General Conference talk on the understanding of the Godhead

[3DOP]

On 6/1/2026 at 10:47 PM, 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.

InCognitus, hey.

No hurry and no reply needed. 

Without quoting your post within the system, I responded with all manner of destruction and ruin upon your last ignorant post.

This post is a courtesy so you will get a notice of a post to you in this thread. I cannot resist making certain of your opportunity to see the delicious dinner I have served you. Eat it if you dare 😋 

Disclaimer: The preceding is an example of my sometimes misunderstood and offbeat humor. 

Regards,

3DOP 

 

 

[InCognitus]

On 6/10/2026 at 9:01 AM, theplains said:

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.

So your Bible only has those 15 verses in it?  And that’s the only scripture that you can’t go beyond?  You do realize that the Bible has more than 15 verses in it, right?

Proof texting a modern belief back into the Bible is a common tactic.  But you really need to take the Bible in its textual and historical context.

And do you think Philo, Justin Martyr, Origen, and Lactantius, who lived in that ancient time and culture, had no clue about what the Jewish and Christian belief was on this topic?

There is additional context you should consider, including:

“Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children:  But these two things shall come to thee in a moment in one day, the loss of children, and widowhood: they shall come upon thee in their perfection for the multitude of thy sorceries, and for the great abundance of thine enchantments. For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.”  (Isaiah 47:8–10)

“This [Ninevah (see verse 13)] is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.” (Zephaniah 2:15)

"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)

[InCognitus]

On 6/12/2026 at 9:53 AM, 3DOP said:

InCognitus, hey.

No hurry and no reply needed. 

I have things to say in response to your post, but earlier this week I was asked to give a talk in church next week and I'm leaving on an all week business trip tomorrow morning, and I'm trying to get my thoughts together for the talk topic.  (The date of the talk is on Father's Day, and the topic is "Heavenly Father". Got any ideas on how to narrow that down? ).  I only logged in today because I saw the warning about the email address and sign-in changes.  I really hope those changes don't impact you.  Please find a way to make sure your login works, because you are a valuable resource on this board.

[3DOP]

22 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I have things to say in response to your post, but earlier this week I was asked to give a talk in church next week and I'm leaving on an all week business trip tomorrow morning, and I'm trying to get my thoughts together for the talk topic.  (The date of the talk is on Father's Day, and the topic is "Heavenly Father". Got any ideas on how to narrow that down? ).  I only logged in today because I saw the warning about the email address and sign-in changes.  I really hope those changes don't impact you.  Please find a way to make sure your login works, because you are a valuable resource on this board.

See you soon! Thanks InCognitus.

[Teancum]

On 5/7/2026 at 9:52 AM, GoCeltics said:

What's your perspective on this General Conference talk?

In contrast, many Christians reject the idea of a tangible, personal God and a Godhead of three separate beings. They believe that God is a spirit and that the Godhead is only one God. In our view, these concepts are evidence of the falling away we call the Great Apostasy.

I’ve been reading about how God is described as a spirit—for example, in Alma 18:26 28, where God is called the “Great Spirit.” At the same time, passages like 3 Nephi 11:36, 2 Nephi 31:21, and Doctrine and Covenants 20:28 talk about the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as being “one God.”

Some questions:

When did the idea arise that the Godhead consists of three separate Gods?

When did the view that God is a spirit start to be considered incorrect? Related question: If God was not married and did not have a physical body, could we still be considered as being created in his image?

The concept of God in the Book of Mormon and early LDS teaching is clearly similar to classical Christian theology. It was around 1838 the Joseph introduced the idea of three separate Gods and that the Father was a corporeal being. And of course the radical doctrines about God and eternal progression came after that.  This is one of the major criticisms for Evangelical Critics. I dealt with one fellow who came to pass out material and the Hill Cumorah pageant each year when I was a believing apologist. He had a paper called "We used to agree." I wrote a 100 page rebuttal of that paper but looking at it know it seems like a desperate attempt to argue that we were not more like the trinitarians from 1820 to 1838. I think the paper is on the FAIR website. I presented it at a FAIR conference I think at Alta Utah. That was maybe the third FAIR conference. 

[3DOP]

22 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The concept of God in the Book of Mormon and early LDS teaching is clearly similar to classical Christian theology. It was around 1838 the Joseph introduced the idea of three separate Gods and that the Father was a corporeal being. And of course the radical doctrines about God and eternal progression came after that.  This is one of the major criticisms for Evangelical Critics. I dealt with one fellow who came to pass out material and the Hill Cumorah pageant each year when I was a believing apologist. He had a paper called "We used to agree." I wrote a 100 page rebuttal of that paper but looking at it know it seems like a desperate attempt to argue that we were not more like the trinitarians from 1820 to 1838. I think the paper is on the FAIR website. I presented it at a FAIR conference I think at Alta Utah. That was maybe the third FAIR conference. 

Very interesting Teancum. Do you think it is impossible that at a future time that the LDS could return to its primitive roots?

The LDS Church is not 200 years old. The LDS correctly point out that creedal orthodoxy in the early church didn't arrive until Nicea. Few LDS even understand Nicene thought. It isn't so remotely different, nor certainly as ridiculous as many LDS have believed.

The only major problem I would see, is that to return to its roots, the LDS would lose one of its arguments against the early church. Where would be the big Apostasy?

Can you think of any other reasons why, like the early church, the LDS could not return to its earliest sources after, say, 300 years of existence? They could still plead a necessity of Apostles. 

Thanks,

3DOP 

 

Edited June 15 by 3DOP

[theplains]

On 6/10/2026 at 2:31 PM, 3DOP said:

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?

InCognitus supposes I (theplains) is GoCeltics = telnetd = thetanakas, not sure who else. If I copy
and paste some of your content or ask similar questions as you, then you'll be on that list too.

I am a distinct individual. I am not a godhead made up separate individuals.  I am a questioning
non-LDS person.  Not sure about GoCeltics.

Edited June 16 by theplains

[theplains]

On 6/14/2026 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

So your Bible only has those 15 verses in it?  And that’s the only scripture that you can’t go beyond?  You do realize that the Bible has more than 15 verses in it, right?

Proof texting a modern belief back into the Bible is a common tactic.  But you really need to take the Bible in its textual and historical context.

And do you think Philo, Justin Martyr, Origen, and Lactantius, who lived in that ancient time and culture, had no clue about what the Jewish and Christian belief was on this topic?

 

Right. The scriptures harmonize with its entirety.

There is nothing to indicate God is not God from all eternity, a supposed Heavenly Mother and 
Father became Gods, or that there are a plurality of Gods existing before a man supposedly 
progressed into becoming a God and then a heavenly parent of our Earth.

These were the inventions of Joseph Smith.

[Teancum]

On 6/15/2026 at 12:05 PM, 3DOP said:

Very interesting Teancum. Do you think it is impossible that at a future time that the LDS could return to its primitive roots?

The LDS Church is not 200 years old. The LDS correctly point out that creedal orthodoxy in the early church didn't arrive until Nicea. Few LDS even understand Nicene thought. It isn't so remotely  different, nor certainly as ridiculous as many LDS have believed.

The only major problem I would see, is that to return to its roots, the LDS would lose one of its arguments against the early church. Where would be the big Apostasy?

Can you think of any other reasons why, like the early church, the LDS could not return to its earliest sources after, say, 300 years of existence? They could still plead a necessity of Apostles. 

Thanks,

3DOP 

 

Certainly it is possible. Yet there would be some significant doctrinal shifts to do so. Interestingly, when I wrote my paper I was surprised to learn that Bruce McConkie loved the Lectures on Faith and was pro adding them back the the LDS Canon. They were included from in the 1935 Doctrine and Covenants but dropped in 1921 shortly after the First Presidency pronouncement on the Godhead. And that because the Lecture, particular Lecture 5 conflicted with the stated doctrine in the FO statement. But there was never a vote to remove the Lectures, which we called the doctrine of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenents. They were one of a series of such doctrine treatises that were planned for the Doctrine and Covenants.

Here is what McConkie said about Lecture 5 that it is:

 

Quote

the most comprehensive, intelligent, inspired utterance that now exists" for understanding the Godhead. Regarding Lecture 5 and its conclusion, he highlighted how it provides the "sure foundation" for "exercise of faith unto life and salvation" Using the holy scriptures as the recorded source of the knowledge of God, knowing what the Lord has revealed to them of old in visions and by the power of the Spirit, and writing as guided by that same Spirit, Joseph Smith and the early brethren of this dispensation prepared a creedal statement on the Godhead. It is without question the most excellent summary of revealed and eternal truth relative to the Godhead that is now extant in mortal language. In it is set forth the mystery of Godliness; that is, it sets forth the personalities, missions, and ministries of those holy beings who comprise the supreme presidency of the universe. To spiritually illiterate persons, it may seem hard and confusing; to those whose souls are aflame with heavenly light, it is a nearly perfect summary of those things which must be believed to gain salvation

He also said that the Godhead are one in that the divinely indwell one another and share the same mind, thought, purposes, etc. Elder McConkie seemed semi classical in his thoughts about the Godhead and how they are one.

[Teancum]

On 5/11/2026 at 1:52 AM, Pyreaux said:

My point isn't to insist on one specific pattern. The King Follett Sermon makes 'certainty' impossible whether God's "mortality" is mortality as we know it. When the King Follett Discourse supposes Jesus’ mortality mirrored the Father’s mortality in some way, Jesus was God before he obtained any bodily form, a Creator of His world before He walked on it, who had power over life and death and remained sinless. It does not suggest the Father's mortality was a standard human experience. It doesn't smoothly fit the simple "pattern" later thought of "as man is, God once was".

Other than saying one day God the Father simply chooses, for reasons, to exist in a physical form, there nothing in particular dictating the Father isn't still a unique, self-existing, innately powered, non-striving, never 'progressing' in the sense from sin to glory, simply transitioning. If the 'cycle' is inconsistent, if some gods are like Jesus and others were like us, then there is no 'pattern' at all, some are apparently exceptions.

What's most interesting, if we assume the Father was always God and just took a body like Jesus and glorified it, then the non-LDS charge of "blasphemy" of God being merely a "man" is weakened. He’s just a God with a body, no less Godly than Jesus is now or was.

You outlined what my position on this topic was when I was a believer and defending against a critique that we believed God the Father was a man just like us.

[Teancum]

On 5/20/2026 at 8:22 PM, 3DOP said:

---continued from above

longview, you wrote about what you allege to be the theological problems of at least some non-LDS Christians. Forgive me if I wrongly assume that Catholics would be included. Here is what you wrote: 

"Thus we MUST resist the temptation of hellenistic fantasy of conflating the personhood of Jesus/Jehovah with the personhood of God the Father/Elohim. The Nicean Council and early "fathers" were in a tizzy over trying to define the single ONE God by using various non-biblical terminologies such as consubstantiation and whatever impenetrable "mysteries". We simply can take at face value the many descriptions of the members of the Godhead, all having important distinct personable roles." (blue lettering is mine)

1) Hellenistic fantasy

I have never heard of a discussion among Catholic thinkers who while under any hellenistic influence conflate the personhood of Jesus/Jehovah with the person of God the Father/Elohim". Perhaps MisereNobis or tonyuk could comment on whether they have heard of any fellow Catholics dogmatically teaching different personal identities between Elohim and Jehovah. I am not aware of ANY dogmatic position on this question. I have been vaguely aware that LDS find this important for a reason that did not seem to concern me, and I have never addressed it until now, when it seems like the Catholic Church is accused of being on the wrong side. For my part, I can never even remember Who you say is Who, and I certainly don't have any understanding of any significant importance.

I suppose this question has arisen because of the great light that has been shed on the Old Testament since Jesus revealed to us the New Testament. Do you think that for 1500 years God's covenant people of Israel had this understanding? I would be personally hesitant to be dogmatic about this kind of speculation which for well over a millenium was understood differently without any apparent disharmony with God. How are Catholics apparently guilty of corrupting either Testament with their alleged Greek influences if I am correct that we are not so dogmatic as LDS about different identities.

I would be grateful if you could show me where you get the idea that the Catholic Church takes a position on this. I am willing to believe what you say about Elohim and Jehovah if you can show me either from Catholic magisterial sources or our shared Scriptures, where this is revealed and why it is important. As a Catholic, I don't think I could be disciplined if I voiced such a position. Further, at this time, I don't know why "hellenistic fantasy" would affect my lack of concern. Do you think that Plato or Aristotle or any other Greek philosophers said things that would imply that as one who embraces "hellenistic fantasy", I need to take up a dogmatic position on this question?

Next I will try to address your concerns about extra-biblical terminology, tizzie, and your apparent belief that the Council of NIcea makes Catholics reject "the many descriptions of the members of the Godhead, all having important distinct personable roles."

---to be continued  

I have to say that after reading through your posts and some of the other LDS posters, I think Bruce McConkie was onto something on his comments about The Fifth Lecture when he talked about the members of the Godhead divinely indwelling each other. He notes in that way they are ONE, in that they share the same mind, thoughts, etc. So while physically not one, it seems to me he thought they were sure one in almost all ways that matter. He also goes on to say that humans that are exalted would also be one with the Godhead by, I assume, divinely indwelling each other as well maybe? 

Seems like we if Latter-day Saint doctrine on this is properly represented by Elder McConkie, Orthodox Christians and Latter-day Saints are closer than we may think. Thoughts?

 

[Teancum]

On 5/22/2026 at 5:01 PM, Calm said:

The King Follett Discourse is not canon.  It was not created by Joseph, but by piecing together 4? different sets of notes that don’t agree on every point and somethings only one set of notes mention so there’s no way to really confirm it.  Joseph never got a chance to review it to be sure it was remembered or interpreted accurately or to correct a misstatement.  

It may not be canon. But its ideas certainly were incorporated into enough LDS lesson manuals including seminary and institute manuals, in LDS conference talks, many by LDS prophets. that it is hard to say it is not doctrinal. I know it was being emphasized less from the time I was entering my less active phase of my church experience.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But its ideas certainly were incorporated into enough LDS lesson manuals including seminary and institute manuals, in LDS conference talks, many by LDS prophets. that it is hard to say it is not doctrinal.

Some of its ideas, for sure.  I agree with those that have been repeated are definitely doctrinal.  But other of its ideas have been ignored.  I believe people need to be careful not to treat it like a regular conference talk since 1) there are different version that sometimes contradict each other or have unique ideas not confirmed by other versions or other materials from Joseph and 2) it was never vetted by Joseph iirc.  He could have misstated something.  
 

I would love to see a color coded version where ideas that have been consistently taught over the years, ideas that were present in more than one version, ideas that were present in only one version, and ideas that are contradicted by other versions or other teachings of Joseph are all highlighted in different colors with appropriate footnotes.  I could get behind that as a study aid.   

[Teancum]

On 5/27/2026 at 10:38 AM, theplains said:

@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.

When I was an LDS believer I took the position that indeed God the Father was not just a God of some other gods. But that He was the God that started it all. Infinite regression backwards to there always being some god somewhere back in time seemed preposterous to me. The idea of God existing outside of time and space and creating both seemed more plausible. In The Book of Abraham we find these verses in Abraham 3:19-21. I cam to interpret the words bolded, where God says He is more intelligent than all of them he meant all of them put together. I came to believe The Father was the original God that started out as an intelligence greater than all others combined. He started the process of creating worlds and went as the savior of the first world he created and that has been going on ever since. Maybe that was a bit tortured conclusion but I prayed and pondered it when I believed in answers to such prayers and I came to be satisfied that I was on to something.  But that still ranks Jesus as a god among Gods and not exactly like his Father. Though I did believe Jesus was fully God before he was incarnate. etc.

Quote

 

Abraham 3:19-21

19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

20 The Lord thy God sent his angel to deliver thee from the hands of the priest of Elkenah.

21 I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to declare unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen.

 

 

[Teancum]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

Some of its ideas, for sure.  I agree with those that have been repeated are definitely doctrinal.  But other of its ideas have been ignored.  I believe people need to be careful not to treat it like a regular conference talk since 1) there are different version that sometimes contradict each other or have unique ideas not confirmed by other versions or other materials from Joseph and 2) it was never vetted by Joseph iirc.  He could have misstated something.  
 

I would love to see a color coded version where ideas that have been consistently taught over the years, ideas that were present in more than one version, ideas that were present in only one version, and ideas that are contradicted by other versions or other teachings of Joseph are all highlighted in different colors with appropriate footnotes.  I could get behind that as a study aid.   

What I struggle with is how assertive the KFD was taught. I refer, as usual 😁to SWK. I recall I believe an address and the U of U where he talked about all the priesthood holders there becoming Gods and creating worlds, thousands of worlds, just like our God had before us. Insure believed the KFD doctrine as much as I believed anyth8ing in the Canon. 

[Teancum]

On 6/1/2026 at 1:37 PM, Tacenda said:

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. 

The church accepts wearing a cross now? I guess I have been away too long. 🤪

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The church accepts wearing a cross now? I guess I have been away too long. 🤪

I guess so!

[Teancum]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess so!

When did that happen? 

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

When did that happen? 

Well, in Brigham Young's time, there were people wearing crosses. I think it was much later and IMHO, when we didn't want to be like the Catholics with the crosses? In this LDS living in 2022 it goes into more. https://www.ldsliving.com/what-church-leaders-and-church-history-teach-about-wearing-and-displaying-the-cross/s/10418

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

What I struggle with is how assertive the KFD was taught. I refer, as usual 😁to SWK. I recall I believe an address and the U of U where he talked about all the priesthood holders there becoming Gods and creating worlds, thousands of worlds, just like our God had before us. Insure believed the KFD doctrine as much as I believed anyth8ing in the Canon. 

That is a small part of the KFD imo.  Not in terms of importance, of course, but all the details included.  Yet it is often used as shorthand for Plan of Salvation stuff.  

There are parts that are still prominent imo.  

Some however that is never heard from the pulpit. When was the last time someone taught that those who died young would live eternally at that age?

“A question will Mothers have their Children in Eternity yes, yes, you will have the Children, <But> as is it falls so it will rise, It will never grow, It will be in its precise form as it fell in its mothers arms. Eternity is full of thrones upon which dwell thousands of Children reigning on thrones of glory not one cubit added to their stature.”

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff/1#full-transcript

This is the only one that says they will not grow at all (not just not grow or change to adults while dead).  The other 3 talk about being able to inherit thrones, etc, so I am guessing Woodruff put 1 and 1 together and got 3…3 being age/physical form wouldn’t ever change with one 1 being things would be the same or something like that, but Joseph meant blessings and not physical form here and the other 1 being mothers would raise their children from the age they died at, physical form when resurrected being the same as at death but growing into adulthood, not being locked into childhood for eternity.

One of these days I should totally dissect the KFD.  
 

 

Edited June 23 by Calm

[3DOP]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

It may not be canon. But its ideas certainly were incorporated into enough LDS lesson manuals including seminary and institute manuals, in LDS conference talks, many by LDS prophets. that it is hard to say it is not doctrinal. I know it was being emphasized less from the time I was entering my less active phase of my church experience.

As an LDS, I could handle a blip in history where LDS acted like the King Follett Discourse is canonical. 

My problem comes if because of a non-canonical exhortation, the Restored Church claims evidence of apostasy in the early church because, without the KFD (!), the early church developed beliefs about the Godhead which are close to what early LDS believed before the KFD.

There might be other apostasy arguments to be examined. But if LDS are allowed to hold to beliefs in their early days that seem close to Nicene theology, then how could Nicea be used against the early church as evidence of apostasy?

There are still questions about priesthood authority and the need for Apostles. But could we maybe stop worrying about over hellenized Christians who met at Nicea missing digits and eyeballs because they were tortured for their faith in Plato? 

LDS should respect and honor them for their sacrifices for Jesus even with doubt about their precise teachings.   

In any event, the Restored Church will eventually end up closer to Nicea than that sketchy funeral oration.

LDS have been inferring to me for almost thirty years that bad and corrupt bishops who met at Nicea suffered horrendous tortures in the Diocletian persecution in the hope of undermining Christ's Gospel for Greek philosophy at some future they could not have foreseen. I can't believe that. Eventually that false history is going to be laid to rest by the LDS too. In less than two centuries I should think.

 

 

Edited June 24 by 3DOP

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

That is a small part of the KFD imo.  Not in terms of importance, of course, but all the details included.  Yet it is often used as shorthand for Plan of Salvation stuff.  

There are parts that are still prominent imo.  

Some however that is never heard from the pulpit. When was the last time someone taught that those who died young would live eternally at that age?

“A question will Mothers have their Children in Eternity yes, yes, you will have the Children, <But> as is it falls so it will rise, It will never grow, It will be in its precise form as it fell in its mothers arms. Eternity is full of thrones upon which dwell thousands of Children reigning on thrones of glory not one cubit added to their stature.”

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff/1#full-transcript

This is the only one that says they will not grow at all (not just not grow or change to adults while dead).  The other 3 talk about being able to inherit thrones, etc, so I am guessing Woodruff put 1 and 1 together and got 3…3 being age/physical form wouldn’t ever change with one 1 being things would be the same or something like that, but Joseph meant blessings and not physical form here and the other 1 being mothers would raise their children from the age they died at, physical form when resurrected being the same as at death but growing into adulthood, not being locked into childhood for eternity.

One of these days I should totally dissect the KFD.  
 

 

Do you think the church does not emphasize the God was once a man....because that want to move away from this idea? Is it part of what looks like an attempt to appear more main stream?

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, 3DOP said:

As an LDS, I could handle a blip in history where LDS acted like the King Follett Discourse is canonical. 

My problem comes if because of a non-canonical exhortation, the Restored Church claims evidence of apostasy in the early church because, without the KFD (!), the early church developed beliefs about the Godhead which are close to what early LDS believed before the KFD.

There might be other apostasy arguments to be examined. But if LDS are allowed to hold to beliefs in their early days that seem close to Nicene theology, then how could Nicea be used against the early church as evidence of apostasy?

There are still questions about priesthood authority and the need for Apostles. But could we maybe stop worrying about over hellenized Christians who met at Nicea missing digits and eyeballs because they were tortured for their faith in Plato? 

LDS should respect and honor them for their sacrifices for Jesus even with doubt about their precise teachings.   

In any event, the Restored Church will eventually end up closer to Nicea than that sketchy funeral oration.

LDS have been inferring to me for almost thirty years that bad and corrupt bishops who met at Nicea suffered horrendous tortures in the Diocletian persecution in the hope of undermining Christ's Gospel for Greek philosophy at some future they could not have foreseen. I can't believe that. Eventually that false history is going to be laid to rest by the LDS too. In less than two centuries I should think.

 

 

Well in my view that LDS Church has made plenty of changes that are not dissimilar to changes that happened over the many centuries of Christianity. Some might view that as apostasy by the church. The changes to doctrine about the Godhead, though the Church position on this is continuing revelation gave us addition light and knowledge. But how about the downplay on the doctrines of the KFD and creating worlds. What about changes to the Endowment that many view as significant.  Ending Polygamy seemed a major hurdle for a number of splinter groups to rise up. And there are other LDS spin offs as well. It does seem that differing standards may be applied by Latter-day Saints to our faith vs others perhaps?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Do you think the church does not emphasize the God was once a man....because that want to move away from this idea? Is it part of what looks like an attempt to appear more main stream?

No, I don’t believe that.  Given what I see in manuals in the last 25 years, I think they try to use scripture as much as possible to support teachings and if an belief is not fleshed out in scripture, it may not get discussed in detail.  Speculation is much less present in manuals as well now than it was in the past….which I very much approve of.

And God the Father as a mortal is not detailed in scripture or imo official sources for labeled revelation.   I also think with the misrepresentations that have been done by antis, they are more careful in how this is taught in official publications, including conference.  I don’t think it’s about looking more mainstream, but an overall approach to keep to the better supported basics when teaching.

Functionally it may often end up looking the same, but the purpose is quite different imo….just as me cleaning my house because I love order is not anywhere close to me cleaning my house so I won’t be embarrassed when others come over, but it looks identical with a very clean house.

Edited June 24 by Calm

[3DOP]

So...without  immediately interacting with the latest remarks, I have been wondering what you think @GoCeltics since you started this whole thread. I don't want to discourage you from being LDS unless you are veering off on a course to Rome(!), which seems premature.  You are still okay as LDS? I am thinking of another thread that might interest you. Unless you are still watching here. Let us know where you are on this. What are your thoughts?