General Conference talk on the understanding of the Godhead

[theplains]

On 5/25/2026 at 10:00 AM, 3DOP said:

There was a time when I used a derogatory expression, "baby sprinklers",

I am a former Catholic but have never used that term to describe infant baptism. 

For adults, I think a priest or deacon pours water over the person’s head (or sometimes immerses 
them) three times while saying: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Spirit".

[theplains]

On 5/25/2026 at 1:52 PM, InCognitus said:

You haven't shown any authority to judge us other than your opinion, and when you do judge us it is by misrepresenting and twisting the truth instead of directly engaging in it.  So why should we listen to you?  Give us a good reason.

The full text, from the 1938 version of Teachings of Joseph Smith has this:

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that 
is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. "Father, I 
pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me." "Holy Father, keep through 
Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are." All are to be crammed 
into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would 
be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster.

The sectarian idea is that it is a crammed-into-one God.

I see those "He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster" and a "curious
organization" ideas attributable to Joseph Smith.

[theplains]

On 5/25/2026 at 2:17 PM, InCognitus said:

"For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward" (Deuteronomy 10:17)

@GoCeltics

From the 1997 Gospel Principles:

All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children become 
like him—a god. He has said, “Behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the
immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39)

Supposedly Heavenly Father is only the God of gods in the sense of only his own spirit
children who are exalted.  He is not the God of his own Father God.

[GoCeltics]

On 5/25/2026 at 2:17 PM, InCognitus said:

Obviously those who become gods (as the early Christians taught) and the gods who are with God in the heavenly council that he rules over, as scripture says.

Do you mean he ruled over the heavenly council, he rules over other exalted beings which are not part of the family he formed during his married life, or both?

[InCognitus]

On 5/27/2026 at 8:31 AM, theplains said:

The sectarian idea is that it is a crammed-into-one God.

I see those "He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster" and a "curious
organization" ideas attributable to Joseph Smith.

What you don't seem to "see" is the point that Joseph Smith was making in the context of his statement that you omitted on your website, and you continue to misrepresent him as saying what you said in your first post, which was this:

On 5/25/2026 at 7:12 AM, theplains said:

Joseph Smith did not understand how God could be God in 3 persons so he made that reference to
him being viewed as "he would be a giant or a monster".

You are lying about what Joseph Smith said there by intentionally ignoring the context where he paraphrased John 17:11 and 20-23, when Jesus prayed for a all the believers to become "one" with him and his Father in the same way Jesus is one with his Father.

You said Joseph Smith "did not understand how God could be God in 3 persons", but the truth is that Joseph Smith clearly DID understand what the Bible teaches about how God can be God in 3 persons, and he compared what Jesus taught to what modern Christians teach.

Let's break it down:

1.  Joseph Smith says, "Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization."

Here he accurately describes what most modern Christians teach about the Trinity, that the three persons of the Godhead are actually "one being", and you have seen that this is true from our prior discussions on what the word  "homoousious" in the Nicene creed means to modern Christians.  See our prior discussion on this in my post on 10/20/2024 and my post on 11/28/2025.  See also my post on 01/03/2025. 

2. Joseph Smith paraphrases the words of Jesus from John 17:11 and 20-23 where Jesus prays for his disciples to be "one" with him and his Father and each other in the exact same way Jesus is one with the Father:  “Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me.” “Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are.”

These are the verses in question:

John 17:11, "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."

John 17:20-23:  "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;  That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.  And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:  I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me."

This demonstrates that Joseph Smith clearly understood what Jesus taught in the Bible about how Jesus and his Father are "one".  It also shows exactly what Joseph Smith meant when he said "All are to be crammed into one God" in his next statement.

3.  Now his last statement, "All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster."

Here Joseph Smith compares the "one being" theology of modern Christianity regarding how the modern Christians believe Jesus and his Father are one, to the actual words of Jesus as recorded in scripture where Jesus prayed for his disciples to be one with him and the Father in the exact same way, and says "all" would be crammed into one God (according to modern Christian thinking).

Now, who are the "All" that Joseph Smith has in mind in this statement?  The one "God in 3 persons" that you keep trying to make him say?  Nope.  It's "all" the believers, "all" those that Jesus prayed for, "That they all may be one... even as we are one".  

So do you still intend to keep misrepresenting him as referring only to the "3 persons" that are "crammed into one God"? 

Edited June 1 by InCognitus

[InCognitus]

On 5/27/2026 at 8:38 AM, theplains said:

Supposedly Heavenly Father is only the God of gods in the sense of only his own spirit
children who are exalted.  He is not the God of his own Father God.

Nope.  Joseph Smith and the scriptures clearly affirm that God is the God of "all other gods".

[InCognitus]

On 5/27/2026 at 1:43 PM, GoCeltics said:

Do you mean he ruled over the heavenly council, he rules over other exalted beings which are not part of the family he formed during his married life, or both?

I mean what scripture clearly teach us, which is that God is the God over a heavenly council of gods that exist with him in heaven:

"Let the heavens [שמים; šāmaîm] praise your wonders, O Lord, your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones [קהל קדשים; qĕhal qĕdôshîm]. For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord? Who among the heavenly beings [אלים בני; bĕnê ’ēlîm] is like the Lord, a God feared in the council of the holy ones [סוד-קדשים; sôd qĕdôshîm], great and awesome above all that are around him?" (Psalm 89:5–7)

"Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?" (Exodus 15:11)

"Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works." (Psalm 86:8)

"For I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord is above all gods." (Psalm 135:5)

"For thou, Lord, art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all gods." (Psalm 97:9).

"Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them." (Exodus 18:11)

"For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward" (Deuteronomy 10:17)

And this explains why Philo and the early Christians taught that the Logos or Jesus was the "second God".

[3DOP]

15 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I mean what scripture clearly teach us, which is that God is the God over a heavenly council of gods that exist with him in heaven:

"Let the heavens [שמים; šāmaîm] praise your wonders, O Lord, your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones [קהל קדשים; qĕhal qĕdôshîm]. For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord? Who among the heavenly beings [אלים בני; bĕnê ’ēlîm] is like the Lord, a God feared in the council of the holy ones [סוד-קדשים; sôd qĕdôshîm], great and awesome above all that are around him?" (Psalm 89:5–7)

"Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?" (Exodus 15:11)

"Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works." (Psalm 86:8)

"For I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord is above all gods." (Psalm 135:5)

"For thou, Lord, art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all gods." (Psalm 97:9).

"Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them." (Exodus 18:11)

"For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward" (Deuteronomy 10:17)

And this explains why Philo and the early Christians taught that the Logos or Jesus was the "second God".

Hi InCognitus,

I have only one qualm with your interpretation. If I were LDS, I would find your biblical argument satisfactorily plausible. But being familiar with other interpretations that are also satisfactorily plausible, according to other Christian traditions, I could not accept that the Scriptures "clearly teach" your interpretation on its own.

The clincher would not be Scripture. The clincher would be LDS tradition. Believing that the LDS have the one true church, I would trust in a plausible Scriptural interpretation, WITH LDS Tradition. 

Even if I became LDS, I could never think that the Scriptures are ever so clear as to resolve doctrinal controversy. One of the reasons I believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church is that she denies that the Scriptures are perspicuous, or clear. No sola scriptura. We love the Scriptures as a support to our beliefs, not as clear teaching as though everybody who reads the Bible should always believe what the Catholic Church teaches apart from Tradition.

What do you think? Is my idea about Scripture compatible with LDS Tradition/Teaching?

Thanks InCognitus. 

Rory

 

 

 

 

Edited June 1 by 3DOP

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

I have only one qualm with your interpretation. If I were LDS, I would find your biblical argument satisfactorily plausible. But being familiar with other interpretations that are also satisfactorily plausible, according to other Christian traditions, I could not accept that the Scriptures "clearly teach" your interpretation on its own.

Thanks for your comments.  You make a fair point. 

But I wasn't really trying to say that the LDS interpretation is the only clear one, but those verses I listed do "clearly teach" that other gods exist in the heavens and that God is greater than all those other "gods", and none of those "gods" are comparable to him.  I think they clearly say what they say.  How we make them fit into our own interpretation of the rest of scripture is a different matter altogether.  And in reality I don't think that the full meaning of what those verses are saying have really been addressed in Latter-day Saint doctrine at all other than the fact that we acknowledge that other gods exist. 

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Even if I became LDS, I could never think that the Scriptures are ever so clear as to resolve doctrinal controversy.

I agree 150%!  It's obvious that what you say above is true because even the people who believe in so called "sola scriptura" can't agree with each other on most doctrinal controversies.  

But do you agree that a verse (standing alone) can clearly say something totally independently of how it might fit (or not fit) with our own interpretations?  For example, a verse like "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord", doesn't that indicate that "among the gods" there is none like the Lord?  Is that clear or not?   

And my statement that these verses teach "that God is the God over a heavenly council of gods that exist with him in heaven" is actually a modern scholarly view, not just a doctrinal interpretation.  That's how modern scholars view them despite how Latter-day Saints (or anyone else) might view them.  What do you think?

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hi InCognitus,

I have only one qualm with your interpretation. If I were LDS, I would find your biblical argument satisfactorily plausible. But being familiar with other interpretations that are also satisfactorily plausible, according to other Christian traditions, I could not accept that the Scriptures "clearly teach" your interpretation on its own.

The clincher would not be Scripture. The clincher would be LDS tradition. Believing that the LDS have the one true church, I would trust in a plausible Scriptural interpretation, WITH LDS Tradition. 

Even if I became LDS, I could never think that the Scriptures are ever so clear as to resolve doctrinal controversy. One of the reasons I believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church is that she denies that the Scriptures are perspicuous, or clear. No sola scriptura. We love the Scriptures as a support to our beliefs, not as clear teaching as though everybody who reads the Bible should always believe what the Catholic Church teaches apart from Tradition.

What do you think? Is my idea about Scripture compatible with LDS Tradition/Teaching?

Thanks InCognitus. 

Rory

 

 

 

 

I believe the LDS church has done some amazing evolvement, and that's one of the things I love about the LDS church that it can change. 

The songs that have been added to our hymnbooks about Grace, the acceptance of wearing the Cross, and so on. 

I remember a deceased friend in my neighborhood and church ward saying how the cross is a sign of Satan, wow! I'd never believed that. According to my LDS mother she just said we'd not wear a gun around our necks if that's how Jesus was Crucified. 

And even our local radio stations in Utah that used to play mainly Tabernacle sounding songs, is now sounding more like non member Christian music. 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

According to my LDS mother she just said we'd not wear a gun around our necks if that's how Jesus was Crucified. 

I don’t know why anyone thought that was a clever answer.  The Cross means more than just the weapon that killed the Christ (or perhaps I should say he allows it to kill him).

Especially with all the scriptural and hymnal language about taking up one’s Cross and other phrases.   I see that mocking, dismissiveness in the gun comparison as insulting scripture.  

The Cross is venerated not because it killed Christ, but because of what Christ accomplished through it.  

There is also some very poetic and meaningful, imo, symbolism of the Tree of Life mirroring the Tree of Death (the Cross).

And no doubt other meanings I am not aware of. 

[InCognitus]

14 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I have only one qualm with your interpretation. If I were LDS, I would find your biblical argument satisfactorily plausible. But being familiar with other interpretations that are also satisfactorily plausible, according to other Christian traditions, I could not accept that the Scriptures "clearly teach" your interpretation on its own.

I wanted to add something to what I said earlier, because the context of the original question asked of me also had to do with the early Christian understanding of the scriptures and how they viewed the passages that there is one God along side all the other passages that say that God is the God of gods and the council of gods that God rules over in heaven, and with the early Christian teaching that men become gods.  My focus was more about how the early Christians interpreted scripture, and not so much about how Latter-day Saints interpret it.

There's a great example of this in Origen's Contra Celsum (Against Celsus) in defense of the Christian faith, in Book VII chapters 3 and 4, because he refers to many of the passages I listed:

Quote

Chap. III

    "Before proceeding to the next point, it may be well for us to see whether we do not accept with approval the saying, "No man can serve two masters," with the addition, "for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other," and further, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." The defense of this passage will lead us to a deeper and more searching inquiry into the meaning and application of the words "gods" and "lords." Divine Scripture teaches us that there is "a great Lord above all gods." And by this name "gods" we are not to understand the objects of heathen worship (for we know that "all the gods of the heathen are demons"), but the gods mentioned by the prophets as forming an assembly, whom God "judges," and to each of whom He assigns his proper work. For "God standeth in the assembly of the gods: He judgeth among the gods." For "God is Lord of gods," who by His Son "hath called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof." We are also commanded to "give thanks to the God of gods." Moreover, we are taught that "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Nor are these the only passages to this effect; but there are very many others.

Chap. IV.

    The sacred Scriptures teach us to think, in like manner, of the Lord of lords. For they say in one place, "Give thanks to the God of gods, for His mercy endureth for ever. Give thanks to the Lord of lords, for His mercy endureth for ever;" and in another, "God is King of kings, and Lord of lords." For Scripture distinguishes between those gods which are such only in name and those which are truly gods, whether they are called by that name or not; and the same is true in regard to the use of the word "lords." To this effect Paul says, "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there are gods many, and lords many." But as the God of gods calls whom He pleases through Jesus to his inheritance, "from the east and from the west," and the Christ of God thus shows His superiority to all rulers by entering into their several provinces, and summoning men out of them to be subject to Himself, Paul therefore, with this in view, goes on to say, "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him;" adding, as if with a deep sense of the marvellous and mysterious nature of the doctrine, "Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge." When he says, "To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things," by "us" he means himself and all those who have risen up to the supreme God of gods and to the supreme Lord of lords. Now he has risen to the supreme God who gives Him an entire and undivided worship through His Son--the word and wisdom of God made manifest in Jesus. For it is the Son alone who leads to God those who are striving, by the purity of their thoughts, words, and deeds, to come near to God the Creator of the universe. I think, therefore, that the prince of this world, who "transforms himself into an angel of light," was referring to this and such like statements in the words, "Him follows a host of gods and demons, arranged in eleven bands." Speaking of himself and the philosophers, he says, "We are of the party of Jupiter; others belong to other demons."  (Origen, Contra Celsum, Book VIII, chapters III and IV).

This shows how the early Christians used the scriptures to support the teachings they had handed down to them from Jesus and the apostles.

This post is not necessarily for your benefit, but to support the point I was trying to make to GoCeltics, above.

[3DOP]

22 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I wanted to add something to what I said earlier, because the context of the original question asked of me also had to do with the early Christian understanding of the scriptures and how they viewed the passages that there is one God along side all the other passages that say that God is the God of gods and the council of gods that God rules over in heaven, and with the early Christian teaching that men become gods.  My focus was more about how the early Christians interpreted scripture, and not so much about how Latter-day Saints interpret it.

There's a great example of this in Origen's Contra Celsum (Against Celsus) in defense of the Christian faith, in Book VII chapters 3 and 4, because he refers to many of the passages I listed:

This shows how the early Christians used the scriptures to support the teachings they had handed down to them from Jesus and the apostles.

This post is not necessarily for your benefit, but to support the point I was trying to make to GoCeltics, above.

InCog. Hi.

Unless I am physically unable, I intend to answer your question above, if only you can hold your breath a little longer.

[theplains]

On 5/31/2026 at 5:23 PM, InCognitus said:

Nope.  Joseph Smith and the scriptures clearly affirm that God is the God of "all other gods".

You never really answered the question posted by @GoCeltics

[3DOP]

On 6/1/2026 at 10:26 AM, InCognitus said:

But I wasn't really trying to say that the LDS interpretation is the only clear one, but those verses I listed do "clearly teach" that other gods exist in the heavens and that God is greater than all those other "gods", and none of those "gods" are comparable to him.  I think they clearly say what they say.  How we make them fit into our own interpretation of the rest of scripture is a different matter altogether.  And in reality I don't think that the full meaning of what those verses are saying have really been addressed in Latter-day Saint doctrine at all other than the fact that we acknowledge that other gods exist. 

I agree 150%!  It's obvious that what you say above is true because even the people who believe in so called "sola scriptura" can't agree with each other on most doctrinal controversies.  

But do you agree that a verse (standing alone) can clearly say something totally independently of how it might fit (or not fit) with our own interpretations?  For example, a verse like "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord", doesn't that indicate that "among the gods" there is none like the Lord?  Is that clear or not?   

And my statement that these verses teach "that God is the God over a heavenly council of gods that exist with him in heaven" is actually a modern scholarly view, not just a doctrinal interpretation.  That's how modern scholars view them despite how Latter-day Saints (or anyone else) might view them.  What do you think?

Hi InCog. I appreciate your patience.

I do not hesitate to agree that there are interpretations to the texts you cite.

But you say that you weren't trying to say that "the LDS interpretation is the only clear one". That more or less makes my point. How can there be multiple clear interpretations that differ from each other? Even only two "clear interpretations" of a text would make it impossible to make a clear choice without light from some other source.

The question is about the identification of the gods spoken of. Are they all the same kind of gods?

In Exodus, slaves who wished to stay with their masters after they had paid their servitude were instructed to go to the gods, and have them observe an ear being pierced to signify the status of this servant. These gods would seem to be civil magistrates of some kind.

I would suggest that in the last text you quoted from Deuteronomy this is possibly about these civil magistrates. Does the heavenly council take bribes and have respect of persons? How do slaves who want to be free servants of their masters approach the heavenly gods?

So nobody has to search around for it, here is Deut. 17:10:

"For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward" (Deuteronomy 10:17)

Of course, there are also strange gods. We know that Israel was tempted all through through their history to take up worship of these gods that they had learned about from their neighbors. It is a  constant problem to contend with. If it is an instruction to be aware of making a mistake about some inferior god in a Heavenly Council, it almost seems like those inferior gods were so inferior as to be susceptible to taking advantages of their positions for personal gain.

Origin also believed, speculatively, that the stars and planets were actually alive. I can get that for you. It is in De Principiis. He argues from the fact that the Scriptures say that the heavenly bodies obey the Lord, and they praise the Lord. I take this anthropomorphically, but maybe these have been thought to be heavenly gods by mistaken parties over the centuries. Could the vast array of heaven be populated by gods? Sure, but what kind?

In Colossians(?) we hear about angel worship. Could angels be called gods in the Old Testament and angels in the New? I don't know.

I will try to do a little more research, but I don't think the Catholic Church has ever delved into these question either. Speculation is permitted when definitions are lacking.

Regards,

Rory

[GoCeltics]

On 5/31/2026 at 5:32 PM, InCognitus said:

I mean what scripture clearly teach us, which is that God is the God over a heavenly council of gods that exist with him in heaven:

When you say “gods,” are you referring specifically to spirit children of Heavenly Father who were already exalted beings at the time of this council? Or are you also including some members of a broader lineage or regress of Deities who may have participated?

[InCognitus]

On 6/3/2026 at 12:58 PM, theplains said:

You never really answered the question posted by @GoCeltics

Let me review the chain of discussion I was having in this folder:

Your Post on 05/12/2026:  You (posting as GoCeltics) asked the question, “When did the idea arise that the Godhead consists of three separate Gods?”

• My Post on 05/12/2026:  My response to the post from you (posting as GoCeltics), where I answered this question by providing quotes from the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (20 BC to 50 AD), and the early Christians Justin Martyr (150 AD), Origen (185-254 AD), and Lactantius (240-320 AD), where they all taught that either the Logos (Philo) or Jesus (the early Christians) is the “second God” or “another God”.  This was in direct response to the question, “When did the idea arise that the Godhead consists of three separate Gods?”   It was an “idea” that existed a long time ago in Judaism and early Christianity.

Your Post on 05/14/2026:  You (posting as GoCeltics) posted the following question in response to the quotes I provided from Philo, Justin Martyr, Origen, and Lactantius where they taught about “another God” or the “second God”:  “What of biblical verses which speak of only God one?”

• My Post on 05/23/2026:  I responded to the question above by first asking, “Do you think the early Christians were ignorant of those verses?  They were not ignorant of them at all, but they understood them in their original context and in relation to other Bible verses that teach that God is the God over other gods.  They viewed the 'only one God' as the most high God, the one who is above all others, and they understood that Jesus and his Father are "one" with each other in a way that invites others to participate in the glory of God together with them.”   I also posted a quote from Origen (circa AD 185-254) where he discussed how the Father and Son are "one" in unity, and not "one in being".

Your Post on 05/25/2026:  You (posting as GoCeltics) responded to my post above, where I referred to the Bible verses teaching us that God is "the God over other gods", by asking, “Which gods?”

• Post on 05/25/2026:  I responded to your question, “Which gods?” by saying, “Obviously those who become gods (as the early Christians taught) and the gods who are with God in the heavenly council that he rules over, as scripture says.”  And I provided scriptural references from Psalm 89:5-7, Exodus 15:11, Psalm 86:8, Psalm 135:5, Psalm 97:9, Exodus 18:11, and Deuteronomy 10:17, all supporting the Biblical teaching that there other gods.

Your Post on 05/27/2026:  You (posting as GoCeltics), asking:  “Do you mean he ruled over the heavenly council, he rules over other exalted beings which are not part of the family he formed during his married life, or both?”

• My Post on 05/31/2026:  I responded directly to the question above by explaining exactly what I meant.  I said, “I mean what scripture clearly teach us, which is that God is the God over a heavenly council of gods that exist with him in heaven”, and I reposted the verses from the Bible that show that to be true.

Then finally, you said (above): 

On 6/3/2026 at 12:58 PM, theplains said:

You never really answered the question posted by @GoCeltics

On the contrary, as you can see I directly answered the question posted by you posting as GoCeltics.  I explained exactly what I meant.

[InCognitus]

On 6/4/2026 at 7:19 AM, GoCeltics said:

When you say “gods,” are you referring specifically to spirit children of Heavenly Father who were already exalted beings at the time of this council? Or are you also including some members of a broader lineage or regress of Deities who may have participated?

I was only referring to the "gods" of the heavenly council as described in the Bible, the "gods" who are with God in the heavens as was taught and understood in early Judaism and early Christianity.  I was referring to how they understood those "gods" and why they originally considered Jesus to be the "second God".  They had no problem with the idea that other gods exist in heaven with God.

[InCognitus]

On 6/3/2026 at 3:27 PM, 3DOP said:

Hi InCog. I appreciate your patience.

Thanks for your post, Rory.  And thank YOU for YOUR patience.  I've had a really busy week and very little sleep (I'm trying to catch up).

On 6/3/2026 at 3:27 PM, 3DOP said:

I do not hesitate to agree that there are interpretations to the texts you cite.

But you say that you weren't trying to say that "the LDS interpretation is the only clear one". That more or less makes my point. How can there be multiple clear interpretations that differ from each other? Even only two "clear interpretations" of a text would make it impossible to make a clear choice without light from some other source.

I was trying very hard to simply provide what the early Christians taught on the subject and what the Bible says about the other gods that exist without interpreting it from a modern point of view.  GoCeltics asked, "When did the idea arise that the Godhead consists of three separate Gods?” and I provided early sources that showed that that idea came from very early on in Judaism and Christianity, and the existence of other gods as well.  I was simply documenting some of the earliest sources on that subject.

I don't think God expects us to reinterpret everything we read in the Old or New Testaments to fit into our modern theological and cultural understandings.  The people of that time had a drastically different culture and world view than we have today. While it is worthwhile for us to try to understand how the original authors of the Bible and their contemporaries understood the things that are written in the Bible, I think the real benefit to us is to learn from the principles taught in the scriptures and try to apply those principles to our lives today.  Nephi says in the Book of Mormon that "I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning” (1 Nephi 19:23).  I think he had the right approach. We are not expected to do a systematic theology of every verse we read, we just need to compare and apply the scriptures to our personal lives so we can profit and learn from them.

On 6/3/2026 at 3:27 PM, 3DOP said:

The question is about the identification of the gods spoken of. Are they all the same kind of gods?

This is an important question, and I suppose it depends on what you mean by "kind".    

The "most high God" is definitely beyond comparison in many of his attributes, but the fact that he IS compared to the other gods in scripture seems to point the idea that the other gods are of the same or similar "kind" of being.  Otherwise, the comparisons are nonsensical.

For example, the song of Moses in Exodus 15:11 says, "Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?"  This describes God's holiness and his works as greater than these other "gods".  If these are intended to be false gods then why would Moses, a prophet of God, give credence to false gods by comparing them to the God of Israel?

Or Psalm 86:8, "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works".  

In my opinion, Psalm 86:8 and Exodus 15:11 cannot make any reasonable sense unless the comparison is made to actual “gods” that are real and are the same classification of beings that God is, and are capable of works that are similar to his, although their works are certainly not as great or have the same magnitude of his.  To compare God to any created or non-existent thing (idols?) or corrupt human judges, or any other class of being is insulting and disrespectful (in my view).  It’s like comparing a human to a squirrel or a chicken or a cat.

On 6/3/2026 at 3:27 PM, 3DOP said:

In Exodus, slaves who wished to stay with their masters after they had paid their servitude were instructed to go to the gods, and have them observe an ear being pierced to signify the status of this servant. These gods would seem to be civil magistrates of some kind.

Exodus 21:6 and 22:7-9 are sometimes translated as "judges", but that is a mistranslation. These are verses that I think have a deeper meaning in an ancient context.

As an example, the Septuagint translates Exodus 21:6 (the Brenton English translation) as follows, "his master shall bring him to the judgment-seat of God".  

Dan McClellan has a good article (from 2009) on these verses that explores the ancient context a little bit.  See "אלהים Does Not Mean “Judges”

Referring to the attempts to translate the "gods" in these verses as "judges", McClellan says, "The rationale behind these translations is no longer an acceptable excuse for seeking out an alternative translation. To begin with, the presence of numerous gods throughout the Hebrew Bible that exist with God’s approbation and even act under his authority is unquestionable. Divine Council ideology pervades every historical layer of biblical literature, from the monarchy (and before) to the late Second Temple Period.  This council acted in an administrative capacity, but also in a juridical one."

On 6/3/2026 at 3:27 PM, 3DOP said:

I would suggest that in the last text you quoted from Deuteronomy this is possibly about these civil magistrates. Does the heavenly council take bribes and have respect of persons? How do slaves who want to be free servants of their masters approach the heavenly gods?

So nobody has to search around for it, here is Deut. 17:10:

"For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward" (Deuteronomy 10:17)

I don't see how this verse is inferring that the other "gods" of the heavenly council takes bribes or has respect of persons, but it is only speaking to the integrity of the God who is above all other gods.

Besides, this is a Hebrew superlative statement.  The phrases God of gods, Holy of Holies, Heaven of heavens, Sabbath of sabbaths, servant of servants, vanity of vanities, song of songs, King of kings, Lord of lords, etc. are all Hebrew superlatives.  These kinds of Hebrew superlatives are always stated as the greatest example over other versions of the same thing.  When the Bible refers to the "Holy of holies" it's talking about the place that is the most holy of all other holy places.  When the Bible refers to the "Heaven of heavens" it is referring to the highest and the greatest of all other heavens.  Same with "King of kings", etc. 

So I don't see how civil magistrates fits in as a comparison to God in this kind of Hebrew superlative.  God is not "the Civil Magistrate of civil magistrates", he is the "God of gods".

On 6/3/2026 at 3:27 PM, 3DOP said:

Of course, there are also strange gods. We know that Israel was tempted all through through their history to take up worship of these gods that they had learned about from their neighbors. It is a  constant problem to contend with. If it is an instruction to be aware of making a mistake about some inferior god in a Heavenly Council, it almost seems like those inferior gods were so inferior as to be susceptible to taking advantages of their positions for personal gain.

Again, I don't see how Deuteronomy 10:17 is saying anything about the possibility of the lesser gods as doing things for personal gain.  But you are right about the existence of "strange gods", which were the idols of the nations.  But none of those false gods could be compared to the one true God.

On 6/3/2026 at 3:27 PM, 3DOP said:

Origin also believed, speculatively, that the stars and planets were actually alive. I can get that for you. It is in De Principiis. He argues from the fact that the Scriptures say that the heavenly bodies obey the Lord, and they praise the Lord. I take this anthropomorphically, but maybe these have been thought to be heavenly gods by mistaken parties over the centuries. Could the vast array of heaven be populated by gods? Sure, but what kind?

I think this goes back to some early understandings of the promises given to Abraham in Genesis 15:5, which says, "And he [the LORD] brought him [Abraham] forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be."  David A. Burnett published a paper on Paul's use of Genesis 15:5 in Romans 4:18 in the Journal for the Study of Paul and HIs Letters (Vol. 5, No. 2 - Fall, 2015).  It is titled:

“So Shall Your Seed Be”: Paul’s Use of Genesis 15:5 in Romans 4:18 in Light of Early Jewish Deification Traditions (available online on Academia). 

His opening abstract is as follows (with my emphasis):

Quote

In Rom 4:18, Paul cites the “promise” to Abraham in LXX Gen 15:5, “so shall your seed be” (οὕτως ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα σου) in relation to what it means to “become the father of many nations” from Gen 17:5. Modern scholars have traditionally understood the relationship Paul sees between these two texts quantitatively, as promising a multitude of descendants made up of Jews and Gentiles. Conversely, some early Jewish interpreters of Gen 15:5 (and related texts such as Gen 22:17; 26:4) such as Philo, Sirach, and the author(s) of the Apocalypse of Abraham understood the promise qualitatively, as speaking not only of multiplication but of transformation into the likeness of the stars and assumption of their power. Reading Paul’s use of Gen 15:5 in light of this qualitative interpretation places him within the context of already well-established deification or angelomorphic traditions in early Judaism that see the destiny of Abraham’s seed as replacing the stars as the divine or angelic inheritors of the nations. This tradition may provide a more fitting explanation of the relationship Paul sees between Gen 17:5 and 15:5 in the wider context of the argument of Rom 4. This reading could illuminate the relationship between a complex nexus of ideas that Paul sees implicit in the one promise to Abraham in Gen 15:5. The promise of becoming as the stars of heaven would encompass the inheritance of the cosmos, becoming a father of many nations, and the resurrection from the dead.

The idea is that the people of Old Testament and New Testament times viewed the "stars" as representations of the "gods" or divine beings, and that the promise given to Abraham that his seed would be as the "stars" is an expression of their ascension as "gods", and not merely a reference to their number.

David Burnett even discusses Origen's commentary on Romans 4 in support of his position on the topic.  On page 235 of the journal (page 27 of the PDF linked above), he quotes Origen as follows:  "Thus Abraham ‘against hope believed in hope that he would become the father of many nations,’ (Rom 4:18) which in the future would be like the stars of heaven, not only in terms of the greatness of number but also in splendor.”

It's an interesting article.

On 6/3/2026 at 3:27 PM, 3DOP said:

In Colossians(?) we hear about angel worship. Could angels be called gods in the Old Testament and angels in the New? I don't know.

This is another interesting topic.  I wish I had more time to get into it tonight (it's getting late).  Maybe I'll get some time to write something up on it tomorrow.  

Interesting thoughts, thanks for writing!

Edited Sunday at 04:45 AM by InCognitus

[3DOP]

9 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Thanks for your post, Rory.  And thank YOU for YOUR patience.  I've had a really busy week and very little sleep (I'm trying to catch up).

I was trying very hard to simply provide what the early Christians taught on the subject and what the Bible says about the other gods that exist without interpreting it from a modern point of view.  GoCeltics asked, "When did the idea arise that the Godhead consists of three separate Gods?” and I provided early sources that showed that that idea came from very early on in Judaism and Christianity, and the existence of other gods as well.  I was simply documenting some of the earliest sources on that subject.

I don't think God expects us to reinterpret everything we read in the Old or New Testaments to fit into our modern theological and cultural understandings.  The people of that time had a drastically different culture and world view than we have today. While it is worthwhile for us to try to understand how the original authors of the Bible and their contemporaries understood the things that are written in the Bible, I think the real benefit to us is to learn from the principles taught in the scriptures and try to apply those principles to our lives today.  Nephi says in the Book of Mormon that "I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning” (1 Nephi 19:23).  I think he had the right approach. We are not expected to do a systematic theology of every verse we read, we just need to compare and apply the scriptures to our personal lives so we can profit and learn from them.

This is an important question, and I suppose it depends on what you mean by "kind".    

The "most high God" is definitely beyond comparison in many of his attributes, but the fact that he IS compared to the other gods in scripture seems to point the idea that the other gods are of the same or similar "kind" of being.  Otherwise, the comparisons are nonsensical.

For example, the song of Moses in Exodus 15:11 says, "Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?"  This describes God's holiness and his works as greater than these other "gods".  If these are intended to be false gods then why would Moses, a prophet of God, give credence to false gods by comparing them to the God of Israel?

Or Psalm 86:8, "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works".  

In my opinion, Psalm 86:8 and Exodus 15:11 cannot make any reasonable sense unless the comparison is made to actual “gods” that are real and are the same classification of beings that God is, and are capable of works that are similar to his, although their works are certainly not as great or have the same magnitude of his.  To compare God to any created or non-existent thing (idols?) or corrupt human judges, or any other class of being is insulting and disrespectful (in my view).  It’s like comparing a human to a squirrel or a chicken or a cat.

Exodus 21:6 and 22:7-9 are sometimes translated as "judges", but that is a mistranslation. These are verses that I think have a deeper meaning in an ancient context.

As an example, the Septuagint translates Exodus 21:6 (the Brenton English translation) as follows, "his master shall bring him to the judgment-seat of God".  

Dan McClellan has a good article (from 2009) on these verses that explores the ancient context a little bit.  See "אלהים Does Not Mean “Judges”

Referring to the attempts to translate the "gods" in these verses as "judges", McClellan says, "The rationale behind these translations is no longer an acceptable excuse for seeking out an alternative translation. To begin with, the presence of numerous gods throughout the Hebrew Bible that exist with God’s approbation and even act under his authority is unquestionable. Divine Council ideology pervades every historical layer of biblical literature, from the monarchy (and before) to the late Second Temple Period.  This council acted in an administrative capacity, but also in a juridical one."

I don't see how this verse is inferring that the other "gods" of the heavenly council takes bribes or has respect of persons, but it is only speaking to the integrity of the God who is above all other gods.

Besides, this is a Hebrew superlative statement.  The phrases God of gods, Holy of Holies, Heaven of heavens, Sabbath of sabbaths, servant of servants, vanity of vanities, song of songs, King of kings, Lord of lords, etc. are all Hebrew superlatives.  These kinds of Hebrew superlatives are always stated as the greatest example over other versions of the same thing.  When the Bible refers to the "Holy of holies" it's talking about the place that is the most holy of all other holy places.  When the Bible refers to the "Heaven of heavens" it is referring to the highest and the greatest of all other heavens.  Same with "King of kings", etc. 

So I don't see how civil magistrates fits in as a comparison to God in this kind of Hebrew superlative.  God is not "the Civil Magistrate of civil magistrates", he is the "God of gods".

Again, I don't see how Deuteronomy 10:17 is saying anything about the possibility of the lesser gods as doing things for personal gain.  But you are right about the existence of "strange gods", which were the idols of the nations.  But none of those false gods could be compared to the one true God.

I think this goes back to some early understandings of the promises given to Abraham in Genesis 15:5, which says, "And he [the LORD] brought him [Abraham] forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be."  David A. Burnett published a paper on Paul's use of Genesis 15:5 in Romans 4:18 in the Journal for the Study of Paul and HIs Letters (Vol. 5, No. 2 - Fall, 2015).  It is titled:

“So Shall Your Seed Be”: Paul’s Use of Genesis 15:5 in Romans 4:18 in Light of Early Jewish Deification Traditions (available online on Academia). 

His opening abstract is as follows (with my emphasis):

The idea is that the people of Old Testament and New Testament times viewed the "stars" as representations of the "gods" or divine beings, and that the promise given to Abraham that his seed would be as the "stars" is an expression of their ascension as "gods", and not merely a reference to their number.

David Burnett even discusses Origen's commentary on Romans 4 in support of his position on the topic.  On page 235 of the journal (page 27 of the PDF linked above), he quotes Origen as follows:  "Thus Abraham ‘against hope believed in hope that he would become the father of many nations,’ (Rom 4:18) which in the future would be like the stars of heaven, not only in terms of the greatness of number but also in splendor.”

It's an interesting article.

This is another interesting topic.  I wish I had more time to get into it tonight (it's getting late).  Maybe I'll get some time to write something up on it tomorrow.  

Interesting thoughts, thanks for writing!

Thank you. Good job. I hope to answer with a brief rebuttal in the near future.

[GoCeltics]

On 6/6/2026 at 5:59 PM, InCognitus said:

I was only referring to the "gods" of the heavenly council as described in the Bible, the "gods" who are with God in the heavens as was taught and understood in early Judaism and early Christianity.  I was referring to how they understood those "gods" and why they originally considered Jesus to be the "second God".  They had no problem with the idea that other gods exist in heaven with God.

Just to clarify, when you use the term "gods" for those at the heavenly council, do you mean exalted and glorified beings with resurrected bodies?

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Just to clarify, when you use the term "gods" for those at the heavenly council, do you mean exalted and glorified beings with resurrected bodies?

I don't mean any such designation other than that they are "gods" and are with God in the heavenly council.

[theplains]

On 6/6/2026 at 5:54 PM, InCognitus said:

Let me review the chain of discussion I was having in this folder:

Your Post on 05/12/2026:  You (posting as GoCeltics) asked the question, “When did the idea arise that the Godhead consists of three separate Gods?”

• My Post on 05/12/2026:  My response to the post from you (posting as GoCeltics), where I answered this question by providing quotes from the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (20 BC to 50 AD), and the early Christians Justin Martyr (150 AD), Origen (185-254 AD), and Lactantius (240-320 AD), where they all taught that either the Logos (Philo) or Jesus (the early Christians) is the “second God” or “another God”.  This was in direct response to the question, “When did the idea arise that the Godhead consists of three separate Gods?”   It was an “idea” that existed a long time ago in Judaism and early Christianity.

Many have taught various things - even that Heavenly Father was once a man who became a God
or that the Holy Spirit is a child of heavenly parents.

But I don't go beyond the scriptures: Deuteronomy 4:35; Deuteronomy 4:39; Deuteronomy 6:4;
2 Samuel 7:22; 1 Kings 8:60; Nehemiah 9:6; Isaiah 43:10–11; Isaiah 44:6; Isaiah 44:8; Isaiah 45:5–6;
Isaiah 45:21–22; Isaiah 46:9.

[3DOP]

InCognitus, hi. 

I will be brief as I said. First a clip from your latest reply to me.

InCognitus 

"I don't see how Deuteronomy 10:17 is saying anything about the possibility of the lesser gods as doing things for personal gain.  But you are right about the existence of "strange gods", which were the idols of the nations.  But none of those false gods could be com pared to the one true God."

Deut. 10:17

"For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward" 

Me

I see a danger from the Israelites worshipping "gods" that are unworthy of comparison with the God of Deut. 10:17, made by men's hands like the Golden Calf fashioned by Aaron, or other such "gods" of the nations. I am not familiar with any reasons for why God should be warning them about worshipping a council of "less unworthy gods", when they are already worshipping created gods of clay, wood, or stone. Likewise living creatures whether animate or vegetative. Also no planets, stars, or mountains. No emperors or magistrates. I cannot make an exhaustive list. In short, no created object in existence is worthy of worship.  

As for magistrates called "gods" in certain translations, I could only think that the LORD was certainly referring to those, as opposed to "strange false gods", or a heavenly council of gods, none of whom one would suspect of being subject to bribery, or respecting persons in false judgment in Deut. 10. It would seem that you might admit this argument except that you hold that it is a mistranslation of the biblical text? I would be satisfied at this time if you could admit that if the translation which has guided my thinking on Deut. 10:17 were accurate, you too, would need to admit corruptible earthly civil authorities among those who are designated as gods in Scripture.    

I agree that no false gods are comparable to the one true God. But creatures that are made in His image, as I am sure you will agree, have attributes that are indeed similar, which give hope for exaltation and greater participation in God's incomparable nature. But when creatures which have such potential because of their similarities to the true God worship  created things, it is a truly abominable demeaning of not only their own dignity, but especially that of the Creator. But this was what they did in ancient Israel, and I believe that this is what most of the Old Testament is talking about. 

Since you appear to be refraining from a definition of whom "the Heavenly Council" consists, or its function, I have no wish to oppose it. It could consist of men or angels. I could not conceive of its being an advisory body. Unless you would assign its function as a guide by which God discerns what He should do, or if you would teach that like God, the heavenly council are uncreated, I have no objection. 

Thanks, InCog, as usual, I appreciate the discussion with you here.

----------------------------

But theplains is GoCeltics? I thought GoCeltics was a questioning Latter-day Saint. I do not wish to offend by speaking to either of you in third person. So do you @theplains, or you @GoCeltics have a wish to admit or clear up any suspicions about your identities?

Rory McKenzie

Edited 20 hours ago by 3DOP

[3DOP]

On 5/27/2026 at 9:22 AM, theplains said:

I am a former Catholic but have never used that term to describe infant baptism. 

For adults, I think a priest or deacon pours water over the person’s head (or sometimes immerses 
them) three times while saying: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Spirit".

It would be remarkably absurd if a Catholic were to oppose infant baptism using that expression "baby sprinklers". It was more about the recipient of baptism than the mode. "Sprinkler" sounded silly which was on purpose. But the key was "baby". I believed in believers baptism only at the time. Maybe you thought I was speaking as a Catholic? No, no, no. I was confessing the ignorance of my early Protestant years when I used that expression, assuming there was no biblical argument at all for infant baptism. Subsequently, I was humbled when I learned better and and stopped ridiculing those I did not understand...Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Catholics (!) and others.