Being formed into Gods of their own dominions

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

ex cathedra

Do you believe LDS doctrine can be presented in such a way by a current President of the Church it can be considered infallible?

Ex cathedra includes infallibility:

Quote

Ex cathedra is a Latin phrase which means “from the chair.” It refers to binding and infallible papal teachings which are promulgated by the pope when he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the Church a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals and addresses it to the entire world. The concept derives from Jesus

https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-does-the-term-ex-cathedra-mean-and-where-did-the-catholic-church-come-up-with-it

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/catechism/cat_view.cfm?recnum=2843

Quote

891:

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. 418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," 419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." 420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself. 421

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Doctrines of Salvation was never presented as binding doctrine required for salvation. Any error there in is a factual mistake, not an error that undermines the gospel. 

Quite the opposite in fact:

Quote

 

These words of President Joseph Fielding Smith should guide all of us in our gospel study: “It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.

“You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.

“Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.” (Doctrines of Salvation,comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 3:203–4; also cited in Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], p. 609.)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teaching-seminary-preservice-readings-religion-370-471-and-475/finding-answers-to-gospel-questions?

Edited November 18, 2025 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Do you believe LDS doctrine can be presented in such a way by a current President of the Church it can be considered infallible?

Ex cathedra includes infallibility:

https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-does-the-term-ex-cathedra-mean-and-where-did-the-catholic-church-come-up-with-it

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/catechism/cat_view.cfm?recnum=2843

 

I'm borrowing the phrase to describe the distinction in authority held by the President of the Church compared to the other Apostles. Doctrine wouldn't be coming from Joseph Fielding Smith in any sermon before he was The President. Only the President of the Church holds and exercises all the keys to establish doctrine and announce new revelation. The ultimate sanction belongs to the President, the Quorum of the Twelve, then sustain it.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I'm borrowing the phrase to describe the distinction in authority held by the President of the Church compared to the other Apostles. Doctrine wouldn't be coming from Joseph Fielding Smith in any sermon before he was The President. Only the President of the Church holds and exercises all the keys to establish doctrine and announce new revelation. The ultimate sanction belongs to the President, the Quorum of the Twelve, then sustain it.

I wouldn’t borrow the phrase since it includes meaning that we don’t believe in.

[Pyreaux]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

I wouldn’t borrow the phrase since it includes meaning that we don’t believe in.

Okay, it's not too late to edit.

[Calm]

On 11/18/2025 at 7:46 AM, Pyreaux said:

Okay, it's not too late to edit.

Impressive.  I find it unfortunately not uncommon for people to refuse to give up the new use of a old term they have adopted because they appreciate the implications the new application has for themselves and they discount the confusion or even offense at times the novel use of it in an unusual and not that well matched context can cause for others.  I appreciate you picked up on the problem and accepted it as worthwhile to avoid so easily.

As someone who loves to use language in new ways and love to see others using it, I very much enjoy adaptations such as you made.  It opens new ways of looking at old topics.  It can show appreciation of others’ ideas as well.

Unfortunately I have also seen confusion on both sides and even refusal to understand the other resulting from such uses, so when it comes to sensitive or complex topics, I urge caution.  And religious terms often fall into both of those categories.

Edited November 21, 2025 by Calm

[JVW]

On 11/18/2025 at 2:05 AM, Calm said:

I wouldn’t borrow the phrase since it includes meaning that we don’t believe in.

You say that but I've encountered a surprisingly large amount of members who believe that the prophet is infallible. They say in one breath that the prophet is a man and fallible and in the next that they will never disobey anything the prophet says and every time he speaks he is speaking for God and will never make mistakes or lead the church astray.

What's that old adage? "LDS doctrine is that the prophet is fallible but the members don't believe it. Catholic doctrine is that the pope is infallible but the members don't believe it."

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, JVW said:

You say that but I've encountered a surprisingly large amount of members who believe that the prophet is infallible.

My mind went to the same joke.   

And it’s one of the reasons I was thinking borrowing the word was so problematic.  We don’t need more language that leads people to be comfortable with treating the Prophet as infallible.  

[Stargazer]

On 11/3/2025 at 6:50 PM, theplains said:

The following question comes to mind when I combine the two topics, gaining a dominion and getting 
a planet.

Have you ever read Moses 1 in the Pearl of Great Price? I'd guess not, given your talk of "a planet". Just in case you haven't bothered, here's some context: in vision, Moses was shown the earth, its lands, and all its people (v. 27-29). Then from v.33 to 38, Moses is shown much more:

33 And worlds 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.

You see that it is way more than just "a planet." When the mockers mock, they like to strawman what an exalted being is given as a dominion. God goes on to explain this further:

34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.
36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.
37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.
38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.

As it says here, the Father has been creating worlds and populating them with his children for billions of years, and He'll keep doing it for billions more, without end, apparently. Why? Because that's His work:

39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Now, what do YOU think God's work is? Clearly He's not into kicking back and relaxing at his leisure. And when He finds those among his children who are worthy of taking up His work, they then inherit His work.

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. (Romans 8:17)

What does it mean to you to inherit what God has, to be a joint-heir with Christ? To get your own planet? How limited! We're talking universes here, not paltry planets. 

On 11/3/2025 at 6:50 PM, theplains said:

Will exalted beings create their own worlds and populate them with their own spirit children or 
will their dominions only be the world(s) that a previous Father/God created?

It appears that they create their own universes and populate them with their own spirit children. 

But don't worry about it. I'm sure He'll be able to find other work for you to do. 

[theplains]

On 11/17/2025 at 12:22 PM, InCognitus said:

You didn't READ what I said, which was "there is no such thing as a “Grandfather (the Father above Heavenly Father)”.  So your question has no meaning.

CFR where official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says there is a "Grandfather... above Heavenly Father".

The existence of Heavenly Mother is a doctrine.

How did she become a God?

Edited November 24, 2025 by theplains

[theplains]

On 11/17/2025 at 9:43 PM, Pyreaux said:

Appeal to Authority (or in your case a False Authority) into a False Dichotomy

The Church's stated position is that leaders are fallible mortals who speak "as men" outside of official, unified revelation. Any statement, even if factually incorrect, is not "false" doctrine.

Yes, but fallible leaders can lead people astray with false teachings.
 

On 11/17/2025 at 9:43 PM, Pyreaux said:

Do you mean "lead people astray" is to lead them away from salvation? It nullifies the Atonement, invalidates covenants, or prevents a person from reaching the Celestial Kingdom? Or just leading away from factual accuracy? Believing it or disbelieving it (like getting a planet) does not affect salvation, temple covenants, or worthiness. Therefore, it does not "lead people astray" in a theological sense that matters.

I believe worshipping a false God will not lead to one's salvation. Jehovah's Witnesses, for
example, teach Michael the Archangel provided the atonement.  In this case, their belief in
the atonement is nullified.

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, theplains said:

Yes, but fallible leaders can lead people astray with false teachings.
 

I believe worshipping a false God will not lead to one's salvation. Jehovah's Witnesses, for
example, teach Michael the Archangel provided the atonement.  In this case, their belief in
the atonement is nullified.

So you disagree with CS Lewis?

Quote

But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of Thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.… Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet have I been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.” C. S. Lewis, The Last Battle (New York: Collier Books, 1956, 1970), p. 164-165.

 

[InCognitus]

18 hours ago, theplains said:

On 11/17/2025 at 10:22 AM, InCognitus said:

You didn't READ what I said, which was "there is no such thing as a “Grandfather (the Father above Heavenly Father)”.  So your question has no meaning.

CFR where official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says there is a "Grandfather... above Heavenly Father".

The existence of Heavenly Mother is a doctrine.

How did she become a God?

Are you admitting that your "Grandfather... above Heavenly Father" speculation is not LDS doctrine?  Otherwise the CFR stands.  CFR where official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says there is a "Grandfather... above Heavenly Father".

[InCognitus]

18 hours ago, theplains said:

I believe worshipping a false God will not lead to one's salvation. Jehovah's Witnesses, for
example, teach Michael the Archangel provided the atonement.  In this case, their belief in
the atonement is nullified.

But you believe that the "homoousious" God that the Roman Emperor Constantine invented WILL lead to salvation?

[theplains]

On 11/25/2025 at 10:52 AM, InCognitus said:

But you believe that the "homoousious" God that the Roman Emperor Constantine invented WILL lead to salvation?

How do you define that term?

[theplains]

On 11/25/2025 at 10:49 AM, InCognitus said:

Are you admitting that your "Grandfather... above Heavenly Father" speculation is not LDS doctrine?  Otherwise the CFR stands.  CFR where official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says there is a "Grandfather... above Heavenly Father".

I think the LDS Church teaches many things in publications and General Conference that you 
wouldn't regard as official doctrine.

The existence of Heavenly Mother is a doctrine of the church so that's why I asked if you
believe she became a God and how.  You didn't elaborate on that.

Joseph Smith and others taught there was a father above the father of Christ.

The Prophet says: "If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father 
of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that he had a Father also." Then he asks: "Where 
was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a 
son?" 

The Prophet taught that our Father had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, 
especially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him?

Evidently his Father passed through a period of mortality even as he passed through mortality, and 
as we all are doing. Our Father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a Father, and since there 
has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father, until we come to 
a stop where we cannot go further, because of our limited capacity to understand. 

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation

"We were begotten by our Father in heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a 
previous heavenly world by His Father, and again He was begotten by a still more ancient father 
and so on from generation to generation"

Orson Pratt, The Seer

You may not also consider them as official doctrines, but do you view them as false teachings?

[theplains]

On 11/24/2025 at 4:57 PM, Calm said:

So you disagree with CS Lewis?

 

I didn't understand the imagery he was using.

[Navidad]

On 11/14/2025 at 4:51 PM, Pyreaux said:

It contains Joseph Fielding Smith’s personal views, speculations, and opinions on subjects that are not required for salvation.

Good afternoon. I am wondering if you would list for us from your understanding of LDS knowledge, those subjects that are indeed required for salvation. I have often wondered about that. I also am curious because when I ask my Evangelical counterparts the same question, they sometimes hesitate and provide contradictory answers. Thanks, Navidad.

[InCognitus]

21 hours ago, theplains said:

How do you define that term?

I'm out of state again (this time visiting my dad who is in the hospital), but it's really easy to respond to questions that you already asked, because I can just copy and paste the same answer that I gave you previously.  Do you really not remember my answer?  Or what's the deal?

You asked this same question in your post on 10/02/2024, and in that post you asked me: “What does ‘homoousios’ (consubstantial)" mean to you?   Maybe then I could understand how you see it as unbiblical.”  

And I answered as follows (in my post on 10/20/2024😞

It really doesn’t matter what I think it means, but what really matters is how Christians have understood and taught the concept and how they have interpreted it.

Originally, “homoousios” as it pertains to the Father and Son was explained (during the discussion at the Council of Nicaea) to mean that Jesus has the same nature as God the Father.  In other words, the Father is a divine being, and Jesus is a divine being.  Latter-day Saints would completely agree with that as it stands.  

However, that definition has morphed into the modern understanding that the three persons of the Godhead are “one being”, as shown in these Got Questions website definitions of homoousious and the meaning of the Trinity.

In the article titled: What is the meaning of homoousious? , the article discusses the Arian controversy that led up to the Council of Nicaea, and then it says of the council:  

“The bishops of the church discussed and debated the issue and finally decided by overwhelming majority that homoousious (‘same substance’) best encapsulates the teaching of the New Testament on the nature of Jesus. The Nicene Creed was the result of this meeting and reads in part, ‘We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.’ That last phrase of one being is a translation of the Greek word homoousious. The word homoousious is not found in Scripture, but the Council felt this was the best word to describe orthodox biblical teaching concerning Christ.”

Regarding the anathemas at the end of the first rendition of the Nicene Creed, Eusebius wrote “As far as the condemnation they attached to the end of the creed, it did not cause us pain, because it forbad the use of words not found in Scripture, from which almost all the confusion and disorder in the Church have come. Since then no divinely inspired Scripture has used the phrases, ‘out of nothing,’ and ‘once he was not,’ and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground for using or teaching them. We think that this was a good decision, since it has never been our custom to use these terms.”  

It’s ironic that an unscriptural word (homoousious) was used in a creed that forbad the use of words not found in scripture, and that word developed into unscriptural concepts about the relationship of the three members of the Godhead. 

The Got Questions website explains what it considers to be the essential biblical teachings of the doctrine of the Trinity in the article titled:  What does the Bible teach about the Trinity?   The article says:

“The doctrine of the Trinity has been a divisive issue throughout the entire history of the Christian church. While the core aspects of the Trinity are clearly presented in God’s Word, some of the side issues are not as explicitly clear. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but there is only one God. That is the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Beyond that, the issues are, to a certain extent, debatable and non-essential. Rather than attempting to fully define the Trinity with our finite human minds, we would be better served by focusing on God’s greatness and His infinitely higher nature. “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” (Romans 11:33-34).”

So the only aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity that the Bible teaches in a “clear” way (according the article) are that “The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but there is only one God.”  Everything else is “debatable and non-essential” because they are “not as explicitly clear”.   

And in the article, What is Trinitarianism?, the Got Questions website also concedes that even though they call Trinitarianism a “biblically-based” doctrine, it isn’t clear enough to require a strict understanding of the doctrine in order to be “saved”.  They write:

“We strongly hold that Trinitarianism is a biblically-based doctrine. We dogmatically proclaim that understanding and believing in biblical Trinitarianism is crucially important to understanding God, salvation, and the ongoing work of God in the lives of believers. At the same time, there have been godly men, genuine followers of Christ, who have had some disagreements with aspects of Trinitarianism. It is important to remember that we are not saved by having perfect doctrine. We are saved by trusting in our perfect Savior (John 3:16). Do we have to believe in some aspects of Trinitarianism to be saved? Yes. Do we have to fully agree with all areas of Trinitarianism to be saved? No.”

Again, I find it ironic that on the one hand the website proclaims that “understanding and believing in biblical Trinitarianism is crucially important to understanding God” (etc.), and on the other hand they say (as I quoted earlier in my post) “that there is no way to perfectly and completely understand it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain.”  It is thus "crucially important" to "understand" something that is "impossible for any human being to fully understand".  So we're all doomed!

A lot of Christian groups agree on the basic principles that were stated by the Got Questions website to be “essential” to the doctrine of the Trinity, but there is a paradox in the idea that each of the three persons are called “God” but there is “only one God”, and sometimes there are attempts at resolving this paradox using unbiblical means.

Some groups try to resolve the paradox by denying the deity of Jesus Christ.  Others, like the Oneness Pentecostals, claim that the one God has different manifestations, roles, modes, titles, attributes, relationships to man, that are the functions of the one God.  And groups that follow the decisions made at the First Council of Nicaea claim that the three are really “one Being” and that the “triune God of Scripture… possesses one indivisible essence.  There is only one Being that is God, and this one Being is tri-personal, with each of the three Persons having full possession of the divine nature” (see the Got Questions article:  How is the doctrine of the Trinity not tritheism?)

But this concept can’t be found anywhere in scripture. 

And in your post on 11/25/2024, you said:  "I don't believe the Nicene Creed teaches the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one being. You can interpret it that way if you wish. They are 3 separate personages but they are one God."

And in my post on 12/14/2024, I responded to the above by saying:

I don’t try to interpret the Nicene Creed at all.  Rather, I use non-LDS Christian sources to have them explain how they interpret it, because it would be wrong to misrepresent what other people believe and teach.

I quoted from the Got Questions website explanation of the Nicene Creed, remember?  In the article titled: What is the meaning of homoousious?, they quoted the Nicene Creed as follows:   “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.”

Do you think the Got Questions website is interpreting the creed incorrectly?

I also have several books on the Trinity to help me understand what other Christians believe about the Trinity (again, because I want to understand another person’s beliefs accurately).  For example, in the book The Forgotten Trinity, in a chapter titled "What Is the Trinity?", under the heading a "Basic Definition," the author James White writes:

"Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (The Forgotten Trinity - Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief, by James R. White (1998, Bethany House Publishers), p.26, emphasis added).  Incidentally, this definition is also quoted in the Got Questions article, Should we worship Jesus?

On the next page, White paraphrases Hank Hanegraaff of the Christian Research Institute, whom I often heard repeat this statement of belief on his radio show years ago (he was "The Bible Answer Man" before he converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church in 2017):

"[W]hen speaking of the Trinity, we need to realize that we are talking about one what and three who's. The one what is the Being or essence of God, the three who's are the Father, Son, and Spirit. We dare not mix up the what's and who's regarding the Trinity" (ibid, p.27)

In the book Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Robert M. Bowman, Jr, states a similar belief:

"Another aspect of God's oneness is the fact that there are no separations or divisions or partitions in God. The trinitarian doctrine holds that God is a single infinite being, transcending the bounds of space and time, having no body either material or spiritual (except the body that the Son assumed in becoming a man). Thus the trinitarian God has no parts. You cannot divide infinite being into components. The Athanasian Creed affirms that God is not divided by the three persons when it states that the trinitarian faith does not allow for "dividing the substance" (using "substance" to mean the essence or being of God). The three persons, consequently, are not three parts of God, but three personal distinctions within God, each of whom is fully God" (Why You Should Believe in the Trinity - An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses, Robert M. Bowman, Jr., 1989 Baker Book House, pp.12-13)

In the book The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, Robert Morey also makes a similar distinction in laying out certain expectations about the Trinity with regard to the Bible:

“1. We expect to find in the Bible that there is only one, true, living, eternal Being who is God by nature and Maker of heaven and earth.
2. We expect to find in the Bible that the one true God is incomprehensible.
3. We expect to find in the Bible that the one true God exists in three Persons called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."  (The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, by Robert Morey,1996, World Bible Publishers, Inc., p.60) 

So this is a common belief among many non-LDS Christians.

So why are you trying to reboot the discussion on this, over and over and over again, by asking the same questions over and over again?  At least it makes it easy for me to respond.  You can cut and paste and I can cut and paste what I already said in answer to your cut and past.  But where does this get us?

ETA:  Back to the original question.  Do you believe that the "homoousious" God that the Roman Emperor Constantine invented WILL lead to salvation?  Or do you believe it is leading people astray?

Edited November 29, 2025 by InCognitus

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

I think the LDS Church teaches many things in publications and General Conference that you 
wouldn't regard as official doctrine.

The existence of Heavenly Mother is a doctrine of the church so that's why I asked if you
believe she became a God and how.  You didn't elaborate on that.

Joseph Smith and others taught there was a father above the father of Christ.

The Prophet says: "If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father 
of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that he had a Father also." Then he asks: "Where 
was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a 
son?" 

The Prophet taught that our Father had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, 
especially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him?

Evidently his Father passed through a period of mortality even as he passed through mortality, and 
as we all are doing. Our Father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a Father, and since there 
has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father, until we come to 
a stop where we cannot go further, because of our limited capacity to understand. 

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation

"We were begotten by our Father in heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a 
previous heavenly world by His Father, and again He was begotten by a still more ancient father 
and so on from generation to generation"

Orson Pratt, The Seer

You may not also consider them as official doctrines, but do you view them as false teachings?

As I said above, I'm out of town at the moment, but I am already making a response to your other post where you said something similar to what you say above.  

Of course what you say above does not address the CFR for official doctrines, nor does it really address what you claimed to be doctrine.  And what I consider to be "official doctrines" isn't as important as how the church defines official doctrines.  So the CFR still stands for official doctrine that teaches what you claimed.

And if you want a sneak peak at what I'm going to say in response to what you say above, just reread the portion of my post on 05/26/2025 that deals with the source documents of Joseph Smith's Sermon in the Grove (the part that you never acknowledged), and how Joseph Smith was referring to God the Father's mortal experience in the context of making the statements about God having a father, and how God the Father was a divine being prior to his mortal experience.

[Navidad]

On 11/24/2025 at 3:57 PM, Calm said:

So you disagree with CS Lewis?

I am intrigued by your question. On the one hand, it gets into the wideness of God's mercy and what might happen on Judgment Day that would certainly surprise both Evangelicals and Mormons. It also may get into my personal belief that there will be no earthly denominations in the spirit world, afterlife, or whatever you choose to call life after death. 

Then there is the other perspective that Lewis is bringing a conclusion to a great novel with no intent for it to be a metaphor for the means by which our eternal destiny will be decided, or that service to Buddha is or is not the same as service to Christ. Not everything Lewis did was theologically motivated; neither was everything that Lewis believed theologically sound from a conservative perspective. If anything, he was a "Jack" Anglican - pun intended (from several perspectives)!

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Good afternoon. I am wondering if you would list for us from your understanding of LDS knowledge, those subjects that are indeed required for salvation. I have often wondered about that. I also am curious because when I ask my Evangelical counterparts the same question, they sometimes hesitate and provide contradictory answers. Thanks, Navidad.

Define "salvation".

[Pyreaux]

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

Good afternoon. I am wondering if you would list for us from your understanding of LDS knowledge, those subjects that are indeed required for salvation. I have often wondered about that. I also am curious because when I ask my Evangelical counterparts the same question, they sometimes hesitate and provide contradictory answers. Thanks, Navidad.

6 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Define "salvation".

Yeah, that is a thing. There is confusion as there are categories of salvation, in the very same source materials we all use. We get lost by binary thinking (of saved and not saved, heaven or hell) to things that are a spectrum, or "degrees", if you will.

Saved from Hades

The Resurrection of Christ saved all of us from death, that is unconditional. Christ taught "all that are in the graves shall hear [the Father's] voice and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of of damnation" (John 5:29). Thus, resurrection saves our spirits from an eternal separation from our bodies after physical death.

Save by Justification

Justification, having the punishment of sins waived, on the condition of faith alone. Not any works can undo sin, Jesus paid it on our behalf. Paul says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph 2:8) and "a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ...for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal. 2:16).

Saved by Sanctification

Individual purification makes men holy by repenting. Paul says, "God hath chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thes 2:13). The conditions are works of repentance, "faith without works is dead" (James 2:26). Those who are "called to be saints" are "them that are sanctified" (1 Cor 1:2). Repentance and the baptism of the Holy Ghost (John 1:33), the baptism of fire (Matt. 3:11) and being born again (John 3:3-5).

Saved by Exaltation

Fulness of Salvation. Exaltation is Eternal Life, to live with God in the Celestial Kingdom and become like Him, living the kind of life God lives, with the opportunity for eternal increase. A conditional gift, "ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved" (Matt. 10:22). "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne" (Rev. 3:21).

The Required Knowledge for Salvation

Required knowledge is a bit more complex. Joseph Smith taught that "it is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance" (D&C 131:6), and that we are saved "no faster than he gets knowledge". This knowledge would include the fundamental principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; Faith in Jesus Christ, Repentance, Baptism, receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and receiving all temple ordinances and covenants (like the endowment and sealing), and enduring to the end in faithfulness.

For those who do not hear the gospel in this life (like infants, or those without access to teaching), they are saved/resurrected by God's grace and are judged according to the knowledge and law they had (Light of Christ). For those who do hear the gospel during their mortal lives, the requirement is to exercise faith in Jesus Christ, which includes repentance.

There is other important knowledge, the Plan of Salvation, the nature of God, the role of Jesus Christ, and the finer principles behind Faith, Repentance, Baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost. Knowledge and understandings of the saving ordinances and covenants of the Gospel.

"Ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age.... Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." (Hebrews 5:12-6:2).

The key takeaway is that it is the revealed nature of God (God has a body, He is a Personage) that is considered essential doctrine, but the specific, unrevealed details of His past progression or origin are non-essential and often fall into the category of speculation.

[ZealouslyStriving]

11 hours ago, Navidad said:

Good afternoon. I am wondering if you would list for us from your understanding of LDS knowledge, those subjects that are indeed required for salvation. I have often wondered about that. I also am curious because when I ask my Evangelical counterparts the same question, they sometimes hesitate and provide contradictory answers. Thanks, Navidad.

- If by "salvation" you mean not forever burning in the pits of a lake burning with fire and brimstone:

* Be born

* Don't commit blasphemy against the Holy Ghost

- If by "salvation" you mean living eternally with our Father, together with our families, in a state of eternal learning and progression (what we call "exaltation"):

* Faith in Jesus Christ

* Repentance from sins

* Baptism by immersion by one having authority and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

* Receiving and keeping covenants entered into in Temples- including sealing in marriage

* Enduring faithful until the end

Edited November 29, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Navidad]

22 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Define "salvation".

I am not the one who used the word salvation in the context of this thread. How I define it doesn't really matter. My question was specific to the LDS perspective on salvation, which I understand to be redemption and exaltation, both of which are in some way related to glorification both here on earth and afterward. If it does indeed matter, I would simply use the word "sanctification" in place of "exaltation." All the rest is the same for me. I may be in error or incomplete in my concept of LDS salvation. That is why I asked. I continue to desire to refine my knowledge of LDS doctrine, even thought to some degree it continues to be something of a scattergram, as is often the truth among non-LDS Christian groups.