Being formed into Gods of their own dominions

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

There is one God, eternally existing as 3 divine personages. How that is possible, I cannot
comprehend.

By the way, Latter-day Saints also believe there is one God, eternally existing, and consisting of 3 divine personages.  We just agree with Jesus when he prayed to the Father for his disciples to be "one, even as we are one" instead of trying to assign some mystical meaning to how the three are "one".  Using Jesus' definition it is both comprehensible and biblical at the same time.

[theplains]

On 12/1/2025 at 4:10 PM, Calm said:

Brother McConkie named his own book Mormon Doctrine against the First Presidency’s wishes, so he tended to be rather grandiose in how he phrased somethings.  I am grateful that apostles are more cautious these days. 

They need to be cautious so as not to play whac-a-mole with past LDS teachings.

 

[theplains]

On 12/1/2025 at 4:41 PM, teddyaware said:

If those believers in Christ who overcome the world by faith are “made partakers of the divine nature,” so much so that they become “the sons of God” and “joint heirs with Christ” in all things that he himself possesses, even to the point that they will be crowned kings in heaven entrusted with the scepter of divine authority, and also the most extraordinary right to be seated upon the very throne of Christ’s holy dominion and power, therefore in what remaining ways will these exalted individuals still not measure up to “the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ?”

If I am not mistaken, I think you believe you were made partakers of the divine nature when you were
born to heavenly parents prior to coming to earth.

If you study Romans 8, there are no sons of God who are not also "joint heirs with Christ".
 

On 12/1/2025 at 4:41 PM, teddyaware said:

And please refrain from claiming that we Latter-Day believe we will eventually supplant Christ and that he will no longer be our God because that false notion is most definitely NOT what we believe! So in what specific ways will those who are enthroned as the sons of God not inherit all things that Christ himself possesses? Again, please be very specific as to which specific divine attributes those who overcome the world will still be found lacking?

I don't believe LDS believe they will supplant (take the place of) Christ, but it is taught they will
"have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion,
and knowledge" (Gospel Principles).  You might even be greater than Heavenly Father if you
have more spirit children, create more worlds, and enable more of your children to become Gods
themselves.

God will never cease to be our God. But Latter-day Saints believe they will become Gods in the 
future and have spirit children. The God of those children will be the one by whom they were 
begotten and born. Take yourself for example: your God is not the Father of Heavenly Father, 
because he did not beget you.

 

Edited December 3, 2025 by theplains

[theplains]

On 12/1/2025 at 8:01 PM, InCognitus said:

By the way, Latter-day Saints also believe there is one God, eternally existing, and consisting of 3 divine personages.  We just agree with Jesus when he prayed to the Father for his disciples to be "one, even as we are one" instead of trying to assign some mystical meaning to how the three are "one".  Using Jesus' definition it is both comprehensible and biblical at the same time.

[1] "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct 
personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: 
and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods".

[2] "That which is without body or parts is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God 
who has flesh and bones".

Teachings of Joseph Smith, chapter 2

Comment on [1] - three Gods in the Godhead.

Comment on [2] - the Holy Spirit is not God or he is God with flesh and bones.

[theplains]

On 12/1/2025 at 5:58 PM, InCognitus said:

You are asserting your beliefs, but you are still not answering the question, which was this:

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?

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." 

But in my last post I included several statements from modern Christian sources where they are interpreting the Nicene Creed as teaching the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is "one being"*.   Do you believe that those who believe such things are being led astray by the word "homoousious" that the Roman Emperor Constantine added to the Nicene Creed and then later Roman emperors required that all people believe it? 

* Sources:  The Got Questions website, The Forgotten Trinity - Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief, by James R. White (1998, Bethany House Publishers), p.26-27, Why You Should Believe in the Trinity - An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses, Robert M. Bowman, Jr., 1989 Baker Book House, pp.12-13, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, by Robert Morey,1996, World Bible Publishers, Inc., p.60).

I'll address this more later, possibly in a separate thread or in our other ongoing threads.
 

On 12/1/2025 at 5:58 PM, InCognitus said:

But only you seem to be teaching that Mother, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are spirit children of their respective heavenly parents.  Are you the one trying to lead people astray?  That's what it seems like to me.

You can't seem to come up with any sources where The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches what you said above.

Are you saying here that you can't back up your claims about our doctrine and are withdrawing those claims?  Otherwise the CFR still stands.

And, I didn't ask for a CFR that specifically uses the phrase "this is official doctrine".  Are you trying to lead people astray about what I asked for?  You know what I asked. 

I provided several sources where LDS leaders taught there was a father above Heavenly Father,
but you never explain where you believe Heavenly Mother came from and how she became a God.  

Maybe you don't believe "heavenly parents" is an official doctrine of the LDS Church?

As for the LDS teaching of the Holy Spirit being a son of heavenly parents: 

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the Holy Ghost is a spirit man, a 
spirit son of God the Father. It is fundamental Church doctrine that God is the Father of the 
spirits of all men and women" (Encyclopedia of Mormonism).

https://eom.byu.edu/index.php?title=Holy_Ghost

"The Holy Ghost is a man; he is one of the sons of our Father and our God; and he is that man 
that stood next to Jesus Christ" (Journal of Discourses, volume 5, page 179).

If you believe teaching Jesus became a God is leading people astray, then let me know.

[InCognitus]

22 minutes ago, theplains said:

On 12/1/2025 at 6:01 PM, InCognitus said:

By the way, Latter-day Saints also believe there is one God, eternally existing, and consisting of 3 divine personages.  We just agree with Jesus when he prayed to the Father for his disciples to be "one, even as we are one" instead of trying to assign some mystical meaning to how the three are "one".  Using Jesus' definition it is both comprehensible and biblical at the same time.

[1] "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct 
personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: 
and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods".

This does nothing to disprove that the three personages are also "one God" in the Godhead.  The doctrine of the Trinity makes the same distinction (three personages), but they make the error of combining them into one being (using an unbiblical word added to the creed by Constantine), whereas Jesus prayed to his Father for his disciples to be "one, even as we are one".  So, at least Jesus believed that his disciples (separate and distinct personages) could also be "one" with him and his Father, in the same way Jesus was "one" with him.  Maybe you should teach the Nicene Creed doctrine to Jesus?

In addition, Jesus considered God the Father to be his own God, showing that they are separate Gods, even though they are "one God" in the unity way described in John 17:11, 20-23.  The Bible clearly teaches that God the Father is the very God and Father of Jesus Christ (John 20:17, Romans 15:6, 1 Corinthians 11:3,  2 Corinthians 11:31, Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians 1:17; Hebrews 1:8-9, 1 Peter 1:3, Revelation 3:12), and Jesus is even said to be eternally subject to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28).

32 minutes ago, theplains said:

[2] "That which is without body or parts is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God 
who has flesh and bones".

Teachings of Joseph Smith, chapter 2

The context of that statement was specifically about God the Father among sectarian beliefs:

“OBSERVATION OF THE SECTARIAN GOD.—That which is without body, parts and passions is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones. John 5:26. As the Father hath life in himself, even so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. God the Father took life unto himself precisely as Jesus did.”  

Obviously Joseph Smith considered the premortal Jesus to be God (the Book of Mormon teaches that), as well as the Holy Spirit, so your use of that quote to make his statement apply to all other beings in heaven apart from God the Father is taking the statement out of context.

[InCognitus]

20 minutes ago, theplains said:

On 12/1/2025 at 3:58 PM, InCognitus said:

You are asserting your beliefs, but you are still not answering the question, which was this:

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?

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." 

But in my last post I included several statements from modern Christian sources where they are interpreting the Nicene Creed as teaching the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is "one being"*.   Do you believe that those who believe such things are being led astray by the word "homoousious" that the Roman Emperor Constantine added to the Nicene Creed and then later Roman emperors required that all people believe it? 

* Sources:  The Got Questions website, The Forgotten Trinity - Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief, by James R. White (1998, Bethany House Publishers), p.26-27, Why You Should Believe in the Trinity - An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses, Robert M. Bowman, Jr., 1989 Baker Book House, pp.12-13, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, by Robert Morey,1996, World Bible Publishers, Inc., p.60).

I'll address this more later, possibly in a separate thread or in our other ongoing threads.

Please address it in this thread.  You keep avoiding this critical point.

My purpose in bringing this up is that you have a hypocritical approach of accusing others of being led astray by doctrines that (according to you) aren't taught in the Bible or disagree with your own teachings while modern Christianity has a boat load of doctrines that are unbiblical and based on teachings introduced by men and Roman Emperors long after the last book of the New Testament was written.  You are using a double standard.

25 minutes ago, theplains said:

On 12/1/2025 at 3:58 PM, InCognitus said:

But only you seem to be teaching that Mother, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are spirit children of their respective heavenly parents.  Are you the one trying to lead people astray?  That's what it seems like to me.

You can't seem to come up with any sources where The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches what you said above.

Are you saying here that you can't back up your claims about our doctrine and are withdrawing those claims?  Otherwise the CFR still stands.

And, I didn't ask for a CFR that specifically uses the phrase "this is official doctrine".  Are you trying to lead people astray about what I asked for?  You know what I asked. 

I provided several sources where LDS leaders taught there was a father above Heavenly Father,
but you never explain where you believe Heavenly Mother came from and how she became a God.  

Maybe you don't believe "heavenly parents" is an official doctrine of the LDS Church?

As for the LDS teaching of the Holy Spirit being a son of heavenly parents: 

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the Holy Ghost is a spirit man, a 
spirit son of God the Father. It is fundamental Church doctrine that God is the Father of the 
spirits of all men and women" (Encyclopedia of Mormonism).

https://eom.byu.edu/index.php?title=Holy_Ghost

"The Holy Ghost is a man; he is one of the sons of our Father and our God; and he is that man 
that stood next to Jesus Christ" (Journal of Discourses, volume 5, page 179).

If you believe teaching Jesus became a God is leading people astray, then let me know.

You provided NO source that taught there was a "father above Heavenly Father", and none of them were official teachings of the church.  You provided a vague reference to Joseph Smith's Sermon in the Grove, which I demonstrated in my post on 05/26/2025 was referring to the mortal life of God the Father, that he had to be begotten by a father.  The other quotes you provided were based on that statement by Joseph Smith.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

You might even be greater than Heavenly Father if you
have more spirit children, create more worlds, and enable more of your children to become Gods
themselves.

Incorrect. 

Heavenly Father (whether one believes in eternal regression OR royal monarchanism(?)) will always be greater than us. Any creative endeavor we may engage in the eternities will be under His authority and under the authority of Jesus Christ. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

They need to be cautious so as not to play whac-a-mole with past LDS teachings.

 

What’s wrong with playing whac a mole?  It’s fun.  
And energetic, gets the heart pumping and mind jumping.  Just need to avoid tacky music in the background.

We believe in continuing revelation so it’s good to see evidence of it, imo, of our leaders being inspired with new knowledge or new ways of looking at old knowledge as well as our doctrine of fallible leaders.  We as members, imo, need to be more humble and don’t assume we have all the answers, either personally or through our leaders vicariously.  I think if we felt we were to be more actively out there helping our leaders create a culture that invites revelation, our leaders would either be receiving more or sharing more that they now receive, but must treasure up to themselves for now.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

You might even be greater than Heavenly Father if you
have more spirit children, create more worlds, and enable more of your children to become Gods
themselves.

That makes no sense. If we are one with the Father, he is one with us and if all that he has, we will have, then he will have all that we have.

It’s hardly a competition or territorial battle.  It’s a cooperative effort, God’s glory grows as our glory grows.  We can never outshine him nor will we want to.

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Incorrect. 

Heavenly Father (whether one believes in eternal regression OR royal monarchanism(?)) will always be greater than us. Any creative endeavor we may engage in the eternities will be under His authority and under the authority of Jesus Christ. 

This is just speculation. Also, it sounds awful. You must serve the same person and only act with their approval…….forever. The only possible balm being that eventually someone will have to get your approval to do anything….though do you have to pass that up the chain too?

Yuck.

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is just speculation. Also, it sounds awful. You must serve the same person and only act with their approval…….forever. The only possible balm being that eventually someone will have to get your approval to do anything….though do you have to pass that up the chain too?

Yuck.

Yeah, working under the authority of a perfectly loving, merciful being who desires for us to reach our full potential sounds awful... just awful.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Yeah, working under the authority of a perfectly loving, merciful being who desires for us to reach our full potential sounds awful... just awful.

I read the scriptures and God is not the kind of boss I like to work for.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I read the scriptures and God is not the kind of boss I like to work for.

I have the complete opposite reaction, and believe it or not... I read the scriptures also. 😯😳

[JVW]

19 hours ago, theplains said:

They need to be cautious so as not to play whac-a-mole with past LDS teachings.

In a recent interview with the new First Presidency there is a moment where President Eyring says something to the effect of, "I'd like to venture to suggest a prophecy right now! That blah blah." He sounded so unsure of himself and like he was second guessing or just being naturally timid. A man who has been a special witness of Jesus Christ for decades and in the First Presidency for ages. Contrast that with what I hear about last night when Joseph Smith told a brother to close down his pub or he would go blind and the dude didn't close down his pub and dude later reported on a census that he was blind.

I wish our prophets behaved like prophets and not businessmen or administrators. They have the power to go around healing the sick and cursing the wicked and exposing secret combinations of brothers secretly stabbing the chief judge for power, but all we get is "family is important, go to the temple, and I hesitantly venture a prophecy".

Prophets should most definitely not be cautious. They should near rely on the arm of the flesh or fear what man can do because they have the Lord of Hosts as their front and rear guard.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, JVW said:

Contrast that with what I hear about last night when Joseph Smith told a brother to close down his pub or he would go blind and the dude didn't close down his pub and dude later reported on a census that he was blind.

Documentation please as this is a new one for me. 

[JVW]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Documentation please as this is a new one for me. 

Ward Radio video from 2 days ago. It's the ward radio guy filming and then like 3 other LDS YouTubers listening to the Moon's books guy talk about his first edition copy of the Book of Mormon that Hyrum Smith owned. He shows the receipts in the video. I don't have access to YT on the computer that I access this site on, so no link, sorry.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

Ward Radio video from 2 days ago. It's the ward radio guy filming and then like 3 other LDS YouTubers listening to the Moon's books guy talk about his first edition copy of the Book of Mormon that Hyrum Smith owned. He shows the receipts in the video. I don't have access to YT on the computer that I access this site on, so no link, sorry.

Not looking at the video yet, but thought maybe Chat could save me the effort and find the sources for me.  Story not located, but there is a liquor merchant in Nauvoo who was listed as blind in 1850 census.  His name was Pulaski S. Cahoon according to Chat…which makes things up to satisfy the customer.  

https://youtu.be/DP15Nh1Jew8?si=b3Mgd64pGrs1Z0vN

Story in video is it’s Hyrum’s Book of Mormon he gives to Reynolds Cahoon, a fellow counselor, who gives it to his son, Pulaski.  But it appears Hyrum sold it to him (they sold the book on missions rather than giving it away, so it sounds to me like it was a missionary copy rather than a personal copy of Hyrum since the inscription was “Hyrum Smith’s book” which could have been added by anyone if I understand correctly, not so cool as it being a personal treasure for Hyrum if so, it’s a bit odd if Hyrum charged Reynolds the going missionary cost if it was a personal copy as noted in Hyrum’s journal).

 

The family who had the copy were emancipated slaves in Missouri of Pulaski Cahoon, the former tavern owner.  Cahoon gave the family china, crystal, linens, etc along with the Book of Mormon when they moved north after they were freed, the report was the Cahoons treated their slaves as more like tenants.

He didn’t go into detail on that story like he did the provenance of the Book of Mormon, so impossible unless another source is found to tell if the story was created later after Pulaski went blind or actually happened.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/person/pulaski-stephens-cahoon

”

That  best  portion  of  a  good  man's  life  —  His  little,  nameless, 
unremembered  acts  of  kindness  and  love.  —  Ibid. 

Pulaski  Stephen  was  the  third  child  of  Reynolds  Cahoon 
and  Thirza  Stiles.  He  was  born  Sept.  18th,  19th  or  20th, 
1820  at  Harpersfield,  Astabula  County,  Ohio.  He  assisted  in 
the  construction  of  the  Temples  at  Kirtland  and  Nauvoo. 

He  was  married  to  Louisa  Leopold,  Feb.  9th,  1840.  Louisa, 
daughter  of  Valentine  and  Elizabeth  Leopold,  was  bom  April 
1st,  1822.  The  marriage  of  Pulaski  and  Louisa  was  solemnized 
Jan.  30,  1846  in  the  Nauvoo  Temple  by  Brigham  Young.* 

Pulaski  was  a  merchant  and  early  history  of  the  Church 
tells  us  that  at  one  time  Pulaski  wished  to  purchase  the  ship 
called  the  "Maid  of  Iowa",  which  belonged  to  the  Church 
but  Joseph  Smith  did  not  desire  to  sell  it.  Later,  it  was  in 
this  ship  that  Joseph  and  Hyrum  left  for  the  place  called 
"Safety",  previous  to  their  death  in  the  Carthage  Jail. 

John  Pulaski  Cahoon,  son  of  Andrew  Cahoon  of  Salt  Lake 
City,  Utah,  visited  with  the  family  of  Pulaski  Stephen  and 
tells  us  that  he  had  a  carpenter  and  leathershop  in  Missouri 
and  although  blind,  was  still  working  at  his  vocation. 

Louisa,  his  wife,  died  March  17,  1890  and  two  years  fol- 
lowing on  Feb.  15,  1892,  Pulaski  Stephen  passed  away

https://archive.org/stream/reynoldscahoonhi00shur/reynoldscahoonhi00shur_djvu.txt

Edited December 5, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

On 12/4/2025 at 4:00 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

I have the complete opposite reaction, and believe it or not... I read the scriptures also. 😯😳

Cool, I am gonna just opt out of working for the pro-slavery genocidal God. You do you though.

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Cool, I am gonna just opt out of working for the pro-slavery genocidal God. You do you though.

Deal.

[theplains]

On 12/4/2025 at 11:59 AM, JVW said:

He sounded so unsure of himself and like he was second guessing or just being naturally timid.

Reminds me of former President Hinckley's interview with Mike Wallace.

 

[theplains]

On 12/3/2025 at 6:37 PM, Calm said:

That makes no sense. If we are one with the Father, he is one with us and if all that he has, we will have, then he will have all that we have.

It’s hardly a competition or territorial battle.  It’s a cooperative effort, God’s glory grows as our glory grows.  We can never outshine him nor will we want to.

Does being "one with God" mean you are God or in the Godhead?

[theplains]

On 12/3/2025 at 6:33 PM, Calm said:

We believe in continuing revelation so it’s good to see evidence of it, imo, of our leaders being inspired with new knowledge or new ways of looking at old knowledge as well as our doctrine of fallible leaders.

What do you believe is the most significant false teaching of the LDS Church?

[theplains]

On 12/3/2025 at 5:42 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Heavenly Father (whether one believes in eternal regression OR royal monarchanism(?)) will always be greater than us.

Why?

[theplains]

On 12/3/2025 at 5:39 PM, InCognitus said:

You provided NO source that taught there was a "father above Heavenly Father", and none of them were official teachings of the church.  You provided a vague reference to Joseph Smith's Sermon in the Grove, which I demonstrated in my post on 05/26/2025 was referring to the mortal life of God the Father, that he had to be begotten by a father.  The other quotes you provided were based on that statement by Joseph Smith.

Do you believe Gospel Principles are official teachings of the LDS Church?