shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all." 

God the Father has created "worlds without number" and is the God over all those worlds, and he is not merely "the Heavenly Father of our Earth" (as you like to 
mischaracterize it): "[W]orlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only 
Begotten." (Moses 1:33)

 

From what I understand of LDS theology, Heavenly Father (of Earth) is God over all the Earth and 
over all the worlds he has created.  Similarly, all the Gods before Earth's Heavenly Father are 
Gods over their own creations.  Each God has his own sphere of creations.

Abraham 3:19 only pertains to Earth's Heavenly Father's sphere.

Unless you believe Earth's Heavenly Father is more intelligent than his Father or all the other 
beings who obtained the title of "God" long before Earth's Heavenly Father did.
 

Quote

Baurau signifies to bring forth; Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, ‘In 
the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods,' or, as other have translated it, ‘The head of the Gods called the Gods together.'"

How is Earth's Heavenly Father regarded as the head God of his Father God or of all his spirit 
brothers and sisters (of the same Father) who also became Gods either before or after him?
 

Quote

God the Father was a Divine Being Before He Became Man

Do you believe Earth's Heavenly Father was a Divine Being before he was born to his heavenly parents?
 

Quote

Now let me address the "climb up a ladder" statement.  Joseph Smith taught that even though God the Father is the head God and "more intelligent than they all", 
he still "worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling".  He established his kingdom and provided a way that others may progress the same way that he did. 

Were Heavenly Mother and Father of Earth able to become Gods and establish their kingdom without 
the aid of their heavenly parents?
 

Quote

Joseph Smith was teaching that God the Father is the Most High God for all eternity, but in addition he was once a man on an earth (same as Jesus Christ was) and that 
he became our God in the sense that he presented a plan to us (eternal spirits) and we accepted his plan to follow him so that we could progress to be like he is.

When the LDS God the Father and God the Mother were once man and woman on some other world, were 
they already Gods in mortal bodies?
 

Quote

Now will you engage what Joseph Smith actually taught?  All the Gods "before us" (compared to our place and time right now) became "kings and priests to God", the one 
God who is above all others and is the God of all other gods.

You keep repeating yourself on this theme but I think it would help if you specifically qualify 
and limit this to the sphere of Earth's Heavenly Father.  He is not a God over all the gods (spirit 
children) which pertain to the other spheres of His Father God or all his other Brother and Sisters 
who became Gods and their subsequent children.
 

Quote

But based on those references I quoted above (1 Thessalonians 1:5-6 and 1 Corinthians 2:4-5), does that mean you also see a difference between the way the apostles 
taught in the New Testament, where the truth of what they taught was manifest to those who were hearing or reading their words by the power of revelation and the 
Holy Ghost (the power of God), as compared to the way it is done in many of the Christian sects of modern times that argue back and forth against other denominations 
over the meaning of their own pet interpretations of scripture, wherein they claim that their interpretation is the correct one?

What can I say. Mormonism also split up into various sects, while not as many, with different 
interpretations too. David Whitmer would even go as far as writing "An address to all believers 
in Christ", documenting why he believed Joseph Smith as a false prophet.

https://dn721800.ca.archive.org/0/items/addresstoallbeli00whit/addresstoallbeli00whit.pdf

But from what I know, none of the Protestant sects teach we are literal children of heavenly 
parents, who became Gods some time in eternity past.
 

Quote

 

It's also a powerful reminder that Christ's church is built upon "the power" of God that comes through revelation about "the deep things of God", even "hidden 
wisdom", is it not?

And if the churches of today believe in a closed canon of scripture and deny continuing revelation, aren't they fulfilling what Paul warned us to "turn away" 
from in 2 Timothy 3:5, because they have "a form of godliness, but [are] denying the power thereof"?   Wouldn't that be true apostasy from Christ's church?

 

I'm not sure if you consider the Doctrine and Covenants as being a closed-canon as nothing has 
been added since 1978.  And as I said before, most of the D&C seems to deal with the time before 
the saints travelled to the Salt Lake Basin in 1847

Yes. This would constitute a form of apostasy.  We find a little bit of apostasy in the letters 
to the seven churches too.
 

Quote

What does your church believe about continuing revelation?

We receive revelation through daily or weekly sermons but we don't feel a need to canonize them.

We don't specifically identify certain individuals with an official title of Prophet or Apostle 
(uppercase) like we do for evangelists, pastors, and teachers (lowercase) even though they may 
act in similar functions.  

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, theplains said:

For some reason, I got the error message "You do not have permission to view this topic" when
I tried to view your last reply

The thread accidentally got deleted when Skylla was taking out the garbage (spam)

[InCognitus]

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Hello @InCognitus

For some reason, I got the error message "You do not have permission to view this topic" when
I tried to view your last reply so I'll create this new post and capture what you wrote.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75766-ephraim-the-birthright-and-the-gathering/page/6/#findComment-1210217483

The original thread has been recovered.  I'll be responding to your post in the original thread, since you seem to be repeating yourself again and some of your current responses haven't really engaged the things I posted about our beliefs, and the context of those prior posts is important.  I'll be out of state and away from home off and on for the next two and a half weeks, so it may be a while.