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 6 hours ago 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 8 hours ago 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.