Moses 7:30-31 - multiple cities like Enoch's?

[marineland]

"And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, 
millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy 
creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there, and 
thy bosom is there; and also thou art just; thou art merciful and kind forever; 
And thou hast taken Zion to thine own bosom, from all thy creations, from all 
eternity to all eternity; and naught but peace, justice, and truth is the habitation
of thy throne; and mercy shall go before thy face and have no end; how is it
thou canst weep?" (30-31)

Will each of these worlds also have their own version of New Jerusalem built
by humans that will be joined by their respective Enoch-like cities coming down
from heaven to meet them as verse 63 portrays or Enoch and his city?

"And the Lord said unto Enoch: Then shalt thou and all thy city meet them there, 
and we will receive them into our bosom, and they shall see us; and we will fall 
upon their necks, and they shall fall upon our necks, and we will kiss each 
other".

Is God's abode only our earth [considered there] where he will reign like verses 
64-65 portray or does Jesus personally rotate reigning on each of these millions
of worlds for a thousand years?

"And there shall be mine abode, and it shall be Zion, which shall come forth out 
of all the creations which I have made; and for the space of a thousand years the 
earth shall rest. And it came to pass that Enoch saw the day of the coming of the 
Son of Man, in the last days, to dwell on the earth in righteousness for the space 
of a thousand years".

[The Nehor]

Historically the millenial age that the Messiah will usher in came from Judaism and competed with the idea for an afterlife of bliss. The loss of the land of Israel and with no realistic hope of a return any time soon meant it was hard to see their God’s justice working. So you either needed a deus ex machina to fix things (messiah) or some other reward (afterlife).

Both get kind of smooshed together in Christianity. The LDS take is that it is a purifying period and a time for some spirits to continue to come to Earth who for undisclosed reasons didn’t need the same kinds of trials we are enduring.

We have virtually nothing on other worlds. You will find some references in the 1800s to Jesus visiting different creations for certain periods of time in some kind of sequence. As to a holy city coming our world may be unique in the sense of having the messiah come here or perhaps due to our being the most wicked planet so there is no way to know if analogous events will happen elsewhere.

[theplains]

On 12/19/2025 at 1:35 PM, The Nehor said:

We have virtually nothing on other worlds. You will find some references in the 1800s to Jesus visiting different creations for certain periods of time in some kind of sequence. As to a holy city coming our world may be unique in the sense of having the messiah come here or perhaps due to our being the most wicked planet so there is no way to know if analogous events will happen elsewhere.

@marineland

See "People on Other Worlds" in the April 1971 New Era magazine.

"Long before our God began his creations, he dwelt on a mortal world like ours, one of the 
creations that his Father had created for him and his brethren. He, with many of his brethren, 
was obedient to the principles of the eternal gospel. One among these, it is presumed, was a 
savior for them, and through him they obtained a resurrection and an exaltation on an eternal, 
celestial world. Then they gained the power and godhood of their Father and were made heirs 
of all that he had, continuing his works and creating worlds of their own for their own 
posterity—the same as their Father had done before, and his Father, and his Father, and on and 
on.

Another basic truth is that all of the worlds out there are not the same. Some are celestial. Some
are terrestrial. Some are telestial. Some, such as ours, are in a phase of temporal existence. And
there are other phases, probably some we don't even know of".

[Calm]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

@marineland

See "People on Other Worlds" in the April 1971 New Era magazine.

"Long before our God began his creations, he dwelt on a mortal world like ours, one of the 
creations that his Father had created for him and his brethren. He, with many of his brethren, 
was obedient to the principles of the eternal gospel. One among these, it is presumed, was a 
savior for them, and through him they obtained a resurrection and an exaltation on an eternal, 
celestial world. Then they gained the power and godhood of their Father and were made heirs 
of all that he had, continuing his works and creating worlds of their own for their own 
posterity—the same as their Father had done before, and his Father, and his Father, and on and 
on.

Another basic truth is that all of the worlds out there are not the same. Some are celestial. Some
are terrestrial. Some are telestial. Some, such as ours, are in a phase of temporal existence. And
there are other phases, probably some we don't even know of".

Yep, they used to be much more willing to post speculation in church magazines back then as well as all sorts of advice (just check out the table of contents).  Reasonable speculation following from what has been revealed, but it might still be inaccurate because of misinterpretation of what has been revealed imo.

Edited December 23, 2025 by Calm

[longview]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Yep, they used to be much more willing to post speculation in church magazines back then as well as all sorts of advice (just check out the table of contents).  Reasonable speculation following from what has been revealed, but it might still be inaccurate because of misinterpretation of what has been revealed imo.

OR it is NOT possible to make a "complete" explanation. So many layers, so many unknowns. Some knowledge is withheld by God until the next world.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, longview said:

OR it is NOT possible to make a "complete" explanation. So many layers, so many unknowns. Some knowledge is withheld by God until the next world.

God basically assured all this speculation when He was so vague on so much in the D&C.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, longview said:

OR it is NOT possible to make a "complete" explanation. So many layers, so many unknowns. Some knowledge is withheld by God until the next world.

I would definitely agree we can’t make a complete explanation about this.  Besides informing Moses about their existence, God tells him that’s it, he is not sharing more info on them.

Quote

But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/moses/1?lang=eng

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I would definitely agree we can’t make a complete explanation about this.  Besides informing Moses about their existence, God tells him that’s it, he is not sharing more info on them.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/moses/1?lang=eng

But the fact of the matter is that in Moses 1 the Lord reveals some significant information to Moses about the other worlds that contradicts the idea that he revealed nothing at all. I will place in bold and CAPITALS the pertinent portions…

32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.

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.

 

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 (i.e. by the Son). 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.

39 For behold, this is MY WORK and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. (Moses 1)

At least to me, the profound disclosures made in the above verses make it quite clear that what has gone on and is going on in the other worlds is precisely the same thing that’s going on in this world — God the Father bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of men and women, who dwell on an endless number of worlds, through the infinite and eternal atoning and redeeming power of his Only Begotten Son. Therefore the key to know what’s going on in the other worlds is to simply observe, through the enlightening lens of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the things that are going on in this world.

 

Edited December 23, 2025 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.

 

Typical. I suppose Adam wants us to use they/them pronouns for them now. Woke mind-virus run amok!

Or Adam was Legion and it was actually a horde of demons.

12 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

At least to me, the profound disclosures made in the above verses make it quite clear that what has gone on and is going on in the other worlds is precisely the same thing as what’s going on in this world — God the Father bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of men and women, who dwell on an endless number of worlds, through the infinite and eternal atoning and redeeming power of his Only Begotten Son. Therefore the key to know what’s going on in the other worlds is to simply observe , through the enlightening lens of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the things that are going on in this world.

It doesn’t make it clear at all and if God wanted to say that God could have just (you know) said that the other worlds were doing the same thing. The text doesn’t say that. That is an assumption and an extrapolation and not ‘clearly taught’.

[teddyaware]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Typical. I suppose Adam wants us to use they/them pronouns for them now. Woke mind-virus run amok!

Or Adam was Legion and it was actually a horde of demons.

It doesn’t make it clear at all and if God wanted to say that God could have just (you know) said that the other worlds were doing the same thing. The text doesn’t say that. That is an assumption and an extrapolation and not ‘clearly taught’.

The reason why the Lord said Adam is many is because every fallen world on which men and women are sent to be proved in the crucible of adversity requires an Adam, or first man. Further, the reason why you don’t see the clarity of doctrine manifested in the succeeding verses is primarily due to the fact that, by your own admission, you don’t believe the Book of Moses is the word of God. Living faith is required before revelation from the Holy Ghost can imbue clarity of understanding. God’s ways cannot be understood by a resistant, carnal mind.

At any rate, the following 2 verses also make it abundantly clear that the Only Begotten Son of the Father is the creator of the worlds spoken of in Moses 1, and that inhabitants of the worlds that are populated are the begotten spiritual sons and daughters of God. There’s only one way that any man can obtain salvation and find true and lasting peace and happiness, and that is only in and through Christ. God’s work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, a mighty endeavor that can only come to fruition through the work of a redeeming Savior.

23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father 

24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God. (Doctrine and Covenants 76)

Edited December 23, 2025 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The reason why the Lord said Adam is many is because every fallen world on which men and women are sent to be proved in the crucible of adversity requires an Adam, or first man. Further, the reason why you don’t see the clarity of doctrine manifested in the succeeding verses is primarily due to the fact that, by your own admission, you don’t believe the Book of Moses is the word of God. Living faith is required before revelation from the Holy Ghost can imbue clarity of understanding. God’s ways cannot be understood by a resistant, carnal mind.

Saying a text is clear only when a divine entity fills in the blanks means the text isn’t that clear. It is not like the supposedly hidden truth is super complex. Just slap in two or three more verses and you have it covered.

I don’t think I am resistant. I am pretty carnal though.

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

At any rate, the following 2 verses also make it abundantly clear that the Only Begotten Son of the Father is the creator of the worlds spoken of in Moses 1, and that inhabitants of the worlds that are populated are the begotten spiritual sons and daughters of God. There’s only one way that any man can obtain salvation and find true and lasting peace and happiness, and that is only in and through Christ. God’s work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, a mighty endeavor that can only come to fruition through the work of a redeeming Savior.

Peace and happiness are elusive things.

[theplains]

On 12/23/2025 at 12:26 PM, Calm said:

Yep, they used to be much more willing to post speculation in church magazines back then as well as all sorts of advice (just check out the table of contents).  Reasonable speculation following from what has been revealed, but it might still be inaccurate because of misinterpretation of what has been revealed imo.

The church was much more sure of itself back then.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

The church was much more sure of itself back then.

I doubt that.

[InCognitus]

On 12/23/2025 at 10:26 AM, Calm said:

On 12/23/2025 at 8:38 AM, theplains said:

@marineland

See "People on Other Worlds" in the April 1971 New Era magazine.

"Long before our God began his creations, he dwelt on a mortal world like ours, one of the 
creations that his Father had created for him and his brethren. He, with many of his brethren, 
was obedient to the principles of the eternal gospel. One among these, it is presumed, was a 
savior for them, and through him they obtained a resurrection and an exaltation on an eternal, 
celestial world. Then they gained the power and godhood of their Father and were made heirs 
of all that he had, continuing his works and creating worlds of their own for their own 
posterity—the same as their Father had done before, and his Father, and his Father, and on and 
on.

Another basic truth is that all of the worlds out there are not the same. Some are celestial. Some
are terrestrial. Some are telestial. Some, such as ours, are in a phase of temporal existence. And
there are other phases, probably some we don't even know of".

Yep, they used to be much more willing to post speculation in church magazines back then as well as all sorts of advice (just check out the table of contents).  Reasonable speculation following from what has been revealed, but it might still be inaccurate because of misinterpretation of what has been revealed imo.

I agree, and the purpose of the church magazines has evolved through time as well. 

The old Improvement Era magazine (1897 to 1970) was much more informal and seemed to have a Utah/United States church as the target audience, and it even contained advertisements for Utah based business (like this one for Le Voy's on page 59 of the April 1970 Improvement Era, which is quite dated and humorous to me).  Why don't the critics start claiming that these ads are "Mormon doctrine" too?   

The April 1971 New Era magazine article posted above (written by a BYU professor and not a church leader) is in a transitioning phase of the church magazine evolution.  While the New Era no longer contained advertisements, it still had a similar relaxed approach to what was published.

Today I think the church magazines are aimed at a world wide church with perhaps more consideration for what gets published.

[theplains]

21 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I agree, and the purpose of the church magazines has evolved through time as well. 

The old Improvement Era magazine (1897 to 1970) was much more informal and seemed to have a Utah/United States church as the target audience, and it even contained advertisements for Utah based business (like this one for Le Voy's on page 59 of the April 1970 Improvement Era, which is quite dated and humorous to me).  Why don't the critics start claiming that these ads are "Mormon doctrine" too?   

The April 1971 New Era magazine article posted above (written by a BYU professor and not a church leader) is in a transitioning phase of the church magazine evolution.  While the New Era no longer contained advertisements, it still had a similar relaxed approach to what was published.

Today I think the church magazines are aimed at a world wide church with perhaps more consideration for what gets published.

Discarding teachings from old magazines or books published by the LDS Church reminds me of
what the Watchtower does with its "old light, new light" way to correct previously held false ones.
Unfortunately they need to admit that the old light was not the true light. Your use of "evolution"
sounds more pleasing to the ears though.

As I repeat several times in my replies on various topics, "It isn’t a question of who said it or when;
the question is whether it is true" (Boyd K. Packer, Follow the Rule).

[InCognitus]

On 12/29/2025 at 2:56 PM, theplains said:

Discarding teachings from old magazines or books published by the LDS Church reminds me of
what the Watchtower does with its "old light, new light" way to correct previously held false ones.
Unfortunately they need to admit that the old light was not the true light. Your use of "evolution"
sounds more pleasing to the ears though.

But you are comparing apples to oranges.  The church magazines changed from a local publication that included local advertisements and articles by all kinds of people in the past (including the musings of the BYU professor that you quoted) to a world wide Church publication that has a much different purpose and audience today.  Nobody would claim that everything published in those periodicals was church doctrine.

I'm surprised you haven't tried to claim that Utah Power and Light Company and Holiday Inn are also Mormon doctrine (since they are quoted in those magazines as well).

On 12/29/2025 at 2:56 PM, theplains said:

As I repeat several times in my replies on various topics, "It isn’t a question of who said it or when;
the question is whether it is true" (Boyd K. Packer, Follow the Rule).

Right, that's a good rule.  You should follow it too.  But how and when do you know if something is true or not?  What did Paul say?

 “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”  (1 Corinthians 13:12).  

[theplains]

On 1/1/2026 at 11:08 AM, InCognitus said:

Nobody would claim that everything published in those periodicals was church doctrine.

The church teaches many things in its manuals, past and present, which are not classified
as doctrine. One needs to decide if they are true or false principles.
 

On 1/1/2026 at 11:08 AM, InCognitus said:

Right, that's a good rule.  You should follow it too.  But how and when do you know if something is true or not?  What did Paul say?

 “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”  (1 Corinthians 13:12).  

I believe God provided us with scripture to detect falsehood from truth. I would discard
speculation from being taught.  Brushing off much of what the LDS Church teaches because
it's not classified as "doctrine" is not a sincere way to hold it to account for what it does
teach.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

[InCognitus]

13 hours ago, theplains said:

The church teaches many things in its manuals, past and present, which are not classified
as doctrine. One needs to decide if they are true or false principles.

Right, I need to decide if the Holiday Inn is true or false, or if the Utah Power and Light Company is really the true light.

13 hours ago, theplains said:

I believe God provided us with scripture to detect falsehood from truth.

That sounds good, but I'm not sure that you really believe that.  I think you only believe the Bible as far as it agrees with your doctrine, or you try to force it to agree with your doctrine. 

I'm thinking of the biblical teaching that we are all the same kind of being as God, for example.  If we are truly the same kind of being as God (as the Bible teaches), then the doctrine of creation out of nothing is a false doctrine, and the difference between the creator and the created is much different than many people try to make it.

There are also many things that people believe that aren't found in the Bible at all, things that we discussed previously, like the idea that there is a "nature of angels", how Jesus and his Father are "one" (in non-biblical ways), and many other things.  How would you detect falsehood from truth in those kinds of things?

13 hours ago, theplains said:

I would discard
speculation from being taught.

But elsewhere you defined "doctrine" as including speculation and opinion, remember?  I still don't get what your point was about that.

13 hours ago, theplains said:

Brushing off much of what the LDS Church teaches because
it's not classified as "doctrine" is not a sincere way to hold it to account for what it does
teach.

There are many things that are "taught" that are not doctrines, even in the Bible. Things like Paul's comments about women not having braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array (1 Timothy 2:9).  Is brushing that off today not a sincere way to account for what the Bible teaches as you would call it a "doctrine"?

13 hours ago, theplains said:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

All scripture indeed, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.  "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

[theplains]

On 1/6/2026 at 1:07 AM, InCognitus said:

I'm thinking of the biblical teaching that we are all the same kind of being as God, for example.  If we are truly the same kind of being as God (as the Bible teaches), then the doctrine of creation out of nothing is a false doctrine, and the difference between the creator and the created is much different than many people try to make it.

If God is a god (or if you prefer a God) and we are all the same kind of being as God is, then 
all spirit children were already deities (or if you prefer Deities) before coming to earth in 
physical bodies.
 

On 1/6/2026 at 1:07 AM, InCognitus said:

There are also many things that people believe that aren't found in the Bible at all, things that we discussed previously, like the idea that there is a "nature of angels", how Jesus and his Father are "one" (in non-biblical ways), and many other things.  How would you detect falsehood from truth in those kinds of things?

Any spiritual teaching that lacks clear scriptural support shouldn't be promoted or taught.

In LDS theology, the nature of angels equals the nature of Gods. As far as I know, there are no
LDS teachings that angels are not spirit children of heavenly parents. 

If you explain what you mean by nature (composition, power, intelligence, etc), then maybe I can 
make some biblical comments.

I believe Jesus created all things.  This would include Satan, the seraphim, the cherubim, and
the four beasts of revelation for example (Colossians 1:16).
 

On 1/6/2026 at 1:07 AM, InCognitus said:

There are many things that are "taught" that are not doctrines, even in the Bible. Things like Paul's comments about women not having braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array (1 Timothy 2:9).  Is brushing that off today not a sincere way to account for what the Bible teaches as you would call it a "doctrine"?

In religious (especially Christian) contexts, a doctrine is a teaching drawn from Scripture and 
articulated by the church to clarify what it believes about God, humanity, salvation, and reality.

In this case, one could state that "Gospel Principles" contains doctrine.  Speculation and opinion 
should not be taught regarding spiritual matters.

For instance, Joseph Smith taught we could detect a false angel by the color of his hair.  He did
not say this as speculation or opinion. He taught it as reality. It has no scriptural support.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-book/history-of-the-church-volume-4/volume-4-chapter-33
https://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v3n11.htm

As for Paul, he was laying out the proper principle on how women should be adorned, not drawing 
attention to themselves.  The same could be extended to males too.

[ZealouslyStriving]

11 hours ago, theplains said:

It has no scriptural support.

You write that as though you have never interacted with us.

I don't care that it doesn't have "scriptural support". Literally nothing had "scriptural support" until it became scripture. Then it became it's own evidence.

[InCognitus]

On 1/15/2026 at 12:57 PM, theplains said:

On 1/5/2026 at 11:07 PM, InCognitus said:

I'm thinking of the biblical teaching that we are all the same kind of being as God, for example.  If we are truly the same kind of being as God (as the Bible teaches), then the doctrine of creation out of nothing is a false doctrine, and the difference between the creator and the created is much different than many people try to make it.

If God is a god (or if you prefer a God) and we are all the same kind of being as God is, then 
all spirit children were already deities (or if you prefer Deities) before coming to earth in 
physical bodies.

No, it just means that your definition of God isn’t biblical and doesn’t fit the biblical model of who God is and what makes him God, because the Bible clearly says we are the same “kind” of being as God.  You can either believe the Bible or not.

And you already know that there is more to being God than the “kind” of being that he is, because we have already discussed that many times.  As I said to you (when you were posting as GoCeltics on 12/10 and 12/12/2025), I define God as "the Supreme Being in whom we believe, whom we worship, and to whom we pray. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things."

So, your idea that spirit children were “already deities” can only be true if you imagine that spirit beings come into existence (and didn't exist previously) through procreation of a male and female, and that they are born possessing all other attributes that are required to be "God" as explained above. Do you really imagine that spirit children of heavenly parents emerge (if they emerge at all) as the Creators, Rulers, and Preservers of all things, being perfect, and having all power and knowledge?  Those attributes are all part of the biblical definition of "God", and you are constantly ignoring that part.

Spirit beings are eternal; they co-exist with God.  They become children of heavenly parents in some way that is not explained, and that sets them up with the potential to gain the attributes of God (Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things, being perfect, and having all power and knowledge) assuming they keep God's covenants and follow the plan that God set up for them to do that.

On 1/15/2026 at 12:57 PM, theplains said:

On 1/5/2026 at 11:07 PM, InCognitus said:

There are also many things that people believe that aren't found in the Bible at all, things that we discussed previously, like the idea that there is a "nature of angels", how Jesus and his Father are "one" (in non-biblical ways), and many other things.  How would you detect falsehood from truth in those kinds of things?

Any spiritual teaching that lacks clear scriptural support shouldn't be promoted or taught.

Ok, so the creedal definition of how the Father and Son are one should not be taught (since it has zero scriptural support), and the Latter-day Saint view of how they are one (as Jesus defined in scripture – John 17:11, 20-23) should be the correct view obviously.

Here’s a list of “doctrines” (that I’ve come up with) that modern Christians teach that aren’t found in the Bible at all:

• The “homoousious” Father and Son
• Creation ex-nihilo (God created all things out of nothing)
• God or Jesus created Satan (thank goodness he didn’t do that, because that would be a very evil thing to do).
• Sola Scriptura
• A closed canon of scripture
• Angels are created (we have discussed this - see my post on 12/12/2025)
• Spirit of man is created (we have discussed this - see my post on 12/12/2025)
• That there is such a thing as the “nature of angels” (we have discussed this)
• Angels have wings (we have discussed this)
• God and man are nothing alike (whereas the Bible teaches that we are the same “kind” of being as God, and man was created in the “image” and “likeness” of God)
• Priesthood of all believers (we have discussed this over and over)
• Jesus is the only high priest (we have discussed this too)

I’m sure there are many others.  But according to you, those doctrines should not be promoted or taught.

But I believe God is the ultimate source of truth (not only the Bible).  I believe God has revealed additional scripture today, and those scriptures should be included in our “scriptural support” for what should be promoted or taught.

On 1/15/2026 at 12:57 PM, theplains said:

In LDS theology, the nature of angels equals the nature of Gods. As far as I know, there are no
LDS teachings that angels are not spirit children of heavenly parents. 

If you explain what you mean by nature (composition, power, intelligence, etc), then maybe I can 
make some biblical comments.

We already discussed the lack of biblical support for the idea of a “nature of angels” in the other folder.  You can go reread our previous conversation there.   See my post on 03/03/2025, my post on 03/05/2025, my post on 03/29/2025, and my post on 05/26/2025 for past discussions on this.

On 1/15/2026 at 12:57 PM, theplains said:

I believe Jesus created all things.  This would include Satan, the seraphim, the cherubim, and
the four beasts of revelation for example (Colossians 1:16).

I posted this elsewhere, but you are doing this verse again so I’m going to repost what I said.

Colossians 1:16 says nothing about Jesus creating Satan.

In John 1:3 it says of Jesus, “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

In other words, Jesus didn’t create things (or beings) that were not made.  Jesus did not create God the Father, for example, nor does it say he created the beings who are coeternal with God (the spirits of men) that were later given the job description of angels.

Colossians 1:16 says, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him”.

God the Father and the beings who are coeternal with God the Father are not “things”, nor were they created, and Colossians 1:16 doesn’t say that Jesus created them.

As for the “principalities, or powers” mentioned in Colossians 1:16, those are the governmental organizations (whether they be in heaven or on earth) that Jesus organized.  This is what Paul had in mind when he wrote to Titus, “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work.” (Titus 3:1)

[theplains]

On 1/18/2026 at 8:33 PM, InCognitus said:

Spirit beings are eternal; they co-exist with God.  They become children of heavenly parents in some way that is not explained, and that sets them up with the potential to gain the attributes of God (Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things, being perfect, and having all power and knowledge) assuming they keep God's covenants and follow the plan that God set up for them to do that.

This reflects the LDS version of Jesus. He became a God. In our other thread, I provided
sources teaching the belief, not taught as either speculation or opinion, that Heavenly Father 
was also once an eternal being who became a God.

God the Father is the ultimate repository of all intelligence, "or, in other words, light and 
truth" (D&C 93:36); Jesus Christ, the Firstborn, who became a god in the premortal existence, 
the Father's steward over his creations, is the one source of light for us as individuals; and 
the Holy Ghost is the "gatekeeper," as it were, the dispenser of light to us according to 
worthiness and ability to receive it (Ensign, December 1975, "How to Receive Spiritual Gifts").

"By obedience and devotion to the truth he [Jesus] attained that pinnacle of intelligence which 
ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state" 
(Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, chapter 4).

"So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine 
revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of 
spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal 
life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several 
stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation" (April 2002 Ensign).

"Christ, who is the firstborn in the Spirit of the children of God, was elevated to Godhood, and in 
the vision Abraham saw he describes him as being like unto God" (LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith, 
The Progress of Man, chapter 6, page 74).

"Jesus was appointed to Godhood. In the Meridian of Time Christ came into the world, in fulfillment 
of the promise and appointment (LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith, The Progress of Man, chapter 43, 
pages 511-512). 

"When our Father in Heaven announced the need for a Savior, I believe all of us turned and looked at 
Jesus Christ, the Firstborn in the Spirit, the one who had progressed to the point of becoming like 
the Father [4]. I believe all of us knew it had to be Him, that none of the rest of us could do it, 
but that He could and that He would" ("Remembering in Whom We Have Trusted", By Elder Allen D. Haynie
Of the Seventy, October 2015 General Conference).

[4] See Lectures on Faith (1985), 59, 60.

"What a glorious promise is held out to the children of God. … If Jesus Christ, the only begotten of 
the Father in the flesh, received not a fulness at first, and thereby was called the Son, but continued 
to receive grace for grace, adding grace unto grace until He received a fulness, it is clear that he 
that will walk in His footsteps, who will obey His precepts, and will adopt His plan for life and 
salvation, may receive grace for grace, may continue from grace to grace; may grow out of imperfection 
into perfection, and may receive here a little and there a little until he shall receive the fulness 
as the Son of God received a fulness; and thus become like Christ the Son of God, an heir of God, and 
joint heir with Jesus Christ" (Teachings of President of the Church, Joseph F. Smith, chapter 48).

"How is the example of Christ’s development useful to us as we strive for our own development? Jesus’ 
example teaches the important truth that we cannot achieve a fulness in a single day. Just as Jesus 
received grace for grace until he had obtained a fulness, we must likewise receive line upon line, or 
grace for grace, a little at a time, until we ultimately receive a fulness. Such is his charge to us: 
“For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his [the Father’s] fulness, and be glorified in 
me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace” (D&C 93:20). 
As we progress, Luke’s testimony that Jesus grew intellectually, physically, spiritually, and socially 
(see Luke 2:52) shows us how to remain balanced in our growth and progression" (Religion 430 and 431 -
Doctrines of the Gospel Teacher Manual, chapter 4).

"Jesus grew until He had a fulness of grace, truth, glory, and power. John saw that Jesus “received a 
fulness of the glory of the Father” (D&C 93:16). Verse 17 of section 93 says that “he received all 
power both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.” 
Verses 19 and 20 indicate that all people may grow to the point of receiving a fulness if they will 
follow the example of the Savior"

In short, grace refers to the gifts and power of God by which we can be brought to perfection. To come 
to a fulness by moving from grace to grace means that as we obey the commandments, the Father gives us 
more and more power until we receive a fulness of power" (Religion 324 and 325 - Doctrine and Covenants 
Student Manual).

[InCognitus]

On 1/21/2026 at 12:50 PM, theplains said:

This reflects the LDS version of Jesus. He became a God.

What does that have to do with anything I said in my earlier post? 

You need to answer the questions I asked you here.  The questions on salvation and what disqualifies salvation are the most important of any other question.