General Conference talk on the understanding of the Godhead

[GoCeltics]

On 7/12/2026 at 8:59 PM, InCognitus said:

So you think God the Father was doing the things that Jesus did at the same time that Jesus did them so Jesus could “see” his Father do those things in the present tense?

It depends on how you interpret what the Father is doing while Jesus is acting based on what he observes the Father doing.

On 7/12/2026 at 8:59 PM, InCognitus said:

I believe God can reveal things to us (past, present, or future) in the present tense.  Don’t you?

Yes.

[GoCeltics]

On 7/12/2026 at 9:04 PM, InCognitus said:

Nobody else talks like this.  In case anyone had any doubt that theplains and GoCeltics are the same person, see the post from theplains on 04/21/2025:

And:

Two or more people can ask the same question and that makes them the same person. Sure 😀

[InCognitus]

13 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

On 7/12/2026 at 6:59 PM, InCognitus said:

I believe God can reveal things to us (past, present, or future) in the present tense.  Don’t you?

Yes.

So no problem then.

[GoCeltics]

On 7/14/2026 at 11:20 PM, InCognitus said:

So no problem then.

Except that worshipping Joseph Smith’s God leads to another destination.

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Except that worshipping Joseph Smith’s God leads to another destination.

Right, the Celestial Kingdom of God, living eternally with God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ.

[theplains]

On 7/12/2026 at 8:53 PM, InCognitus said:

No, that’s not correct.  This is what I said in a recent post to you on July 1, where I was commenting on a quote from the King Follet Discourse.  I said:

God is eternally the Most High God who once was a man and he became our God, just as Joseph Smith taught in that same sermon:

In that discourse, he said "I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and 
supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so 
that you may see".

Do you believe that he was only teaching the people to know and believe God became OUR God instead 
of Him becoming A God?  If yes, provide the exact inference.
 

On 7/12/2026 at 8:53 PM, InCognitus said:

"The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. 

Under whose laws did Heavenly Father advance before and after he supposedly became a man?
 

On 7/12/2026 at 8:53 PM, InCognitus said:

In my post on May 26, 2025, I provided a list of some of the early Christian Fathers that taught that men become “gods” or are deified (they are “exalted”), and taught that other “gods” exist in reality:

• Clement of Rome (35 AD – 99 AD) – “Saint” (Clement is mentioned in the Bible in Philippians 4:3).
• Justin Martyr (150 AD) - “Saint”
• Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 175 - c. 195) - “Saint”
• Theophilus of Antioch (died approximately 180 AD)
• Clement of Alexandria (c. 155 - c. 220 AD) - “Saint”
• Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD) - “Saint”
• Origen (185-254 AD) - Highly regarded as one of the most influential Christian theologians
• Cyprian (A.D. 200-258) - “Saint”
• Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 296–373) - “Saint”
• Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-395) - “Saint”
• Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) - “Saint"

These men lived the closest to the time of Jesus and the apostles.  Some of them personally knew the apostles and were taught by them, or they were taught by others who were taught by the apostles. These were orthodox Christians.  Many of them are called “Saints”.  Their teachings about other gods and that humans can become gods were not isolated cases, they were widespread teachings, proving that these were fundamental doctrines of early Christianity.  How did they have this doctrine in common among them if it did not originate from a common earlier source?  Did they invent it independently in different parts of the Christian world?

Moses and Satan were referred to as gods in scripture but they were not Deities.  

As for the people you mentioned above, I don't believe it was on par with all the quotes from the 
following:

1] The thread "The caricature: Mormons wishing to "get their own planet?"

2] Doctrine and Covenants 76 ("…And he makes them equal in power, and in might, and in dominion")

3] Gospel Principles (page 275 - "Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives 
in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit 
children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation". Page 277 - 
"5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, 
dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20)"

4] Orson Pratt, The Seer.

"All these Gods are equal in power, in glory, in dominion, and in the possession of all things; 
each possesses a fulness of truth, of knowledge, of wisdom, of light, of intelligence ; each 
governs himself in all things by his own attributes, and is filled with love, goodness, mercy, 
and justice towards all. The fulness of all these attributes is what constitutes God. "God is 
Light." "God is Love." "God is Truth." The Gods are one in the qualities and attributes".

"Each person is called God, not because of his substance, neither because of the shape and size 
of the substance, but because of the qualities which dwell in the substance" .

You seem to believe the men you quoted above were speaking the truth, but you didn't mention if 
you believed all the LDS leaders that I referenced were speaking the truth or if you also consider 
them as "doctrine" like you applied above.

Have a look at the thread and let me know which statements you believe are false.

It's odd how you use the word "doctrine" and apply it to what the early Church Fathers taught but 
you don't apply the same thing to what LDS leaders taught.

We have LDS teaching guides like "Doctrines of Salvation" and "Doctrines of the Gospel – Student 
Manual" but you want readers to believe nothing in them is not a false doctrine, right?  The book 
"Gospel Truths", by former First Presidency Member George Q. Cannon" is really not "gospel truths", 
right?

I suggest you quote some of what your own LDS leaders really teach and really mean if you disagree 
with how I am interpreting them.

I don't agree that everything early Church Fathers taught square with what has been revealed in 
scripture.  "Becoming like God" in the LDS sense is not how Christians view "Adam and Eve becoming 
like God" in the Garden of Eden.  Being created in the image of God does not make us gods.

The Church Fathers did not teach Heavenly Father was once a married man who became a God and then 
populated Earth with spirit children created on the world he lives on. They also didn't teach 
Jesus and the Holy Ghost are spirit brothers of Lucifer.

When LDS leaders have repeatedly taught God is an exalted man, they do not mean that God was always 
a God and then this God became a man, and then this God/man was re-exalted back to the position he 
had before. 

It's even taught as LDS doctrine that Jesus became a God in his pre-mortal life before he comes 
to Earth in mortal flesh.

Does the LDS Heavenly Mother become a God before the LDS Jesus is even born to her as her first 
spirit child? Obviously. Was he born a spirit-God to her?  No.  He was ranked as a God when he 
reached some pinnacle of intelligence in his pre-existence, as taught in "Doctrines of the 
Gospel – Student Manual).  

In some fashion, an LDS man and woman attained their fulness of joy when they became Gods (they 
achieved godhood) and then supposedly became Heavenly Parents of Earth.
 

On 7/12/2026 at 8:53 PM, InCognitus said:

Is it a temptation to want to sit with God in his throne?  Why would you consider it a “temptation” to want the very thing that God offers to us?  Is God trying to trick us?

No.  But I see a dividing line between the Creator and creation.
 

On 7/12/2026 at 8:53 PM, InCognitus said:

Was Jesus tempting us too when he prayed to his Father so that his disciples would receive the very same “glory” with him and the Father, that Jesus received from his Father?  (John 17:22)   How are these things temptations?  It shows God’s love for us and his desire for us to partake of everything that he enjoys.

We will partake of God's blessings in his kingdom but this won't make us Gods.

If I understand LDS theology correctly, everyone in the Celestial kingdom (with its three sections) 
will have celestial glory, whose glory is that of the sun (D&C 76:70).  And the glory of the sun is 
one (76:96).  But all the inhabitants of the celestial kingdom are not Gods.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not 
perish but have eternal life".

In LDS theology, you can put the inhabitants of the two lower divisions of the celestial kingdom 
and all from the terrestrial/telestial kingdoms into the "should perish" class.

On the flip side, God's love is not demonstrated to those who don't partake of everything that he 
enjoys.

[theplains]

On 7/12/2026 at 8:54 PM, InCognitus said:

As for the others, I don’t think anyone denies that God the Father is an “exalted man”.  He has “achieved Godhood” and “progressed to Godhood” in that he was once a man who is now exalted.  But that’s not the same thing as him “becoming God”.  God the Father received exaltation (his body was exalted), and Jesus was exalted (Philippians 2:9).  God the Father’s body was glorified and perfected, and the same goes for Jesus (Hebrews 5:8-9).

That appears to be your definition of "exaltation" - meaning a body is exalted.  You should become 
more familiar with how the LDS Church defines exaltation.

Now it appears you do believe God has not always been a God but he became a God.
 
I'd say He (the LDS God) is not a God before "achieving Godhood".  He is not a God before "progressing 
to Godhood".

By the way, the idea of "achieving" Godhood and then "progressing to" Godhood should be reversed.  
"Progressing towards" is one of the steps in the journey before reaching the "achieved" state.
 

On 7/12/2026 at 8:54 PM, InCognitus said:

God’s “glory” increases through him creating more worlds (he has worlds without number) and bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

And none of these things changes the teaching that God the Father has always been the most intelligent of all eternal beings and the most High God, the God of all other gods.

You are only thinking about Heavenly Father's sphere of influence or realm. You should watch the 
movie "Thor" to understand what I mean by realms. In the case of LDS theology, there are many of 
them – each with its own supreme leader, or God in your case.
  
I think you believe Heavenly Father is a higher God than Jesus, right.  Do you also believe 
Heavenly Father is a higher God than his God (Jesus' Grandfather)?

Do you also believe Heavenly Father is the most High God of all other Gods which supposedly exist 
before he becomes a God and heavenly father of our Earth?

Notice that I specifically use upper case "g" but you keep referring to lower case "g". It seems 
they mean different things to you.
 

On 7/12/2026 at 8:54 PM, InCognitus said:

See Calm’s response to your same question, here and here.  I agree with what she said.

Based on what she wrote, and I hope that I didn't misunderstand her, she believes that some woman 
who lived on some other world became a God and then became the heavenly mother of the humans on 
our Earth. I think she also believes the same about Heavenly Father of our Earth; that they were 
married on that world, became Gods, and then had spirit children and populated our Earth with these 
children. They had a beginning as Gods and as heavenly parents.  They are not classified as "Gods" 
until they become Gods. They are not classified as "heavenly parents" until they have spirit 
children (i.e. eternal increase).

I think the LDS Church formulizes the doctrine of Heavenly Mother through "The Family: Proclamation 
to the World" but doesn't speculate on how she became a God and who atoned for her sins while she 
was living on her world.

[GoCeltics]

On 7/17/2026 at 2:07 PM, InCognitus said:

Right, the Celestial Kingdom of God, living eternally with God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ.

If God the Father is not a being who became a God and produced spirit children with his heavenly wife, then he is not the true one.

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

[InCognitus]

On 7/20/2026 at 7:36 AM, theplains said:

On 7/12/2026 at 6:53 PM, InCognitus said:

No, that’s not correct.  This is what I said in a recent post to you on July 1, where I was commenting on a quote from the King Follet Discourse.  I said:

God is eternally the Most High God who once was a man and he became our God, just as Joseph Smith taught in that same sermon:

In that discourse, he said "I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and 
supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so 
that you may see".

Do you believe that he was only teaching the people to know and believe God became OUR God instead 
of Him becoming A God?  If yes, provide the exact inference.

I’ve already done that a million times now (with only slight exaggeration).  Read my last post.  Read my other posts.  See the quote below (from my last post), and my post on 10/30/2022, 11/10/2022, 11/11/2022, 11/16/2022, 12/14/2024, 03/29/2025, 05/26/2025, 08/03/2025, and 09/08/2025.  You should have engaged my responses previously if you disagree with my answer instead of asking the same questions over and over again. 

On 7/20/2026 at 7:36 AM, theplains said:

On 7/12/2026 at 6:53 PM, InCognitus said:

"The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. 

Under whose laws did Heavenly Father advance before and after he supposedly became a man?

Did you read the quote I posted, or not?  Read it again.  Who instituted the laws?  HE did.  This quote makes it obvious, the first principles of man are “self-existent with God”, and God the Father has always been the most high God, the most intelligent and most advanced being in existence.  He advanced and progressed on his own and then he provided a plan for others to progress the same way, by keeping the laws he instituted for that purpose.

God the Father, “because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself”.  Where does Joseph Smith say another being provided those laws?  (He doesn’t).  There is no room for your interpretation in what Joseph Smith taught in that sermon.

On 7/20/2026 at 7:36 AM, theplains said:

On 7/12/2026 at 6:53 PM, InCognitus said:

In my post on May 26, 2025, I provided a list of some of the early Christian Fathers that taught that men become “gods” or are deified (they are “exalted”), and taught that other “gods” exist in reality:

• Clement of Rome (35 AD – 99 AD) – “Saint” (Clement is mentioned in the Bible in Philippians 4:3).
• Justin Martyr (150 AD) - “Saint”
• Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 175 - c. 195) - “Saint”
• Theophilus of Antioch (died approximately 180 AD)
• Clement of Alexandria (c. 155 - c. 220 AD) - “Saint”
• Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD) - “Saint”
• Origen (185-254 AD) - Highly regarded as one of the most influential Christian theologians
• Cyprian (A.D. 200-258) - “Saint”
• Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 296–373) - “Saint”
• Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-395) - “Saint”
• Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) - “Saint"

These men lived the closest to the time of Jesus and the apostles.  Some of them personally knew the apostles and were taught by them, or they were taught by others who were taught by the apostles. These were orthodox Christians.  Many of them are called “Saints”.  Their teachings about other gods and that humans can become gods were not isolated cases, they were widespread teachings, proving that these were fundamental doctrines of early Christianity.  How did they have this doctrine in common among them if it did not originate from a common earlier source?  Did they invent it independently in different parts of the Christian world?

Moses and Satan were referred to as gods in scripture but they were not Deities.  

Irrelevant to this discussion.  Obviously, those early Christians were not talking about men becoming gods in the same way that you are trying to distract the topic in your comment above.

On 7/20/2026 at 7:36 AM, theplains said:

As for the people you mentioned above, I don't believe it was on par with all the quotes from the 
following:

1] The thread "The caricature: Mormons wishing to "get their own planet?"

2] Doctrine and Covenants 76 ("…And he makes them equal in power, and in might, and in dominion")

3] Gospel Principles (page 275 - "Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives 
in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit 
children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation". Page 277 - 
"5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, 
dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20)"

4] Orson Pratt, The Seer.

"All these Gods are equal in power, in glory, in dominion, and in the possession of all things; 
each possesses a fulness of truth, of knowledge, of wisdom, of light, of intelligence ; each 
governs himself in all things by his own attributes, and is filled with love, goodness, mercy, 
and justice towards all. The fulness of all these attributes is what constitutes God. "God is 
Light." "God is Love." "God is Truth." The Gods are one in the qualities and attributes".

That sure sounds to me like what the early Christian St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD) taught:

“You shall escape the boiling flood of hell’s eternal lake of fire and the eye ever fixed in menacing glare of fallen angels chained in Tartarus as punishment for their sins; and you shall escape the worm that ceaselessly coils for food around the body whose scum has bred it. Now such (torments) as these shalt thou avoid by being instructed in a knowledge of the true God. And thou shalt possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven, thou who, whilst thou didst sojourn in this life, didst know the Celestial King. And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God: for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a man, these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon thee, because thou hast been deified, and begotten unto immortality. This constitutes the import of the proverb, ‘Know thyself;’ i.e., discover God within thyself, for He has formed thee after His own image. For with the knowledge of self is conjoined the being an object of God’s knowledge, for thou art called by the Deity Himself. Be not therefore inflamed, O ye men, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to retrace with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, rendering regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards thee. And provided thou obeyest His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, thou shalt resemble Him, inasmuch as thou shalt have honour conferred upon thee by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the divinity of His divine perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory!” (Hippolytus, Refutation, Book 10, Chapter 30)

Do you agree?

On 7/20/2026 at 7:36 AM, theplains said:

It's odd how you use the word "doctrine" and apply it to what the early Church Fathers taught but 
you don't apply the same thing to what LDS leaders taught.

When heavy hitters like St. Clement of Rome, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Theophilus of Antioch, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Hippolytus of Rome, Origen (Highly regarded as one of the most influential Christian theologians), St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Augustine of Hippo all teach that men become gods in no uncertain terms, then yes, I consider that to be a widely accepted fundamental doctrine of early Christianity.  It was a church wide doctrine, and it was found in all parts of the Christian world at that time. 

Where do you think the early Christians got the teaching that men become gods that was taught so widely in earliest Christianity?  They didn’t get it from interpreting the words of one person in different ways, they received it as part of their basic teachings from the earliest time.

On 7/20/2026 at 7:36 AM, theplains said:

I suggest you quote some of what your own LDS leaders really teach and really mean if you disagree 
with how I am interpreting them.

I quoted Joseph Smith directly.  Joseph Smith emphasized that God the Father is the “head God” at least eight times in the King Follet Sermon, calling him “the head, the Father of the Gods”.  He taught that he was “more intelligent” and “saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself”.  Where is there any room in those statements for the idea that God has a God above him like you are asserting?

On 7/20/2026 at 7:36 AM, theplains said:

I don't agree that everything early Church Fathers taught square with what has been revealed in 
scripture.  

Where do you think the early Christians got the teaching that men become gods that was taught so widely in early Christianity?  Do you really think they were ignoring scripture when they taught it?  They quoted scripture constantly in support of that doctrine.

On 7/20/2026 at 7:36 AM, theplains said:

"Becoming like God" in the LDS sense is not how Christians view "Adam and Eve becoming 
like God" in the Garden of Eden.  Being created in the image of God does not make us gods.

Read what Hippolytus wrote about man being in the likeness of God that I posted above. 

And, you should read what St. Irenaeus (c. 175 - c. 195) wrote about that.  Here’s a partial quote:

“But being in subjection to God is continuance in immortality, and immortality is the glory of the uncreated One. By this arrangement, therefore, and these harmonies, and a sequence of this nature, man, a created and organized being, is rendered after the image and likeness of the uncreated God, -the Father planning everything well and giving His commands, the Son carrying these into execution and performing the work of creating, and the Spirit nourishing and increasing [what is made], but man making progress day by day, and ascending towards the perfect, that is, approximating to the uncreated One. For the Uncreated is perfect, that is, God. Now it was necessary that man should in the first instance be created; and having been created, should receive growth; and having received growth, should be strengthened; and having been strengthened, should abound; and having abounded, should recover [from the disease of sin]; and having recovered, should be glorified; and being glorified, should see his Lord. For God is He who is yet to be seen, and the beholding of God is productive of immortality, but immortality renders one nigh unto God…  For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods… “

And:

“How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?  Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created?  How, again, can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker?  For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. For thou dost not make God, but God thee.”

Read the whole chapters of Irenaeus, Against Heresies, chapters 38 and 39:  CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, IV.38 (St. Irenaeus),  CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, IV.39 (St. Irenaeus).  It gives you the full picture. 

Christianity has evolved through the years and has departed from its earlier teachings because of new doctrines that were developed later on making the original beliefs incompatible with the later doctrines.

On 7/20/2026 at 7:36 AM, theplains said:

The Church Fathers did not teach Heavenly Father was once a married man who became a God and then 
populated Earth with spirit children created on the world he lives on.

See the Irenaeus quote above, "“How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?".

On 7/20/2026 at 7:36 AM, theplains said:

They also didn't teach 
Jesus and the Holy Ghost are spirit brothers of Lucifer.

Actually, they did. 

Lactantius (c. 240-c 320 AD) wrote that Jesus Christ is the "Second God":

"God, therefore, the contriver and founder of all things, as we have said in the second book, before He commenced this excellent work of the world, begat a pure and incorruptible Spirit, whom He called His Son. And although He had afterwards created by Himself innumerable other beings, whom we call angels, this first-begotten, however, was the only one whom He considered worthy of being called by the divine name, as being powerful in His Father's excellence and majesty.  But that there is a Son of the Most High God, who is possessed of the greatest power, is shown not only by the unanimous utterances of the prophets, but also by the declaration of Trismegistus and the predictions of the Sibyls. Hermes, in the book which is entitled 'The Perfect Word', made use of these words: 'The Lord and Creator of all things, whom we have thought right to call God, since He made the second God visible and sensible. But I use the term sensible, not because He Himself perceives (for the question is not whether He Himself perceives), but because He leads to perception and to intelligence.  Since, therefore, He made Him first, and alone, and one only, He appeared to Him beautiful, and most full of all good things; and He hallowed Him, and altogether loved Him as His own Son'"  (Lactantius , "The Divine Institutes" - Book IV, Chap. VI)

And he taught that Satan was produced second:

"Since God was possessed of the greatest foresight for planning, and of the greatest skill for carrying out in action, before He commenced this business of the world, -- in asmuch as there was in Him, and always is, the fountain of full and most complete goodness, -- in order that goodness might spring as a stream from Him, and might flow forth afar, He produced a Spirit like to Himself, who might be endowed with the perfections of God the Father.  But how He willed that, I will endeavour to show in the forth book.  Then He made another being, in whom the disposition of the divine origin did not remain.  Therefore he was infected with his own envy as with poison, and passed from good to evil; and at his own will, which had been given to him by God unfettered, he acquired for himself a contrary name.  From which it appears that the source of all evils is envy.  For he envied his predecessor, who through his stedfastness is acceptable and dear to God the Father.  This being, who from good became evil by his own act, is called by the Greeks "diabolus": we call him accuser, because he reports to God the faults to which he himself entices us.  God, therefore, when He began the fabric of the world, set over the whole work that first and greatest Son, and used Him at the same time as a counsellor and artificer, in planning, arranging, and accomplishing, since He is complete both in knowledge, and judgment, and power; concerning whom I now speak more sparingly, because in another place both His excellence, and His name, and His nature must be related by us."   (Lactantius , "The Divine Institutes" - Book II, Chap. IX)

On 7/20/2026 at 7:36 AM, theplains said:

When LDS leaders have repeatedly taught God is an exalted man, they do not mean that God was always 
a God and then this God became a man, and then this God/man was re-exalted back to the position he 
had before. 

You have this wrong.  Read the definitions of “Exaltation” that I quote in my next post.

On 7/20/2026 at 7:36 AM, theplains said:

It's even taught as LDS doctrine that Jesus became a God in his pre-mortal life before he comes 
to Earth in mortal flesh.

Like the early Christians did.  Why did later Christians abandon that doctrine?  It was because of doctrines that were developed later (like a “homoousious” Father and Son) that made the earlier beliefs incompatible with their new teachings.

On 7/20/2026 at 7:36 AM, theplains said:

On 7/12/2026 at 6:53 PM, InCognitus said:

Is it a temptation to want to sit with God in his throne?  Why would you consider it a “temptation” to want the very thing that God offers to us?  Is God trying to trick us?

No.  But I see a dividing line between the Creator and creation.

I know you do, because modern Christianity has taught you to believe that there is a great gap between Creator and creation even though it contradicts the Bible.  That idea goes along with the creation ex-nihilo doctrine that was developed around 170 AD, even though Christians prior to that time taught that matter is eternal and that God created all things from unformed matter.

The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that humans are the same “kind” of being as God (the génos of God), which makes our relationship with God more meaningful, and God shows his great love for us by providing a way that we can become like he is.

[InCognitus]

On 7/20/2026 at 7:40 AM, theplains said:

On 7/12/2026 at 6:54 PM, InCognitus said:

As for the others, I don’t think anyone denies that God the Father is an “exalted man”.  He has “achieved Godhood” and “progressed to Godhood” in that he was once a man who is now exalted.  But that’s not the same thing as him “becoming God”.  God the Father received exaltation (his body was exalted), and Jesus was exalted (Philippians 2:9).  God the Father’s body was glorified and perfected, and the same goes for Jesus (Hebrews 5:8-9).

That appears to be your definition of "exaltation" - meaning a body is exalted.  You should become 
more familiar with how the LDS Church defines exaltation.

Nope.  Exaltation: “The highest state of happiness and glory in the celestial kingdom.”

“What is exaltation?  Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.”

So, Exaltation is defined as “the kind of life God lives”.  The kind of life that God lives includes having a resurrected body, and God the Father received a resurrected body, he “achieved” that state through his own means by laying down his life and taking it up again.  And the “highest state of happiness” is receiving a fulness of joy through the spirit and body being joined together eternally.

On 7/20/2026 at 7:40 AM, theplains said:

Now it appears you do believe God has not always been a God but he became a God.
 
I'd say He (the LDS God) is not a God before "achieving Godhood".  He is not a God before "progressing 
to Godhood".

Not quite.  I said he has always been “God” in that he is the most intelligent and most advanced being in existence, but he “achieved Godhood” using the definition of receiving a physical body and living the kind of life that God lives now in the Celestial Kingdom.  He has also become our God in that he offered us a plan to become like him and instituted laws for us to follow to become like him. 

It all comes down to how you define “God”.  If to be God means to be the Supreme Being, then God the Father has always been God because he has always been the most intelligent and most advanced being in existence.  If to be God means that he progressed beyond what he was before and has provided a way for others to progress to become like he is and he rules over them, then he “became” God in that way.

On 7/20/2026 at 7:40 AM, theplains said:

On 7/12/2026 at 6:54 PM, InCognitus said:

God’s “glory” increases through him creating more worlds (he has worlds without number) and bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

And none of these things changes the teaching that God the Father has always been the most intelligent of all eternal beings and the most High God, the God of all other gods.

You are only thinking about Heavenly Father's sphere of influence or realm.

No, I’m not.  Don’t say that I’m thinking something when you already know that I’m not thinking that.

There is no “sphere of influence or realm” implied in this statement:

"The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 6, King Follett Discourse, p. 354)

Where is there any room for your interpretation in that statement?

On 7/20/2026 at 7:40 AM, theplains said:

I think you believe Heavenly Father is a higher God than Jesus, right.  

You don’t need to “think” that, because you know what I said.  And the Bible clearly teaches that God the Father is the very God and Father of Jesus Christ (John 20:17, Rom 15:6, 1 Cor 11:3,  2 Cor 11:31, Eph 1:3, Eph 1:17; Heb 1:8-9, 1 Pet 1:3, Rev 3:12), and Jesus is even said to be eternally subject to the Father (1 Cor 15:28).

So, you should believe that too.  Do you believe that Heavenly Father is a higher God than Jesus like the Bible teaches?

God the Father is the most High God, the God of all other gods.

On 7/20/2026 at 7:40 AM, theplains said:

Do you also believe 
Heavenly Father is a higher God than his God (Jesus' Grandfather)?

Have you stopped beating your wife?  Yes or no?

You ask a loaded question that presupposes something that I don’t find that Joseph Smith ever taught.

God the Father doesn’t have a God, and I don't see Joseph Smith teaching that anywhere.  God the Father is “the Eternal God of all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32)

As for the identity of Jesus’ grandfather, it depends on which genealogy is correct. According to the gospel of Matthew, his grandfather was Jacob (Matthew 1:16).  According to the gospel of Luke, his grandfather was Heli (Luke 3:23).  Some say this is the genealogy of Mary, but that works too.  And whichever one you want to pick, God the Father is still the God of all others and has no God over him.  And God the Father would have also had an earthly father and mother when he dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ did.  And that’s exactly the way Joseph Smith taught it. 

[InCognitus]

On 7/21/2026 at 9:28 AM, GoCeltics said:

If God the Father is not a being who became a God and produced spirit children with his heavenly wife, then he is not the true one.

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

The Bible teaches that all humans are the same “kind” of being as God (the génos of God, his offspring - Acts 17:28-29), so when people ignore that teaching and claim that God created us out of nothing instead, that will definitely distract from coming to know "the only true God", don't you think?

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The Bible teaches that all humans are the same “kind” of being as God (the génos of God, his offspring - Acts 17:28-29), so when people ignore that teaching and claim that God created us out of nothing instead, that will definitely distract from coming to know "the only true God", don't you think?

InCog, hi.

Don't be so sola scriptura. We ex nihilists still believe we are made in God's image. We have read the Book of Acts too!  We also believe we are His "offspring". 

 I think I understand the LDS feeling of poignant intimacy with a God in every way like us, except He is a grownup. Those of you who are immersed in pondering this concept are delighted and thrilled with it.

Please be assured that those of us who believe that a transcendent God, for no selfish reasons, created us corporately and individually out of nothing, while sending His beloved Son, like Him, transcendent, to save us, to become one of us, our mediator, uncreated Being to unite Himself for our sakes to become created? To be our friend, and brother, is no less magnificent, delightful to the heart, and thrilling. 

I don't think it is unfair to propose that many LDS have learned to believe that creation out of nothing implies ideas that seem repugnant. The reverse is also true for me and my tribe. Before we can argue about which is the true reality, we have to admit that both sides are appealing in their own ways. Unless we admit this, there cannot, in my opinion, be much fruitful discussion. 

 

 

Edited July 27 by 3DOP

[InCognitus]

22 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Don't be so sola scriptura. We ex nihilists still believe we are made in God's image. We have read the Book of Acts too!  We also believe we are His "offspring". 

It's really not sola scriptura, but paying attention to what scripture says and applying what it says. 

And it's not that we are the "offspring" of God, even though that's a respectable translation, but that's a word that might be taken figuratively or explained away some other way.  The Greek word translated as "offspring" in those verses refers to the very "kind" of being that God is (which is what the Greek word génos means at its core).  We are the génos of God.  That's a word that has a family relationship meaning and isn't used figuratively. That same word is translated as "genus" in the Latin translations, which is a word that has taxonomical implications.  How can we be the genus of God, the same "kind" of being that he is, and be created out of nothing?  That has to refer to our spirit which came from God and wasn't created by God.

27 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

I think I understand the LDS feeling of poignant intimacy with a God in every way like us, except He is a grownup. Those of you who are immersed in pondering this concept are delighted and thrilled with it.

Please be assured that those of us who believe that a transcendent God, for no selfish reasons, created us corporately and individually out of nothing, while sending His beloved Son, like Him, transcendent, to save us, to become one of us, our mediator, uncreated Being to unite Himself for our sakes to become created? To be our friend, and brother, is no less magnificent, delightful to the heart, and thrilling. 

I don't think it is unfair to propose that many LDS have learned to believe that creation out of nothing implies ideas that seem repugnant. The reverse is also true for me and my tribe. Before we can argue about which is the true reality, we have to admit that both sides are appealing in their own ways. Unless we admit this, there cannot, in my opinion, be much fruitful discussion. 

I really appreciate you perspective, and I understand how our view might appear to your point of view.  And I understand the appeal of your view.  But I have a hard time accepting that view given what I described above along with other information I have discovered about the evolution of doctrine in Christian history.  I say this to you with respect and care, because I really value your presence on this board.

[GoCeltics]

On 7/26/2026 at 8:09 PM, InCognitus said:

The Bible teaches that all humans are the same “kind” of being as God (the génos of God, his offspring - Acts 17:28-29), so when people ignore that teaching and claim that God created us out of nothing instead, that will definitely distract from coming to know "the only true God", don't you think?

If being offspring truly implies the necessity of a heavenly mother.

Referring to “the only true God” makes no sense when Earth is thought by some to have at least four true Gods: Father, Son, Mother, and Holy Spirit.

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

If being offspring truly implies the necessity of a heavenly mother.

Referring to “the only true God” makes no sense when Earth is thought by some to have at least four true Gods: Father, Son, Mother, and Holy Spirit.

Unless “God” is both plural and singular or rather an individual and collective noun (sort of like “deer” or “sheep”, but not exactly that ); after all, we have God the Father and God the Son, both are God are they not?

This is my POV, not doctrine…

If the Father, Son, Mother, and Spirit are truly perfectly one with each other (whatever that actually means to God), then it also makes sense to see them as One.  

Edited July 28 by Calm

[manol]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Unless “God” is both plural and singular or rather an individual and collective noun (sort of like “deer” or “sheep”, but not exactly that ); after all, we have God the Father and God the Son, both are God are they not?

Agreed.

Not that I'm fluent in Hebrew, but my understanding is that "Elohim" is grammatically plural, "Eloah" being the singular version, with the suffix "-im" being used for either an all-male plurality or a mixed-gender plurality.  My understanding is that "Elohim" is normally used as if it is a singular word in Hebrew, as if it's a collective noun just as you say, like "team" or "band".

[loosely-related tangent]For example, my all-time favorite band, Rush, is touring again, but some purists will use the plural verb:  "Rush are touring again."  The first considers Rush as a single collective entity, and the second as a group of individual members.  Either way, it is purely coincidental that, in a thread about "gods", Rush is what came to my mind.[/tangent]

Edited July 28 by manol

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

If being offspring truly implies the necessity of a heavenly mother.

It says we are the same "kind" of being as God whether you believe the Bible or not.  Doesn't that tell us a little about how we should understand "the only true God"?

2 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Referring to “the only true God” makes no sense when Earth is thought by some to have at least four true Gods: Father, Son, Mother, and Holy Spirit.

Did you read the verse? 

Remember, this is Jesus speaking:  "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

Who is "the only true God" in that verse?  Jesus is talking to God the Father.  All other Gods are subject to the "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Ephesians 4:6), and Jesus is included in that just as the Bible teaches. They have God's name put upon them.  Jesus is "one" with the Father in the same way that Jesus prayed for all his disciples to be "one" with him and the Father.

Edited July 28 by InCognitus

[Calm]

4 hours ago, manol said:

[loosely-related tangent]For example, my all-time favorite band, Rush, is touring again, but some purists will use the plural verb:  "Rush are touring again."  The first considers Rush as a single collective entity, and the second as a group of individual members.  Either way, it is purely coincidental that, in a thread about "gods", Rush is what came to my mind.[/tangent]

Loooove the analogy.  

[3DOP]

On 7/26/2026 at 11:36 PM, InCognitus said:

It's really not sola scriptura, but paying attention to what scripture says and applying what it says. 

And it's not that we are the "offspring" of God, even though that's a respectable translation, but that's a word that might be taken figuratively or explained away some other way.  The Greek word translated as "offspring" in those verses refers to the very "kind" of being that God is (which is what the Greek word génos means at its core).  We are the génos of God.  That's a word that has a family relationship meaning and isn't used figuratively. That same word is translated as "genus" in the Latin translations, which is a word that has taxonomical implications.  How can we be the genus of God, the same "kind" of being that he is, and be created out of nothing?  That has to refer to our spirit which came from God and wasn't created by God.

I really appreciate you perspective, and I understand how our view might appear to your point of view.  And I understand the appeal of your view.  But I have a hard time accepting that view given what I described above along with other information I have discovered about the evolution of doctrine in Christian history.  I say this to you with respect and care, because I really value your presence on this board.

I wrote a detailed answer, and God's will be done, for no apparent reason, I was transferred to some thread from 2023. When I came back, my words were lost. I haven't the heart, if I had the time to reconstruct it. Let me just thank you for your respectful reply.

Regards,

Rory 

Edited July 28 by 3DOP

[InCognitus]

16 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

I wrote a detailed answer, and God's will be done, for no apparent reason, I was transferred to some thread from 2023. When I came back, my words were lost. I haven't the heart, if I had the time to reconstruct it. Let me just thank you for your respectful reply.

Regards,

Rory 

My heart goes out to you.  I would love to hear your thoughts and point of view, but I understand.  (Crazy technology sometimes - I just got off a call with someone trying to help them with a database server crash).

[GoCeltics]

On 7/28/2026 at 11:52 AM, InCognitus said:

It says we are the same "kind" of being as God whether you believe the Bible or not.  Doesn't that tell us a little about how we should understand "the only true God"?

I don’t see how understanding there being only one true God is connected with your belief we are the same kind of being God is.
 

On 7/28/2026 at 11:52 AM, InCognitus said:

Did you read the verse? 

Remember, this is Jesus speaking:  "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

Who is "the only true God" in that verse?  Jesus is talking to God the Father.  All other Gods are subject to the "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Ephesians 4:6), and Jesus is included in that just as the Bible teaches. They have God's name put upon them.  Jesus is "one" with the Father in the same way that Jesus prayed for all his disciples to be "one" with him and the Father.

Apart from the Son, Holy Spirit, and Heavenly Mother, can you identify a few of all these other Gods who are currently subjected to him?

Does you being “one” with God make you one of these Gods now? Or do you become “one” with God at some future date?

[Kenngo1969]

On 7/17/2026 at 8:27 AM, GoCeltics said:

Except that worshipping Joseph Smith’s God leads to another destination.

Oh, goodness!  You got us, @GoCeltics!  We've never heard that one before!  Shut 'er down, Clancy!  She's pumpin' mud!     Will the last person to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints please turn out the lights?    

[Kenngo1969]

On 7/28/2026 at 8:19 AM, manol said:

[loosely-related tangent]For example, my all-time favorite band, Rush, is touring again, but some purists will use the plural verb:  "Rush are touring again."  The first considers Rush as a single collective entity, and the second as a group of individual members.  Either way, it is purely coincidental that, in a thread about "gods", Rush is what came to my mind.[/tangent]

When they improvise, the guitar player just knows what the bass player is gonna do, and the bass player just knows what the guitar player is gonna do!  It's like ... they're one person!

   

What?    Oh.   Don't mind me!  Carry on!  

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

On 7/28/2026 at 9:52 AM, InCognitus said:

It says we are the same "kind" of being as God whether you believe the Bible or not.  Doesn't that tell us a little about how we should understand "the only true God"?

I don’t see how understanding there being only one true God is connected with your belief we are the same kind of being God is.

It's not just my belief that we are the same kind of being as God is, it was the apostle Paul's belief and teaching that we are the same kind of being as God.  It's a Bible teaching.

The "only true God" is God the Father as Jesus said in John 17:3.  Since we are (as the Bible teaches) the same kind of being as God, it teaches us that we have a relationship with him and that he can relate to us.  And Jesus provides the way for us to connect with him and come to know him.

2 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Apart from the Son, Holy Spirit, and Heavenly Mother, can you identify a few of all these other Gods who are currently subjected to him?

All are subject to him.  All who become gods are subject to him.  And Jesus is eternally subject to him as the Bible teaches:  "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all". (1 Corinthians 15:28).

2 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Does you being “one” with God make you one of these Gods now? Or do you become “one” with God at some future date?

Jesus prayed, "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are", and:

"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."   (John 17:11, 20-23)

You can reason out the answer to the question you asked based on what Jesus said there.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

It's not just my belief that we are the same kind of being as God is, it was the apostle Paul's belief and teaching that we are the same kind of being as God.  It's a Bible teaching.

The "only true God" is God the Father as Jesus said in John 17:3.  Since we are (as the Bible teaches) the same kind of being as God, it teaches us that we have a relationship with him and that he can relate to us.  And Jesus provides the way for us to connect with him and come to know him.

All are subject to him.  All who become gods are subject to him.  And Jesus is eternally subject to him as the Bible teaches:  "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all". (1 Corinthians 15:28).

Jesus prayed, "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are", and:

"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."   (John 17:11, 20-23)

You can reason out the answer to the question you asked based on what Jesus said there.

I’m going to get a big kick out of seeing the shocked expressions on their faces when our friends see with their own eyes that God the Father is a very real Father, with a physical body that’s able to sit upon a throne and hold a book in his right hand! I’m also wondering how Stephen was able to see that Christ was standing on the right hand side of an immaterial being that has no form nor dimensions?

1 And I saw in the right hand of him (God the Father) that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. (Revelation 5)

7 And he (Christ) came and took the book out of the right hand of him (God the Father) that sat upon the throne. (Revelation 5)