General Conference talk on the understanding of the Godhead

[manol]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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!

Yes! 

"Oneness" in the context of a band can happen when the musicians are all "in the (same) groove".   I suspect there is a "groove" wherein our oneness with Christ and with God and with one another can be perceived and experienced. 

[Yet another Rush tangent] Here's a groove I'd love to see in the hymnbook, even if I'd have hard time singing along:  Rush-Closer To The Heart (Lyrics) - YouTube [/Rush tangent]

Perhaps more on-topic of this thread is "that which God does now reveal" about the nature of God through the intermediary of near-death experiencers.  I get the impression that we're not yet equipped to comprehensively define "God", but that the definition would be pretty expansive.  I get the impression that we are each a part of God, an infinitely loved part of God, perhaps even a vital part of God.  I get the impression that "God is love" is a more fundamental and descriptive truth than has been generally appreciated... and if we are indeed made of the same stuff God is, then underneath all our baggage, we too are love. 

These people speak with far more authority than I can; maybe just watch the first one if you're short on time (I'm pretty sure he has an LDS background), it's only about five minutes, and you can do the captioning thing to make it easier to follow along: 

Stories About Meeting God - A Compilation of NDE's - YouTube

 

Edited July 30 by manol

[Calm]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Here's a groove I'd love to see in the hymnbook, even if I'd have hard time singing along

My choice…Lord, Is It Mine? by Supertramp

Even in the Quietest Moments would be another good one except it is a bit ambiguous and could be either romantic or spiritual.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Yes! 

"Oneness" in the context of a band can happen when the musicians are all "in the (same) groove".   I suspect there is a "groove" wherein our oneness with Christ and with God and with one another can be perceived and experienced. 

[Yet another Rush tangent] Here's a groove I'd love to see in the hymnbook, even if I'd have hard time singing along:  Rush-Closer To The Heart (Lyrics) - YouTube [/Rush tangent]

Perhaps more on-topic of this thread is "that which God does now reveal" about the nature of God through the intermediary of near-death experiencers.  I get the impression that we're not yet equipped to comprehensively define "God", but that the definition would be pretty expansive.  I get the impression that we are each a part of God, an infinitely loved part of God, perhaps even a vital part of God.  I get the impression that "God is love" is a more fundamental and descriptive truth than has been generally appreciated... and if we are indeed made of the same stuff God is, then underneath all our baggage, we too are love. 

These people speak with far more authority than I can; maybe just watch the first one if you're short on time (I'm pretty sure he has an LDS background), it's only about five minutes, and you can do the captioning thing to make it easier to follow along: 

Stories About Meeting God - A Compilation of NDE's - YouTube

 

Here you go: "Knowest thou not that thou art a spark of Deity, struck from the fire of His eternal blaze," This is a line from an 1857 article regarding the divine nature of men and women written by John Taylor, who later served as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a poetic exploration of the eternal nature of human beings

[JLHPROF]

On 7/30/2026 at 2:47 PM, teddyaware said:

Here you go: "Knowest thou not that thou art a spark of Deity, struck from the fire of His eternal blaze," This is a line from an 1857 article regarding the divine nature of men and women written by John Taylor, who later served as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a poetic exploration of the eternal nature of human beings

"The Origin and Destiny of Woman" by John Taylor - personal favorite and worth a read.

https://josephsmithfoundation.org/the-origin-object-and-destiny-of-women-john-taylor/

A selection:

"Knowest thou not that eternities ago, thy spirit, pure and holy, dwelt in thy Heavenly Father’s bosom, and in his presence, and with thy mother, one of the Queens of heaven, surrounded by thy brother and sister spirts in the spirit world, among the Gods. That as thy spirit beheld the scenes transpiring there, and thou growing in intelligence, thou sawest worlds upon worlds organized and peopled with thy kindred spirits, took upon them tabernacles, died, were resurrected, and received their exaltation on the redeemed worlds they once dwelt upon. Thou being willing and anxious to imitate them, waiting and desirous to obtain a body, a resurrection and exaltation also, and having obtained permission, thou made a covenant with one of thy kindred spirits to be thy guardian angel while in mortality, also with two others, male and female spirits, that thou wouldst come and take a tabernacle through their lineage, and become one of their offspring. You also choose a kindred spirit whom you loved in the spirit world, (and had permission to come to this planet and take a tabernacle) to be your head, stay, husband, and protector on the earth, and to exalt you in the eternal worlds. All these were arranged, likewise the spirits that should tabernacle through your lineage. "

[theplains]

On 7/26/2026 at 6:55 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

I checked your links but I see no place where you address the fact that you believe Joseph Smith, 
in his King Follett discourse, was really saying that "God was not OUR God (OUR Father) from all 
eternity" as opposed to "God was not God from all eternity".

For instance, in your 11/10/2022 post, you say, "Joseph Smith never said that Heavenly Father was 
a man before he became God". 

He supposedly becomes "a" God before he becomes "our" God. Likewise, Heavenly Mother supposedly 
becomes "a" Goddess before she becomes "our" Mother.

Then, "Joseph Smith didn't provide the sequence of events in such a way to suggest he was a man 
first, and God later".

Do you believe Heavenly Mother was a woman first and then a God later?

LDS teachings have Jesus being an eternal, uncreated intelligence who became the first spirit 
child of heavenly parents, who became a God, then became a man. Lucifer, also an eternal uncreated 
intelligence, becomes another spirit child of heavenly parents, spirit brother to Jesus.

Then, "How he came to be our God is explained in the statement from Joseph Smith:  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, p. 354).

That is how God came to be our God".

You continually focus on the "how God came to be our God" part, which I understand given the context 
of eternal increase.

But you never show why you believe Joseph Smith clearly has this context (having spirit children) 
in mind when he says, "… it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and 
how He came to be so; for 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".

He doesn't say "how God came to be our God" like you imply and he doesn't explain how God the Father 
supposedly became a God before he supposedly becomes a man on some other world.

By the way, the quote you provided (likewise found in the 2007 version, chapter 17, page 210) also 
doesn't say anything about "God becoming our God (our Father)" in the sense he and his wife 
procreated us in some way (i.e. "eternal increase").

Your quote of "The first principles of man are self-existent with God" implies that man and woman 
exist outside of God. They are co-eternal, uncreated. In Christian theology, only God is self-existent.

"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."

In Christian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost did not need to advance by laws to achieve 
godhood.
 

On 7/26/2026 at 6:55 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

That's self serving – a being, eternally existing as maybe intelligence, without a spirit or 
physical body, institutes laws by which he advances into becoming a God.  You never show from 
scripture where some being instituted laws to become a God before he becomes a Father.

Supposedly the LDS Father of Earth advanced and progressed into becoming a God all by himself.

Any being who needs to advance and progress into becoming a God has not always been eternally God. 
Not even the LDS Jesus can accurately be called the "Eternal God" for he is taught to have become 
a God in his pre-mortal life.
 

On 7/26/2026 at 6:55 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

The fact that some taught that men could become gods or Gods doesn't make it true, just as what 
LDS leaders speak doesn't make it all true. That's why I've been citing LDS leaders in my posts.

What I find interesting is that you seem willing to accept the Early Church Fathers as truthful 
when they support your position, yet you're reluctant to say that any of the LDS leaders I quoted 
were wrong. I provided multiple statements, but you haven't identified which, if any, you believe 
are false.
 

On 7/26/2026 at 6:55 PM, InCognitus said:

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?

I don't agree with the Early Church Fathers on the subject of men becoming Gods or the LDS doctrine 
of eternal increase.

Unless I'm mistaken, you believe all the LDS quotes I provided in points 1 through 4 in my earlier 
post are truthful since you haven't stated otherwise.
 

On 7/26/2026 at 6:55 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

But you seem to reject some LDS teachings when they are repeated across decades. You don't seem 
to view them as doctrine either. Apparently a repeated teaching is only doctrine when it comes 
from Early Church Fathers but not LDS prophets or apostles.
 

On 7/26/2026 at 6:55 PM, InCognitus said:

 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.

I believe they misinterpreted what these verses mean:

Romans 8:29- "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his 
Son..."

2 Corinthians 3:18 - "And we all... are being transformed into the same image from one degree of 
glory to another..."

Philippians 3:20–21 - "...who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body..."

1 John 3:2 - "Beloved, we are God's children now... when he appears we shall be like him, because 
we shall see him as he is."

Ephesians 4:13 - "...until we all attain... to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of 
the fullness of Christ."

Colossians 3:10 - "...have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image 
of its Creator."

The LDS Church even views only the sons of God (the joint-heirs) as exalted beings. See their 
interpretation of Romans 8:13-17 (If sons, then heirs …).  If not an heir, then not a son is the 
explanation.

I think Jehovah's Witnesses have a parallel explanation.  Only 144000 are the sons of God, the 
rest of those on Paradise Earth are friends of God.
 

On 7/26/2026 at 6:55 PM, InCognitus said:

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?

Is God the Father (the Father of the Gods as you say above) also the Father of Heavenly Mother 
(believed to be a God herself)?

The part about there being a God above Earth's Heavenly Father can be explained with his teaching 
"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".  

The LDS Heavenly Father just doesn't come out of nowhere.  Joseph Smith did not believe the God 
of our Earth was always God.

In another sermon, Joseph Smith taught : "If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son 
of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose 
that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever 
a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without 
a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness 
of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father 
also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of 
it" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, page 373).

He calls it a doctrine.

Supposedly Heavenly Father calls a grand council where he announces a plan for his spirit children 
to become exalted (to become Gods).  

" … according to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all 
other Gods, before this world was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, 
when every man shall enter into His eternal presence, and into His immortal rest" (Teachings of 
Joseph Smith, page 138].

"Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, page 
348).

"The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council17 to bring forth the world. The 
grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds 
which were created at the time" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, page 348-349).

"In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and 
concocted a plan to create the world and people it" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, page 349).

"The contention in heaven was—Jesus said there would be certain souls that would not be saved; 
and the devil said he could save them all, and laid his plans before the grand council, who gave 
their vote in favor of Jesus Christ. So the devil rose up in rebellion against God, and was cast 
down, with all who put up their heads for him. (Book of Moses—Pearl of Great Price, Chap. 4:1-4;
Book of Abraham, Chap. 3:23-28.)" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, page 357).

"Every man who has a calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to that very 
purpose in the Grand Council of heaven before this world was. I suppose I was ordained to this 
very office in that Grand Council" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, page 365).

"The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand 
councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which 
were created at the time" (April 1971 Ensign, The King Follett Sermon).

Since you refer to him as the Head of the Gods, which Gods (also referred to as the grand 
councilors) at the council are you referring to?  Had Jesus and the Holy Ghost already become Gods 
before the council was planned and these are the only additional Gods, Heavenly Mother included, 
that were present there?  Or are Heavenly Mother and Father the only Gods at this grand council?
 

On 7/26/2026 at 6:55 PM, InCognitus said:

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

I don't agree with Lactantius teaching Jesus Christ is the "Second God".

Jesus created Satan (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-17).

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the 
beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that 
was made".

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were 
created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers 
or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and 
in him all things hold together".
 

On 7/26/2026 at 6:55 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

Since you believe there is no God above God the Father, then he apparently married a woman on the 
world he created, and she or all the others on her world are not the offspring of any God.

In whose image was she made?

[theplains]

On 7/26/2026 at 7:04 PM, InCognitus said:

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.”

What about all those people who supposedly lived on the world that he (the Father) created?  Were 
they spirit children (offspring) of that Father?
 

On 7/26/2026 at 7:04 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

All terrestrial and telestial inhabitants do not receive a fulness of joy even though their spirit 
and body are joined together eternally – not even those in the two lower divisions of the celestial 
kingdom have it.

"Fulness of joy" and "eternal life" seem to be different things, and it's only reserved for exalted 
beings.

"Neither is it enough to be a good, solid citizen, contributing to charities, serving on community 
boards, and in general living a good Christian life. Although commendable, this is not sufficient 
to entitle one to the fulness of joy and the eternal life that our Father in heaven has promised 
to those who love him and keep his commandments" (January 1975, New Era, Just for Today, President 
N. Eldon Tanner).

Becoming a god (God) precedes obtaining a fulness of joy. Both Father and Mother obtained their 
fulness of joy. The LDS Father did not have a fulness of joy until he passed all his tests and 
became a God.  

"We learned that if we placed our faith in him, obeying his word and following his example, we 
would be exalted and become like our heavenly parents. We would receive a fulness of joy … We 
can be exalted as God is and receive a fulness of joy … If we passed our tests, we would receive 
the fulness of joy that our heavenly parents have received … Blessings of Exaltation:  They will 
become gods. They will receive a fulness of joy" (Gospel Principles, 1997).

The LDS Father is not always a God (in a state of godhood) before he fully progresses.

"The progression of our Father in heaven to godhood, or exaltation, was strictly in accordance 
with eternal principles" (Achieving a Celestial Marriage manual).

 

On 7/26/2026 at 7:04 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

Becoming "our God" is not the same as becoming "a God".  Let's take you for example.  In LDS theology, 
you hope to become "a God" someday. Afterwards, you will have spirit children and you will become 
"their God".

As the 1997 Gospel Principles lays out one of the blessings of exaltation: "3. They will have their 
righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit 
children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an 
eternal family". 

In short, they will worship their Father and God (you).  They will not worship some other God.
 

On 7/26/2026 at 7:04 PM, InCognitus said:

 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.

But you reject the idea that some being progressed beyond what he was before and became a God then 
Father.

What were Jesus and the Holy Spirit before they were born to a heavenly mother and started their 
progression to godhood?
 

On 7/26/2026 at 7:04 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

Yes. God the Father is above all the gods of the Greeks, Romans, Hindus, etc.
 

On 7/26/2026 at 7:04 PM, InCognitus said:

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. 

Apparently the LDS Heavenly Father was not miraculously born as Jesus was.
 
Here are several things you seem to believe the LDS Heavenly Father cannot say:

"Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me" (Matthew 10:40).

"Just as the Father raises the dead up and makes them alive, so the Son also makes alive whomever 
he wants." (John 5:21).

"The Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son." (John 5:22).

"So that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father." (John 5:23).

"Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:9).

"My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working." (John 5:17).

"The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. 
For whatever things that One does, these things the Son does also in like manner." (John 5:19).

"I have come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me." (John 6:38).

[InCognitus]

On 8/3/2026 at 7:28 AM, theplains said:

On 7/26/2026 at 4:55 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

I checked your links but I see no place where you address the fact that you believe Joseph Smith, 
in his King Follett discourse, was really saying that "God was not OUR God (OUR Father) from all 
eternity" as opposed to "God was not God from all eternity".

Remember, your question to me was this:

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

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.

In every one of the posts I linked above, I quoted the portion of the King Follet Discourse that addresses that question.

Here’s a quote from my post on 10/30/2022:

“Joseph Smith taught "what kind of being God is" and how he got to be the way he is, a being who created worlds, a being who created man in his own image.  He described it this way:

"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."

Here’s a quote from my post on 11/10/2022:

“And God the Father has always been above all others.  How he came to be our God is explained in the statement from Joseph Smith that I quoted just a few posts ago (here) : 

“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, p. 354)

"That is how God came to be our God.”

And in my post on 11/11/2022 I reposted what I said above, and added:

“Repeating what I said above, ‘God the Father has always been above all others.’  How he came to be our God was in our relationship to him, and him providing a way for us to advance and become like him.  That is the way Joseph Smith taught it in his sermon.”

I could post the same thing from the other posts (and others).  This was all in direct response to the same question you asked me above.

On 8/3/2026 at 7:28 AM, theplains said:

You continually focus on the "how God came to be our God" part, which I understand given the context 
of eternal increase.

The God of the Bible has eternal increase, so why wouldn’t you accept that?  Otherwise, what is God’s point in creating the earth?

The “how God came to be our God” part is all contained in the same sermon.  It was the focus of Joseph Smith’s overall teaching.  Read or listen to the entire sermon in context.

On 8/3/2026 at 7:28 AM, theplains said:

But you never show why you believe Joseph Smith clearly has this context (having spirit children) 
in mind when he says, "… it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and 
how He came to be so; for 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".

He doesn't say "how God came to be our God" like you imply and he doesn't explain how God the Father 
supposedly became a God before he supposedly becomes a man on some other world.

Joseph Smith explained it right within the same sermon.  Do I need to quote it again?  Let me break it down for you, phrase by phrase:  

• “The first principles of man are self-existent with God” :  Our spirits are self-existent with God.  We were with God in the beginning of his plan.
• “God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory…” :  God had more glory than others and he implemented a plan for the other spirits.
• “because he was more intelligent” :  God was the most intelligent of all others, eternally so.  This puts him in the position to be the “most high” of all others, always and forever.  He has always been “God” in that sense.
• “saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself” :  God the Father instituted the laws, nobody else did that.  God the Father didn’t inherit those laws from some other God, he is the lawgiver.
• “The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge” :  We entered a relationship with God, this is where God became “our God”.
• “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." :  Because God is love, he wanted others to have the same knowledge and experiences that he has.  God offered this plan to the spirits that were self-existent with him.

It’s perfectly clear to me anyway.

On 8/3/2026 at 7:28 AM, theplains said:

Your quote of "The first principles of man are self-existent with God" implies that man and woman 
exist outside of God. They are co-eternal, uncreated. In Christian theology, only God is self-existent.

I understand that to be your belief, but believing that only God is self-existent is a doctrine that contradicts the Bible teaching that we are all the same “kind” of being as God (Acts 17:28-29).  I prefer to believe the Bible doctrine rather than traditions that were developed later.

On 8/3/2026 at 7:28 AM, theplains said:

On 7/26/2026 at 4:55 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

That's self serving – a being, eternally existing as maybe intelligence, without a spirit or 
physical body, institutes laws by which he advances into becoming a God.  You never show from 
scripture where some being instituted laws to become a God before he becomes a Father.

How is it “self serving” for a God who loves others so much that he wants them to have the same experiences that he has and provides a way for them to receive everything that he has?

And can you show me from the Bible what God the Father did before he created this earth?  You can’t.  The Bible doesn’t talk about that.  No doubt you have some belief that you hold about what he was doing, but you can’t demonstrate any of it from scripture.  We’ve already been through the verses that say, “from age to age thou art God” (like Psalm 90:2), but those don’t prove what you are thinking.

I can show you from Latter-day Saint scripture where God has been creating “worlds without number”, but other than that we aren’t given any other details.

On 8/3/2026 at 7:28 AM, theplains said:

Not even the LDS Jesus can accurately be called the "Eternal God" for he is taught to have become 
a God in his pre-mortal life.

Nor can you ever claim to receive “eternal life” that Jesus is offering us by the same line of reasoning.  It’s really not “eternal life” because (as you believe) you didn’t have it eternally.

But this shouldn't be an issue to you, since the Bible never refers to Jesus as the "Eternal God".  The Book of Mormon does in several places, however.  

On 8/3/2026 at 7:28 AM, theplains said:

On 7/26/2026 at 4:55 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

The fact that some taught that men could become gods or Gods doesn't make it true

It wasn’t just “some men” who taught that men can become gods or Gods, it was the “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, that all taught that men become gods in no uncertain terms.  This is the widespread foundation of the teachings of the early Christian Fathers.

The bottom line?  “Christian” doctrine has changed through the years.  It used to be one thing, now it’s something completely different.

On 8/3/2026 at 7:28 AM, theplains said:

What I find interesting is that you seem willing to accept the Early Church Fathers as truthful 
when they support your position, yet you're reluctant to say that any of the LDS leaders I quoted 
were wrong. I provided multiple statements, but you haven't identified which, if any, you believe 
are false.

The difference here is that the earliest Christians taught that men become “Gods” far and wide, independently of one another.  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.

Latter-day Saint leaders, on the other hand, were often trying to interpret some things that one scribe recorded (incorrectly in some respects) of a sermon that Joseph Smith gave without access to the original source, and with the assumption that what was first published of the sermon was an accurate account of what Joseph Smith said.  This was not the case for the early Christian Fathers teaching that men can become gods.

On 8/3/2026 at 7:28 AM, theplains said:

But you seem to reject some LDS teachings when they are repeated across decades. You don't seem 
to view them as doctrine either. Apparently a repeated teaching is only doctrine when it comes 
from Early Church Fathers but not LDS prophets or apostles.

See above where I explained the difference.

On 8/3/2026 at 7:28 AM, theplains said:

On 7/26/2026 at 4:55 PM, InCognitus said:

 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.

I believe they misinterpreted what these verses mean:

Of course you do.  Christian teachings have changed drastically since the first three centuries AD, and they have needed to reinterpret scripture to fit the modern teachings and ignore others, like the Biblical teaching that we are all the same “kind” of being as God (we are the very génos of God - Acts 17:28-29). 

They might say that you are the one misinterpreting what those verses mean.

On 8/3/2026 at 7:28 AM, theplains said:

On 7/26/2026 at 4:55 PM, InCognitus said:

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?

Is God the Father (the Father of the Gods as you say above) also the Father of Heavenly Mother 
(believed to be a God herself)?

You didn’t answer the question I asked last time. 

I’ll ask it again:  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 8/3/2026 at 7:28 AM, theplains said:

The part about there being a God above Earth's Heavenly Father can be explained with his teaching 
"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".  

The LDS Heavenly Father just doesn't come out of nowhere.  Joseph Smith did not believe the God 
of our Earth was always God.

In another sermon, Joseph Smith taught : "If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son 
of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose 
that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever 
a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without 
a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness 
of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father 
also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of 
it" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, page 373).

He calls it a doctrine.

I already addressed that sermon in great detail, and you didn’t even bother to read my responses, so why should I bother repeating myself again?  I’ll just cut and paste things all over again.  But I’m getting tired of the fact that you ignore my responses and pretend like we didn’t ever discuss this.  Why should I respond to you at all in the future?

See my recent post on 07/27/2026 where you quoted the same thing while posting as telnetd, which refers back to my post on 05/26/2025 where I addressed that sermon in detail.

During the Sermon in the Grove, Thomas Bullock recorded Joseph Smith saying the following (right before the part that you quoted above):

“I want to reason— I learned it by translating the papyrus now in my house—I learned a test. concerning Abraham & he reasoned concerng. the God of Heaven— in order to do that s[ai]d. he— suppose we have two facts that supposes that anor. fact may exist two men on the earth— one wiser that the other— wod. shew that anor. who is wiser than the wisest may exist— intelligences exist one above anor. that there is no end to it”

The problem with this record is that it directly contradicts the source that Joseph Smith is said to be referencing.  Bullock records that the “two facts” are that there may always be one that is wiser than the wisest (which is logically impossible, or otherwise the wisest is not really the wisest).  And he also says that there is no end to intelligences existing one above another.

But Abraham 3:18–22 says the following:

• 18 … if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.
• 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.  ….
• 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.

So, the “two facts” stated in the book of Abraham are that there is one who is the wisest and the most intelligent than all others, and that being is the Lord God. And it is the eternal existence of intelligences that have “no end”, because they have no beginning and no end, not that there is no end to them existing one above another as the Bullock notes indicate. 

So, Thomas Bullock gets it wrong.

Furthermore, to re-quote what I said to you posting as telned:

I see from Thomas Bullock’s notes of that sermon that the discussion of God the Father having a father was in the context of God the Father’s mortal experience on an earth.  His notes show that the statements about God the Father having a “father” are immediately followed by “I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him”.  In other words, Bullock’s notes indicate that God the Father’s “father” would have been either his earthly father when he was born into mortality, or that God the Father (as the head of all other Gods) would have appointed some other God to produce him in the same way that Jesus came into mortality.  But Bullock also seems to have repeated himself in part of those notes, so it’s hard to tell if Joseph Smith was restating something for emphasis, or if Bullock recorded it incorrectly, or if he did get it correct, we need further information and context to draw any conclusions with certainty.

On 8/3/2026 at 7:28 AM, theplains said:

Supposedly Heavenly Father calls a grand council where he announces a plan for his spirit children 
to become exalted (to become Gods).  

" … according to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all 
other Gods, before this world was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, 
when every man shall enter into His eternal presence, and into His immortal rest" (Teachings of 
Joseph Smith, page 138].

"Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, page 
348).

"The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council17 to bring forth the world. The 
grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds 
which were created at the time" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, page 348-349).

"In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and 
concocted a plan to create the world and people it" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, page 349).

"The contention in heaven was—Jesus said there would be certain souls that would not be saved; 
and the devil said he could save them all, and laid his plans before the grand council, who gave 
their vote in favor of Jesus Christ. So the devil rose up in rebellion against God, and was cast 
down, with all who put up their heads for him. (Book of Moses—Pearl of Great Price, Chap. 4:1-4;
Book of Abraham, Chap. 3:23-28.)" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, page 357).

"Every man who has a calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to that very 
purpose in the Grand Council of heaven before this world was. I suppose I was ordained to this 
very office in that Grand Council" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, page 365).

"The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand 
councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which 
were created at the time" (April 1971 Ensign, The King Follett Sermon).

Since you refer to him as the Head of the Gods

Joseph Smith referred to him as the “head of the Gods”, not me.  I was quoting Joseph Smith.

On 8/3/2026 at 7:28 AM, theplains said:

, which Gods (also referred to as the grand 
councilors) at the council are you referring to?  Had Jesus and the Holy Ghost already become Gods 
before the council was planned and these are the only additional Gods, Heavenly Mother included, 
that were present there?  Or are Heavenly Mother and Father the only Gods at this grand council?

I’ll respond to these questions as soon as you answer this question:  What exactly was God the Father doing on August 9, 100 billion B.C.?  Be specific.  (And it wasn't a Sabbath day).

On 8/3/2026 at 7:28 AM, theplains said:

On 7/26/2026 at 4:55 PM, InCognitus said:

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

I don't agree with Lactantius teaching Jesus Christ is the "Second God".

Of course you don’t.  Christian teachings have changed drastically since then, and you go with the modern interpretations.

On 8/3/2026 at 7:28 AM, theplains said:

Jesus created Satan (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-17).

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the 
beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that 
was made".

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were 
created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers 
or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and 
in him all things hold together".

Neither of those verses say that Jesus created Satan. 

And John 1:3 includes the stipulation that without Jesus “was not anything made that was made.”  In other words, Jesus didn’t make anything that was not “made”, like the spirits that existed with God in the beginning (they are called the “sons of God” and “morning stars” in Job 38:7), and the Bible teaches us that humans are the same “kind” of being as God (the génos of God - Acts 17:28-29).  We need to include all the Bible teachings on this topic, not just a few here or there.

[InCognitus]

On 8/3/2026 at 7:37 AM, theplains said:

On 7/26/2026 at 5:04 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

All terrestrial and telestial inhabitants do not receive a fulness of joy even though their spirit 
and body are joined together eternally – not even those in the two lower divisions of the celestial 
kingdom have it.

"Fulness of joy" and "eternal life" seem to be different things, and it's only reserved for exalted 
beings.

"Neither is it enough to be a good, solid citizen, contributing to charities, serving on community 
boards, and in general living a good Christian life. Although commendable, this is not sufficient 
to entitle one to the fulness of joy and the eternal life that our Father in heaven has promised 
to those who love him and keep his commandments" (January 1975, New Era, Just for Today, President 
N. Eldon Tanner).

Becoming a god (God) precedes obtaining a fulness of joy. Both Father and Mother obtained their 
fulness of joy. The LDS Father did not have a fulness of joy until he passed all his tests and 
became a God.  

"We learned that if we placed our faith in him, obeying his word and following his example, we 
would be exalted and become like our heavenly parents. We would receive a fulness of joy … We 
can be exalted as God is and receive a fulness of joy … If we passed our tests, we would receive 
the fulness of joy that our heavenly parents have received … Blessings of Exaltation:  They will 
become gods. They will receive a fulness of joy" (Gospel Principles, 1997).

The LDS Father is not always a God (in a state of godhood) before he fully progresses.

"The progression of our Father in heaven to godhood, or exaltation, was strictly in accordance 
with eternal principles" (Achieving a Celestial Marriage manual).

And none of this has anything to do with what I said in my last post about exaltation, which is that it is “the kind of life God lives”. 

On 8/3/2026 at 7:37 AM, theplains said:

On 7/26/2026 at 5:04 PM, InCognitus said:

 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.

But you reject the idea that some being progressed beyond what he was before and became a God then 
Father.

This all goes back to how you define “God”.  God the Father has always been the most advanced, the most intelligent, the “most high” of all other spirits regardless of the other things he did that were like what Jesus did.  What I reject is the idea that this does not make him “God” in some sense, for no other being could compare to him.

On 8/3/2026 at 7:37 AM, theplains said:

On 7/26/2026 at 5:04 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

Yes. God the Father is above all the gods of the Greeks, Romans, Hindus, etc.

What about Jesus?  I asked about Jesus.

According to the Bible, God the Father is the very God and Father of Jesus Christ (John 20:17, Romans 15:6, 1 Corinthians 11:3,  2 Corinthians 11:31, Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians 1:17; Hebrews 1:8-9, 1 Peter 1:3, Revelation 3:12), and Jesus is even said to be eternally subject to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28).  Do you believe that Heavenly Father is a higher God than Jesus like the Bible teaches?  Or do you reject those Bible teachings too?

As for the gods of the Greeks and Romans, those are false gods.  They are “nothing” (according to the Bible).  God is not a God of “nothing”.  He is not a God of fictional characters.  That would be like saying God is the God of the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause.  It is demeaning and disrespectful to God to classify him that way, because anyone (me, you, or your dog) can be the “god” to fictional characters that don’t exist.

But the Bible truth is that God is the God of other “gods” that exist in reality, “God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible” (Deuteronomy 10:17).  A God of fictional characters is not mighty or terrible.

[theplains]

On 8/9/2026 at 11:35 PM, InCognitus said:

“Repeating what I said above, ‘God the Father has always been above all others.’  How he came to be our God was in our relationship to him, and him providing a way for us to advance and become like him.  That is the way Joseph Smith taught it in his sermon.”

Joseph Smith also said, "... it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how
he came to be so; for 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. These
are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a
certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with
another" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, page 345).

He doesn't say "how God came to be our God" – you insert the word "our".  That's the difference.
 

On 8/9/2026 at 11:35 PM, InCognitus said:

The God of the Bible has eternal increase, so why wouldn’t you accept that?  Otherwise, what is God’s point in creating the earth?

By that, you mean offspring through at least one heavenly mother.
 

On 8/9/2026 at 11:35 PM, InCognitus said:

The “how God came to be our God” part is all contained in the same sermon.  It was the focus of Joseph Smith’s overall teaching.  Read or listen to the entire sermon in context.

I did. But you keep inserting the word "our" into what Joseph Smith said.
 

On 8/9/2026 at 11:35 PM, InCognitus said:

Joseph Smith explained it right within the same sermon.  Do I need to quote it again?  Let me break it down for you, phrase by phrase:  

• “The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge” :  We entered a relationship with God, this is where God became “our God”.

It’s perfectly clear to me anyway.

I understand what you're saying but you keep adding the word "our" in Joseph's phrase "how God came to 
be God".

As you said previously and I'm rephrasing a bit, "how God came to be our God" is based on how people 
supposedly became his spirit children through celestial marriage.

In the case of the LDS Jesus, we have "how Jesus became a God" and "how Jesus became our God" (in the 
sense that he became our redeemer and the Lord we covenant to follow).

Heavenly Father supposedly becomes the Redeemer and the Lord of those on the planet that he grew up on. 
As you said above about Jesus, you might also say about Heavenly Father. Let me rephrase it a bit – "Those 
people on that world He grew up on entered a relationship with that God, this is where that God became 
their God".

By the way, who are those that he supposedly redeemed?  Whose offspring are they?
 

On 8/9/2026 at 11:35 PM, InCognitus said:

I understand that to be your belief, but believing that only God is self-existent is a doctrine that contradicts the Bible teaching that we are all the same “kind” of being as God (Acts 17:28-29).  I prefer to believe the Bible doctrine rather than traditions that were developed later.

I don't believe you or I are self-existent in the sense that we existed eternally as intelligences (maybe with
or without gender) prior to being formed into spirit children of heavenly parents.

Acts 17:29 says, "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead 
is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device".

Consider all those people who supposedly grew up with Heavenly Father on some other world whom he 
supposedly atoned for.  Whose offspring are they?
 

On 8/9/2026 at 11:35 PM, InCognitus said:

And can you show me from the Bible what God the Father did before he created this earth?  You can’t.  The Bible doesn’t talk about that.

That's right.
 

On 8/9/2026 at 11:35 PM, InCognitus said:

I can show you from Latter-day Saint scripture where God has been creating “worlds without number”, but other than that we aren’t given any other details.

I'm aware of those. Some of these other worlds are also believed to have reached their celestial state already.
 

On 8/9/2026 at 11:35 PM, InCognitus said:

Nor can you ever claim to receive “eternal life” that Jesus is offering us by the same line of reasoning.  It’s really not “eternal life” because (as you believe) you didn’t have it eternally.

But this shouldn't be an issue to you, since the Bible never refers to Jesus as the "Eternal God".  The Book of Mormon does in several places, however.

The LDS Jesus is an uncreated, eternal intelligence who became the first spirit child of heavenly parents,
who then became a God before his incarnation on our Earth. The Book of Mormon refers to him as the
Eternal God.  In similar fashion, LDS men and women are believed to be uncreated, eternal intelligences
who became spirit children of heavenly parents. They hope to also become Gods in the future. In some
future time, they will also be considered as Eternal Gods.  

But that doesn't mean they will have eternally existed as Gods.

Jesus never specifically spoke the words "I am God" to the Jews. But they understood what he was saying 
and sought to kill him for blasphemy.

I have previously shared scriptures that show God has always existed. He is from eternity to eternity. 
There never is a time when he is not God.
 

On 8/9/2026 at 11:35 PM, InCognitus said:

I’ll ask it again:  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?

Not in those specific places, but Joseph Smith and others did teach it.

The Prophet says: "If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus 
Christ had a Father, you may suppose that he had a Father also." Then he asks: "Where was there ever a 
son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son?" 

The Prophet taught that our Father had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, especially 
when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him?

Evidently his Father passed through a period of mortality even as he passed through mortality, and as 
we all are doing. Our Father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a Father, and since there has 
been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father, until we come to a stop 
where we cannot go further, because of our limited capacity to understand" (Doctrines of Salvation).

It's also recorded in the Joseph Smith Papers, History, 1838–1856, volume F-1 [1 May 1844–8 August 1844].

"He came here, was born, had a father and mother like you have. Well, who was his father? Why God was 
His father; and who was God's father? Why God had a father like you and I have" (Orson Pratt, The Seer).

"We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous 
heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father; and so on, from 
generation to generation, . . . we wonder in our minds, how far back the genealogy extends, and how the 
first world was formed, and the first father was begotten" (Orson Pratt, The Seer).

"Like man, He had a Father; and he was 'the express image of the person of the Father. Here "He" is God, 
in the preceding discussion of the true God. Thus Pratt explicitly describes God Himself as having a 
Father. (The Kingdom of God — Project Gutenberg).

"Now, with this information children can begin to understand something about their Heavenly Father. They 
can see that if Jesus is His Son, and we are His sons and daughters, that He must be the Son of some 
other personage, for He could not beget Himself, but must have a father even as He is our Father" (George 
Q. Cannon, Gospel Truths, volume 1).

"We must be grafted into the true vine, and continue to partake of its fatness, and then we shall go back 
to our Father and God, who is connected with one who is still farther back; and this Father is connected 
with one still further back, and so on; and just so far as we respect our superiors and try to save our 
children, so shall we receive blessings from this time forth and forever, and shall become as numerous 
as the sands upon the seashore" (Heber C. Kimball, April 6, 1857 General Conference).

https://journalofdiscourses.com/5/5
https://www.josephsmithfoundation.org/journalofdiscourses/reporters/g-d-watt/temple-and-endowments-raising-grain-and-building-storehouses-dedication/
https://historicalgeneralconferences.weebly.com/1857-april.html
https://historicalgeneralconferences.weebly.com/1857-april.html#HCK

"Some people are troubled over the statements of the Prophet Joseph Smith. . . . The matter that seems 
such a mystery is the statement that our Father in heaven at one time passed through a life and death
and is an exalted man. This is one of the mysteries. . . . The Prophet taught that our Father had a 
Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, especially when we remember that the promises are 
made to us that we may become like him?" (Doctrines of Salvation, volume 1).

Brigham Young stated: "Brother Kimball quoted a saying of Joseph the Prophet, that he would not worship 
a God who had not a Father; and I do not know that he would if he had not a mother; the one would be 
as absurd as the other" (Journal of Discourses, volume 9, page 286).

 

On 8/9/2026 at 11:35 PM, InCognitus said:

I’ll respond to these questions as soon as you answer this question:  What exactly was God the Father doing on August 9, 100 billion B.C.?  Be specific.  (And it wasn't a Sabbath day).

I don't know.

Let me speculate as if I were a Latter-day Saint - as for "who are the Gods present at the Grand Council 
for the creation of Earth, the plan of salvation, etc", I would say that it could have been attended by some
or all the other children of Heavenly Father, who lived on the other worlds He created, and who have already
been formed into Gods. These "Gods" may have also been the Gods which the Book of Abraham says created
our Earth.
 

On 8/9/2026 at 11:35 PM, InCognitus said:

Neither of those verses say that Jesus created Satan. 

And John 1:3 includes the stipulation that without Jesus “was not anything made that was made.”  In other words, Jesus didn’t make anything that was not “made”, like the spirits that existed with God in the beginning (they are called the “sons of God” and “morning stars” in Job 38:7), and the Bible teaches us that humans are the same “kind” of being as God (the génos of God - Acts 17:28-29).  We need to include all the Bible teachings on this topic, not just a few here or there.

From a traditional Christian point of view, John 1:3 teaches that the Word (Logos), who is Jesus Christ, 
was the agent through whom God created everything.

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made".

The wording is deliberately comprehensive. John isn't saying merely that Christ created some things or 
that He helped God create the earth. He is saying that everything that belongs to the category of created 
things came into existence through Him.

The logic is:

•    Everything that was created was made through the Word.
•    Therefore, the Word cannot Himself belong to the category of things that were created. John 1:1 
     says the Word "was God."
•    Therefore, the Word is understood as eternally divine, rather than a creature.

Then we have Colossians 1:15–17 ("Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every 
creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and 
invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created 
by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist").

But since you believe Satan is not made (i.e. he is an eternal uncreated intelligence), Jesus does not 
make him in LDS theology.

[theplains]

On 8/9/2026 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

What about Jesus?  I asked about Jesus.

According to the Bible, God the Father is the very God and Father of Jesus Christ (John 20:17, Romans 15:6, 1 Corinthians 11:3,  2 Corinthians 11:31, Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians 1:17; Hebrews 1:8-9, 1 Peter 1:3, Revelation 3:12), and Jesus is even said to be eternally subject to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28).  Do you believe that Heavenly Father is a higher God than Jesus like the Bible teaches?  Or do you reject those Bible teachings too?

The argument is essentially equivocating between two different questions: whether the Father is God 
over/relative to the Son in the biblical relationship, and whether the Father is a higher-ranking deity 
who is more divine than the Son. I would answer the first yes and the second no.

The Bible certainly teaches that the Father is the God of Jesus in terms of their personal relationship. 
Jesus Himself says to Mary: "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

Paul likewise speaks of: "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Ephesians 1:3).

So there is no reason for an evangelical to deny those verses.

But that does not mean the Father is a higher God than Jesus in the sense that the Father possesses a 
greater degree of deity. The same New Testament that calls the Father Jesus' God also makes statements 
about Jesus that are incompatible with Jesus being merely a lesser deity.

For example: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).

And:

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3).

Paul says of Christ, "By him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible 
and invisible... all things were created by him, and for him" (Colossians 1:16).

And Hebrews says of the Son, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever..."

So the biblical picture is not the Father being a greater God and the Son being a lesser God, but rather 
the Father = God, the Son = God, and the Father is not the Son; while the Son is personally subordinate 
to the Father in certain respects.

Then there's 1 Corinthians 15:28.  This is probably the strongest verse for the argument: "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".

Evangelicals don't need to deny this. The Son is indeed subject to the Father.

But subjection does not necessarily mean inferiority of nature.

A good biblical example is Jesus' incarnation. Jesus says, "My Father is greater than I".

Yet the same Gospel says, "the Word was God".

The traditional evangelical interpretation is that Christ's submission to the Father concerns His 
relationship, role, and mission, not a lesser divine nature.

This becomes especially important in 1 Corinthians 15, because Paul is discussing the Son's mediatorial 
kingdom. Christ has conquered His enemies, and then He delivers the kingdom to the Father. The Son's 
submission is the completion of His mediatorial work.

This is what I see as the problem with the LDS argument:

If the question is: "Does the Bible teach that the Father is the God of Jesus?", then yes.

If the question is: "Does the Bible teach that Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father in some 
sense?", then yes.

But if the question becomes: "Therefore, does the Bible teach that the Father is a more divine God than 
Jesus, or that Jesus is a lesser God?", the answer is no.

The New Testament deliberately puts these ideas together. The Father is Jesus' God, while Jesus is 
simultaneously described as God, the Creator of all things, the one through whom all things exist, and 
the one who receives divine worship.

So I would respond to the argument this way:

Yes, the Father is the God of Jesus in the biblical sense in which Jesus relates to the Father, and yes, 
the Son willingly submits to the Father. But the Bible does not therefore teach that the Father is a 
"higher God" than Jesus. The same Bible identifies Jesus as God and attributes to Him the creation and 
sustaining of everything that exists. I distinguish between the Father and Son as persons and equality 
in divine nature. Your argument establishes personal distinction and subordination; it does not establish 
that Jesus is a lesser deity.

There is also a particularly strong Colossians 1:15–17 plus 1 Corinthians 15:28 argument here: the very 
Son who is ultimately subjected to the Father is the one Paul says created "all things," including the 
invisible heavenly powers.  That is why I believe Jesus created Satan.

[MiserereNobis]

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

oosely-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]

You should hear the Grateful Dead talk about improvisation and the group mind, where they are simply observing the music play itself through them as one being.

And don’t worry about Rush coming to your mind. The Grateful Dead comes to my mind in all sorts of threads 😁

[MiserereNobis]

On 7/30/2026 at 12:07 PM, teddyaware said:

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

Why do you always post about how happy you are going to be to see someone find out they are wrong? It’s really… gross.

 

On 7/30/2026 at 12:07 PM, teddyaware said:

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?

No room for metaphors and figurative language in your life, eh?

[manol]

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why do you always post about how happy you are going to be to see someone find out they are wrong?

Yeah, I can't see gloating being a thing that anyone does in Heaven. 

And it's not that I'm thinking those looking forward to gloating are going to be disappointed and therefore I'll get to secretly gloat about that!  I just don't think we will be seeing through lenses that show us something to be gloated over. 

Imo we don't even have to wait until we die to see through a lense that shows us love instead of judgment, and kinship instead of separation. 

Edited August 18 by manol

[InCognitus]

On 8/17/2026 at 7:35 AM, theplains said:

On 8/9/2026 at 9:35 PM, InCognitus said:

“Repeating what I said above, ‘God the Father has always been above all others.’  How he came to be our God was in our relationship to him, and him providing a way for us to advance and become like him.  That is the way Joseph Smith taught it in his sermon.”

Joseph Smith also said, "... it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how
he came to be so; for 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. These
are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a
certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with
another" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, page 345).

He doesn't say "how God came to be our God" – you insert the word "our".  That's the difference.

He does say how God came to be “our God” in the same sermon.  I broke it down for you last time. 

If we define God as the most advanced being in existence, then God has always been God according to Joseph Smith.  But scripture also shows us that there are ways that God becomes our God, which is what Joseph Smith was saying about our relationship to him.  For example:

"And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people". (Leviticus 26:12)

"But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you."  (Jeremiah 7:23)

"Which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God". (Jeremiah 11:4)

"And ye shall be my people, and I will be your God". (Jeremiah 30:22)

"And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God".  (Ezekiel 36:28)

And there are also ways that God ceases to be God for some:

"Then said God, Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God". (Hosea 1:9)

On 8/17/2026 at 7:35 AM, theplains said:

On 8/9/2026 at 9:35 PM, InCognitus said:

The God of the Bible has eternal increase, so why wouldn’t you accept that?  Otherwise, what is God’s point in creating the earth?

By that, you mean offspring through at least one heavenly mother.

No, by that I mean that God increases in the number of his creations.  In the Protestant view, God has only one creation: this earth and the universe relating to it.  So, from a Protestant point of view God is just a beginner at the creation thing, but he still went from being a non-creator to a creator (and that is an increase from zero to one, even though is just one creation).  But in the Latter-day Saint point of view, God has made “worlds without number” and continually increases in the number of his creations.

On 8/17/2026 at 7:35 AM, theplains said:

On 8/9/2026 at 9:35 PM, InCognitus said:

I understand that to be your belief, but believing that only God is self-existent is a doctrine that contradicts the Bible teaching that we are all the same “kind” of being as God (Acts 17:28-29).  I prefer to believe the Bible doctrine rather than traditions that were developed later.

I don't believe you or I are self-existent in the sense that we existed eternally as intelligences (maybe with
or without gender) prior to being formed into spirit children of heavenly parents.

Acts 17:29 says, "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead 
is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device".

Consider all those people who supposedly grew up with Heavenly Father on some other world whom he 
supposedly atoned for.  Whose offspring are they?

The fact that we are all the “offspring of God” is a Bible teaching, whether you choose to believe it or not.  And remember, you were the first to acknowledge how Paul’s Greek audience would have understood what Paul was teaching in that sermon.

But Paul was teaching something more important than just that.  Paul was teaching that we are all the same “kind” of being as God, since that’s what the Greek word génos means.  We are the “genus” of God (as it says in the Latin translations), the same kind of being that God is.  This means that some aspect of our existence (our spirits) is the same kind of being that God is, and is co-eternal with God, and the fact that we are the same "kind" of being as God is totally independent of the relationship we enter into with God, becoming his “offspring”.

On 8/17/2026 at 7:35 AM, theplains said:

On 8/9/2026 at 9:35 PM, InCognitus said:

Nor can you ever claim to receive “eternal life” that Jesus is offering us by the same line of reasoning.  It’s really not “eternal life” because (as you believe) you didn’t have it eternally.

But this shouldn't be an issue to you, since the Bible never refers to Jesus as the "Eternal God".  The Book of Mormon does in several places, however.

The LDS Jesus is an uncreated, eternal intelligence who became the first spirit child of heavenly parents,
who then became a God before his incarnation on our Earth. The Book of Mormon refers to him as the
Eternal God.  In similar fashion, LDS men and women are believed to be uncreated, eternal intelligences
who became spirit children of heavenly parents. They hope to also become Gods in the future. In some
future time, they will also be considered as Eternal Gods.  

But that doesn't mean they will have eternally existed as Gods.

Jesus never specifically spoke the words "I am God" to the Jews. But they understood what he was saying 
and sought to kill him for blasphemy.

What the Jews understood was that anyone who claimed to be a “son of God” or to have God as their “Father” was making themselves equal with God.  This goes back to the original Jewish teachings that the “sons of God” are also gods.

Observe how the Jews reacted to Jesus calling God his “Father” in John chapter 5:17-18:

“But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.  Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”

This same line of reasoning was also applied in John chapter 10, when Jesus was referring to himself doing the works of his Father and the Jews took up stones “again” to stone him.

On 8/17/2026 at 7:35 AM, theplains said:

I have previously shared scriptures that show God has always existed. He is from eternity to eternity. 
There never is a time when he is not God.

Actually, you shared scripture that you tried to claim was saying that God has always been God, but it only said that he is God “from age to age”, which is not the same thing.

On 8/17/2026 at 7:35 AM, theplains said:

On 8/9/2026 at 9:35 PM, InCognitus said:

I’ll ask it again:  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?

Not in those specific places, but Joseph Smith and others did teach it.

Joseph Smith did not teach that God has a God above him as I showed in my last post (in the part that you completely ignored).  And what I quoted from what Joseph Smith taught contradicts what you are claiming that he taught.

And that others may have interpreted the one incorrect account of a Joseph Smith sermon that was interpolated and published as if it was the original sermon in a way that Joseph Smith did not intend, is immaterial.  We have better sources available to us today, and we can compare the original notes to his other teachings.

Furthermore, even among the sources you quoted there are problems.  First, none of them said that God has a God above him.  Saying that God had a father is not the same as saying that God has a God above him (he would have had an earthly Father when he dwelt on an earth, like Joseph Smith was teaching).  They are either talking about Jesus (as is the case of your quote from  Orson Pratt’s, The Kingdom of God), or they are ambiguous (they may very well be talking about an earthly father, as Joseph Smith did), or they state a disclaimer about its relation to official church doctrine (as in the case of Joseph Fielding Smith’s, Doctrines of Salvation), or it was publicly disowned and rejected by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve apostles as being representative of official church doctrine (as in the case of Orson Pratt’s publication, The Seer), or are relying on a publication of Joseph Smith’s sermon that was interpolated from a single incorrect source.

Official church doctrine is not derived from a few quotes here and there. 

On 8/17/2026 at 7:35 AM, theplains said:

On 8/9/2026 at 9:35 PM, InCognitus said:

I’ll respond to these questions as soon as you answer this question:  What exactly was God the Father doing on August 9, 100 billion B.C.?  Be specific.  (And it wasn't a Sabbath day).

I don't know.

Let me speculate

Since you don’t know, then we can’t speculate.  There is no point in that.

On 8/17/2026 at 7:35 AM, theplains said:

On 8/9/2026 at 9:35 PM, InCognitus said:

Neither of those verses say that Jesus created Satan. 

And John 1:3 includes the stipulation that without Jesus “was not anything made that was made.”  In other words, Jesus didn’t make anything that was not “made”, like the spirits that existed with God in the beginning (they are called the “sons of God” and “morning stars” in Job 38:7), and the Bible teaches us that humans are the same “kind” of being as God (the génos of God - Acts 17:28-29).  We need to include all the Bible teachings on this topic, not just a few here or there.

From a traditional Christian point of view, John 1:3 teaches that the Word (Logos), who is Jesus Christ, 
was the agent through whom God created everything.

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made".

The wording is deliberately comprehensive. John isn't saying merely that Christ created some things or 
that He helped God create the earth. He is saying that everything that belongs to the category of created 
things came into existence through Him.

The logic is:

•    Everything that was created was made through the Word.
•    Therefore, the Word cannot Himself belong to the category of things that were created. John 1:1 
     says the Word "was God."
•    Therefore, the Word is understood as eternally divine, rather than a creature.

Your conclusion above is built upon unbiblical assumptions, or upon assumptions that contradict the Bible.  And some aspects of your conclusion are based on ideas that were developed after the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo was formulated at around 177 AD by Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch. 

I’ll break it down here:

• “Everything that was created was made through the Word”.  This, by itself, is an accurate statement.  But the key part of this statement is “everything that was created”, which is relative to the creation of this earth (as is the context of John 1:1-3) and this indicates that there are things or beings that were not created (i.e. “without him was not any thing made that was made”).  So Jesus created only those things that were made, and it is correct to say (as you did) that “everything that belongs to the category of created things came into existence through Him”, since this excludes those things, or beings, that are not created (such as our spirits, since we are all the same “kind” of being as God).
• “Therefore, the Word cannot Himself belong to the category of things that were created. John 1:1 says the Word ‘was God’”.  This is also, by itself, an accurate statement.  Jesus has existed eternally.  He “was God” and was “with God” the Father in the beginning.
• “Therefore, the Word is understood as eternally divine, rather than a creature”.  This is where your logic breaks down, because this is based on the false assumption that anything that is eternal is divine, which was a later idea that was derived from the development of creation ex-nihilo.  From the outset this contradicts the Biblical teaching that all mankind are the génos of God, the same “kind” of being as God.  And since we are all the same kind of being that God is (as the Bible teaches), then the idea that anything that is eternal is divine goes out the window.

Also you said, "John isn't saying merely that Christ created some things or that He helped God create the earth".  But John did say Jesus only made the things "that were made", and the Bible has numerous passages indicated that God the Father created all things through Jesus Christ (see my next post for more details).

On 8/17/2026 at 7:35 AM, theplains said:

Then we have Colossians 1:15–17 ("Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every 
creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and 
invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created 
by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist").

But since you believe Satan is not made (i.e. he is an eternal uncreated intelligence), Jesus does not 
make him in LDS theology.

As stated previously, Colossians 1:15-17 doesn’t say anything about Jesus creating Satan.  

The “visible and invisible” things are explained in the verse, “whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers”.  This is not talking about the creation of beings, but of the establishment of order and governments, as Paul explains elsewhere, where he says: “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work” (Titus 3:1)

Furthermore, I think this is a really odd doctrine for you to cling to, since if Jesus really created Satan, an evil being that Jesus foreknew would be the cause of all evil and would bring about the fall of mankind and introduce sin and destruction throughout the world, then wouldn’t that be an evil choice for him to make?  Are you seriously comfortable with this non-biblical idea that Jesus created Satan, making Jesus is the source of all evil?

[InCognitus]

On 8/17/2026 at 7:39 AM, theplains said:

On 8/9/2026 at 9:41 PM, InCognitus said:

What about Jesus?  I asked about Jesus.

According to the Bible, God the Father is the very God and Father of Jesus Christ (John 20:17, Romans 15:6, 1 Corinthians 11:3,  2 Corinthians 11:31, Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians 1:17; Hebrews 1:8-9, 1 Peter 1:3, Revelation 3:12), and Jesus is even said to be eternally subject to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28).  Do you believe that Heavenly Father is a higher God than Jesus like the Bible teaches?  Or do you reject those Bible teachings too?

The argument is essentially equivocating between two different questions: whether the Father is God 
over/relative to the Son in the biblical relationship, and whether the Father is a higher-ranking deity 
who is more divine than the Son. I would answer the first yes and the second no.

The “two different questions” are an invention of your own.  Your second question is impossible.  How can a being be “more divine” than another?  What is your definition of “divine”?

Either Jesus has a God above him (a “higher God”) or he does not.  The Bible says that Jesus has a God, and that God the Father is the “most high” God.  There is “One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Ephesians 4:6). Jesus even taught that God the Father is the “only true God” (John 17:3), and Jesus is subject to him (he submitted to his will).  God the Father is above him in rank (which is what being in subjection means).  Therefore, there are two Gods, and one of them is above the other, and one of them is subject to the other (as the Bible says).  God (the Father) is the “God of gods”.

On 8/17/2026 at 7:39 AM, theplains said:

The Bible certainly teaches that the Father is the God of Jesus in terms of their personal relationship. 

Hmmm.  Now you sound like Joseph Smith when he was explaining how God became our God.  This is the key.

On 8/17/2026 at 7:39 AM, theplains said:

Jesus Himself says to Mary: "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

Paul likewise speaks of: "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Ephesians 1:3).

So there is no reason for an evangelical to deny those verses.

But that does not mean the Father is a higher God than Jesus in the sense that the Father possesses a 
greater degree of deity. The same New Testament that calls the Father Jesus' God also makes statements 
about Jesus that are incompatible with Jesus being merely a lesser deity.

For example: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).

And:

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3).

Paul says of Christ, "By him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible 
and invisible... all things were created by him, and for him" (Colossians 1:16).

And Hebrews says of the Son, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever..."

So the biblical picture is not the Father being a greater God and the Son being a lesser God, but rather 
the Father = God, the Son = God, and the Father is not the Son; while the Son is personally subordinate 
to the Father in certain respects.

Then there's 1 Corinthians 15:28.  This is probably the strongest verse for the argument: "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".

Evangelicals don't need to deny this. The Son is indeed subject to the Father.

But subjection does not necessarily mean inferiority of nature.

A good biblical example is Jesus' incarnation. Jesus says, "My Father is greater than I".

Yet the same Gospel says, "the Word was God".

The traditional evangelical interpretation is that Christ's submission to the Father concerns His 
relationship, role, and mission, not a lesser divine nature.

This becomes especially important in 1 Corinthians 15, because Paul is discussing the Son's mediatorial 
kingdom. Christ has conquered His enemies, and then He delivers the kingdom to the Father. The Son's 
submission is the completion of His mediatorial work.

This is what I see as the problem with the LDS argument:

If the question is: "Does the Bible teach that the Father is the God of Jesus?", then yes.

If the question is: "Does the Bible teach that Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father in some 
sense?", then yes.

But if the question becomes: "Therefore, does the Bible teach that the Father is a more divine God than 
Jesus, or that Jesus is a lesser God?", the answer is no.

The New Testament deliberately puts these ideas together. The Father is Jesus' God, while Jesus is 
simultaneously described as God, the Creator of all things, the one through whom all things exist, and 
the one who receives divine worship.

So I would respond to the argument this way:

Yes, the Father is the God of Jesus in the biblical sense in which Jesus relates to the Father, and yes, 
the Son willingly submits to the Father. But the Bible does not therefore teach that the Father is a 
"higher God" than Jesus. The same Bible identifies Jesus as God and attributes to Him the creation and 
sustaining of everything that exists. I distinguish between the Father and Son as persons and equality 
in divine nature. Your argument establishes personal distinction and subordination; it does not establish 
that Jesus is a lesser deity.

There is also a particularly strong Colossians 1:15–17 plus 1 Corinthians 15:28 argument here: the very 
Son who is ultimately subjected to the Father is the one Paul says created "all things," including the 
invisible heavenly powers.  

The creation argument doesn’t help, because as you said elsewhere, “the Word (Logos), who is Jesus Christ, was the agent through whom God created everything”. Jesus has a God above him, and God the Father is the one who created all things through Jesus Christ.  God the Father granted Jesus the power to do this, and appointed him for that work. 

As Hebrews 2:7 says,  Jesus was crowned “with glory and honour, and [God the Father] didst set him over the works of [his] hands” 

Hebrews 1:2, God the Father “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds”.

Acts 2:36, “God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Matthew 28:18, Jesus said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.”

Matthew 11:27, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father”.

John 5:26-27, “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.“

John 13:3, “Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God”.

John 8:42, “If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.”

And God the Father “gave” glory to Jesus prior to the creation of the world, “O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” (John 17:5, 22)

God the Father “gave” him “glory”, he gave him “power”, he made him “Lord”, and Jesus is eternally subject to him.  Clearly Jesus has a God above him, and Jesus serves his Father and does his will.

On 8/17/2026 at 7:39 AM, theplains said:

That is why I believe Jesus created Satan.

Thank you for stating this as your “belief”, because the Bible doesn’t say anywhere that Jesus created Satan.  You can believe anything you want, but don’t hold it up as a true teaching against Latter-day Saint doctrine, because it isn’t biblical.

And see my prior post asking about this belief making Jesus the source of all evil in the universe.

[theplains]

On 8/23/2026 at 9:29 PM, InCognitus said:

He does say how God came to be “our God” in the same sermon.  I broke it down for you last time. 

If we define God as the most advanced being in existence, then God has always been God according to Joseph Smith.  But scripture also shows us that there are ways that God becomes our God, which is what Joseph Smith was saying about our relationship to him.

I remember. You said, "How he came to be our God was in our relationship to him, and him providing a 
way for us to advance and become like him.  That is the way Joseph Smith taught it in his sermon".

In the King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith does discuss the eternal nature of intelligence/spirits, 
but he does not explicitly teach that God and a heavenly wife produced spirit children. It does discuss 
humanity's existence before mortality, but its language is more about intelligence/spirits being eternal 
than the later familiar LDS formulation of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother having spirit children.

So in short, it does not discuss how "God came to be God" (a phrase used in the sermon) before becoming 
"our God" (a phrase not used in the sermon).
 

On 8/23/2026 at 9:29 PM, InCognitus said:

And there are also ways that God ceases to be God for some:

"Then said God, Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God". (Hosea 1:9)

This is only in the sense of a spiritual relationship.

Once a person is a literal offspring of God, he or she remains a literal child. In LDS theology, God 
continues to be the God (the literal parent) or all those spirit children who supposedly rebelled 
against him in some war in heaven.
 

On 8/23/2026 at 9:29 PM, InCognitus said:

No, by that I mean that God increases in the number of his creations.  In the Protestant view, God has only one creation: this earth and the universe relating to it.  So, from a Protestant point of view God is just a beginner at the creation thing, but he still went from being a non-creator to a creator (and that is an increase from zero to one, even though is just one creation).  But in the Latter-day Saint point of view, God has made “worlds without number” and continually increases in the number of his creations.

In the Protestant and Catholic views, one God is responsible for creating all planets, stars, universes, 
and everything relating to them.
 

On 8/23/2026 at 9:29 PM, InCognitus said:

The fact that we are all the “offspring of God” is a Bible teaching, whether you choose to believe it or not.  And remember, you were the first to acknowledge how Paul’s Greek audience would have understood what Paul was teaching in that sermon.

Offspring in two ways – [1] being created by God, and [2] in a spiritual sense (being adopted into his 
family), not in the sense of being born literally as spirit children to a heavenly mother.

The LDS Heavenly Father supposedly was the Redeemer and Lord of those on the planet he grew up on. 
Whose offspring are they?
 

On 8/23/2026 at 9:29 PM, InCognitus said:

But Paul was teaching something more important than just that.  Paul was teaching that we are all the same “kind” of being as God, since that’s what the Greek word génos means.  We are the “genus” of God (as it says in the Latin translations), the same kind of being that God is.  This means that some aspect of our existence (our spirits) is the same kind of being that God is, and is co-eternal with God, and the fact that we are the same "kind" of being as God is totally independent of the relationship we enter into with God, becoming his “offspring”.

You're making progress.  We don't become God's offspring by being birthed by a heavenly mother.
 

On 8/23/2026 at 9:29 PM, InCognitus said:

Actually, you shared scripture that you tried to claim was saying that God has always been God, but it only said that he is God “from age to age”, which is not the same thing.

God being God from age to age = God being God from eternity to eternity = God being God from everlasting 
to everlasting.  But I see your point if you only want to apply "age" to a human's perspective instead 
of to God's perspective.
 

On 8/23/2026 at 9:29 PM, InCognitus said:

Joseph Smith did not teach that God has a God above him as I showed in my last post (in the part that you completely ignored).  And what I quoted from what Joseph Smith taught contradicts what you are claiming that he taught.

Joseph Smith and other LDS leaders taught there were Gods before (above) the God of Earth.

Let me know which of the following 12 teachings are false and leading people astray and/or have another 
intended meaning:

[1] [Joseph Smith] says: "If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father 
of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that he had a Father also". Then he asks: "Where was 
there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son?"

[2] [Joseph Smith] taught that our Father had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, 
specially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him?

[3] Evidently his Father passed through a period of mortality even as he passed through mortality, 
and as we all are doing. Our Father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a Father, and since there 
has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father, until we come to a 
stop where we cannot go further, because of our limited capacity to understand" (Joseph Fielding Smith, 
Doctrines of Salvation).

[4] "We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a 
previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father; and 
so on, from generation to generation, . . . we wonder in our minds, how far back the genealogy extends, 
and how the first world was formed, and the first father was begotten" (Orson Pratt, The Seer).

[5] "Like man, He had a Father; and he was ‘the express image of the person of the Father.' Here "He" 
is God, in the preceding discussion of the true God. Thus Pratt explicitly describes God Himself as 
having a Father" (Orson Pratt, The Kingdom of God).

[6] "He came here, was born, had a father and mother like you have. Well, who was his father? Why God 
was His father; and who was God's father? Why God had a father like you and I have".

[7] "Now, with this information children can begin to understand something about their Heavenly Father. 
They can see that if Jesus is His Son, and we are His sons and daughters, that He must be the Son of 
some other personage, for He could not beget Himself, but must have a father even as He is our Father" 
(Gospel Truths, volume 1, George Q. Cannon, page 128).

[8] "Long before our God began his creations, he dwelt on a mortal world like ours, one of the creations 
that his Father had created for him and his brethren. He, with many of his brethren, was obedient to 
the principles of the eternal gospel. One among these, it is presumed, was a savior for them, and through 
him they obtained a resurrection and an exaltation on an eternal, celestial world. Then they gained the 
power and godhood of their Father and were made heirs of all that he had, continuing his works and 
creating worlds of their own for their own posterity—the same as their Father had done before, and his 
Father, and his Father, and on and on" (Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, vol. 14, p. 71).

[9] "If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the 
Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a 
son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree 
or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says 
that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we 
not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, 
for the Bible is full of it" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, 1938).

[10] "We must be grafted into the true vine, and continue to partake of its fatness, and then we shall 
go back to our Father and God, who is connected with one who is still farther back; and this Father is 
connected with one still further back, and so on; and just so far as we respect our superiors and try 
to save our children, so shall we receive blessings from this time forth and forever, and shall become 
as numerous as the sands upon the seashore" (Journal of Discourses, volume 5, Temple and Endowments—
Raising Grain and Building Storehouses—President Heber C. Kimball, April 6, 1857).

[11] "Some people are troubled over the statements of the Prophet Joseph Smith. . . . The matter that 
seems such a mystery is the statement that our Father in heaven at one time passed through a life and 
death and is an exalted man. This is one of the mysteries. . . . The Prophet taught that our Father 
had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, especially when we remember that the promises 
are made to us that we may become like him?" (Doctrines of Salvation, volume 1).

[12] "Brother Kimball quoted a saying of Joseph the Prophet, that he would not worship a God who had 
not a Father; and I do not know that he would if he had not a mother; the one would be as absurd as the 
other" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 286).

 

On 8/23/2026 at 9:29 PM, InCognitus said:

And that others may have interpreted the one incorrect account of a Joseph Smith sermon that was interpolated and published as if it was the original sermon in a way that Joseph Smith did not intend, is immaterial.  We have better sources available to us today, and we can compare the original notes to his other teachings.

I am not aware of better LDS sources today which show that the 12 teachings I provided above are false 
LDS teachings.  If you have these better sources, then let me know.

Those leaders did not express what you now believe they did.  Latter-day Saints also don't understand 
what the Bible means when it says Jesus is the firstborn.

Trying to divert people from how the early LDS leaders spoke or what the biblical characters wrote is 
a common tactic. If one doesn't agree with something the Bible says, it means the Bible was not translated 
correctly.  Likewise, if the King Follett Discourse does not say what one expects it to say or how one 
wants to understand it, then it means it must not have been recorded properly or that the speaker had 
something else in his mind.

On this "intending" or "not intending" to mean, let examine a few statements by Brigham Young before 
I move to Joseph Smith.

What did he [Brigham] intend to mean when he taught the following:

"When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought 
Eve, one of his wives, with him".

He continued:

"He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about 
whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have 
to do".

This appears in Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 50–51, in a sermon titled "The Powers of the Priesthood".

Do you understand his intended meaning or do you ascribe another meaning to what he is saying?

In the sermon of July 24, 1870, titled "The Gospel—The One-Man Power," published in Journal of Discourses, 
volume 13, p. 271, Young said: 

"Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? … 
when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in 
regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows".

He then compared this with the sun:

"So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. 
Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain".

https://journalofdiscourses.com/13/31

Do you understand his intended meaning or do you ascribe another meaning to what he is saying?

Now, Joseph Smith.

According to Oliver B. Huntington, Joseph Smith described the inhabitants of the moon this way:

"The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the Earth, being about 
6 feet in height. They dress very much like the Quaker style & are quite general in style, or the one 
fashion of dress. They live to be very old; coming generally, near a thousand years".

Huntington then wrote:

"This is the description of them as given by Joseph the Seer, and he could ‘See' whatever he asked the 
Father in the name of Jesus to see". 

https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/SCMisc/id/27480/

A slightly different version was published by Huntington in the Young Woman's Journal in 1892:

"As far back as 1837, I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this 
earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do—that they live generally to near the age of a 
1000 years. He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly 
in something near the Quaker style". 

Do you understand Smith's intended meaning or do you ascribe another meaning to what he is saying?

We also clearly know what Joseph Smith had in mind when he gave the King Follett discourse.

"I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort 
of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going 
to prove it to you by the Bible".

Then, shortly afterward, he says:

"These ideas are incomprehensible to some, but they are simple".

Then,

"God himself was once as we are now".

and:

"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".

He then continues:

"...God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I 
will show it from the Bible".

But he never shows these things about Heavenly Father from the Bible; even when one tries to use the 
words of Jesus in John 5:19.

God himself was once as we are now – meaning we are not Gods now – meaning we are not heavenly parents 
now.  Jesus is not getting married and having spirit children like he sees the Father do. Jesus is not 
an exalted man, meaning a man who becomes God. 
 
One can't make it any clearer than that.

But I understand other passages teach the opposite – that God is God from eternity.

It's one or the other; it can't be both. 

It's plausible that Smith originally held onto those biblical truths (and those recorded in the Book 
of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants) but later changed his mind.
 

On 8/23/2026 at 9:29 PM, InCognitus said:

Furthermore, even among the sources you quoted there are problems.  First, none of them said that God has a God above him.  Saying that God had a father is not the same as saying that God has a God above him (he would have had an earthly Father when he dwelt on an earth, like Joseph Smith was teaching).  They are either talking about Jesus (as is the case of your quote from  Orson Pratt’s, The Kingdom of God), or they are ambiguous (they may very well be talking about an earthly father, as Joseph Smith did), or they state a disclaimer about its relation to official church doctrine (as in the case of Joseph Fielding Smith’s, Doctrines of Salvation), or it was publicly disowned and rejected by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve apostles as being representative of official church doctrine (as in the case of Orson Pratt’s publication, The Seer), or are relying on a publication of Joseph Smith’s sermon that was interpolated from a single incorrect source.

I'll just focus on one. You quibble too much about whether one considers it a doctrine. Let's focus on 
whether it's true or false.

This teaching of Joseph Smith leads no doubt as to what he intended to mean. There is no ambiguity.

"If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father 
of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son 
without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or 
anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that 
which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not 
believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for 
the Bible is full of it" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, 1938).

Are you scared to death at such a doctrine?  He even used the word "doctrine". 

Don't change the focus as to whether this is official or unofficial. That's like saying one truth is 
official while another truth is unofficial.

Do you view that statement by Smith as a true or false doctrine?
 

On 8/23/2026 at 9:29 PM, InCognitus said:

As stated previously, Colossians 1:15-17 doesn’t say anything about Jesus creating Satan.  

The “visible and invisible” things are explained in the verse, “whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers”.  This is not talking about the creation of beings, but of the establishment of order and governments, as Paul explains elsewhere, where he says: “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work” (Titus 3:1)

Powers can be angelic beings with power.
 

On 8/23/2026 at 9:29 PM, InCognitus said:

Furthermore, I think this is a really odd doctrine for you to cling to, since if Jesus really created Satan, an evil being that Jesus foreknew would be the cause of all evil and would bring about the fall of mankind and introduce sin and destruction throughout the world, then wouldn’t that be an evil choice for him to make?  Are you seriously comfortable with this non-biblical idea that Jesus created Satan, making Jesus is the source of all evil?

God foreknew Adam and Eve would sin and bring death into the world. The fall has had severe consequences 
for mankind and the rest of creation. 

In LDS theology, God actually uses disobedience as the way for Adam and Eve to begin their progression 
and have children after blood formed in their veins. Likewise, God supposedly foreknew his spirit children 
would rebel against him in heaven and he would need to send them to outer darkness. But first, he would 
allow these evil beings to deceive the rest of his children.

Jesus did not create Satan in an evil state. He became evil.

Does God's foreknowledge of evil make him evil? No.

[theplains]

On 8/23/2026 at 9:35 PM, InCognitus said:

The “two different questions” are an invention of your own.  Your second question is impossible.  How can a being be “more divine” than another?  What is your definition of “divine”?

To be divine is to possess the nature or attributes of God—such as perfect goodness, wisdom, power, or 
holiness. I don't view humans as being divine in essence, though they may reflect God's image or be 
close to God.
 

On 8/23/2026 at 9:35 PM, InCognitus said:

Either Jesus has a God above him (a “higher God”) or he does not.

Don't forget the dual nature of Christ. He is both God and man. And as man, God is his father. That does 
not make Christ a lesser God.

In LDS theology, Heavenly Mother is above Christ (a higher God than Jesus) because she became a God 
before Jesus was born to her. She would also be a higher God than her other son who also became God 
(i.e. the Holy Spirit).

Then you have to consider a few other things. I'll just throw in some possible events.

Supposedly Heavenly Father was a man who lived on another world. He was married in mortality and had 
physical offspring. Let's call two of his sons John and Peter. His two sons on that other world each 
married one wife (John married Mary, Peter married Martha). These four people (John, Mary, Peter, Martha) 
progressed into becoming Gods before Jesus is born as a spirit child to Heavenly Father and Mother 
sometime later. His other brothers are technically John and Peter.  So, the four additional Gods would 
be above Christ (higher Gods).  

And this doesn't include all the other millions of people who lived with Heavenly Father on his world 
who would progress into becoming Gods too, above Christ (higher Gods than he).

Think about all those millions of people who grew up with Heavenly Father on his world.  Whose offspring 
are they?
 

On 8/23/2026 at 9:35 PM, InCognitus said:

Hmmm.  Now you sound like Joseph Smith when he was explaining how God became our God.  This is the key.

God is already God before he becomes our Father.

Where in the King Follett Discourse does Joseph Smith say God became our God and Father when his heavenly 
wife (or wives) gave us some form of spiritual birth?

Do you believe Heavenly Father is a heavenly father before some heavenly mother gives birth to her first 
spirit child in some celestial home and before his wife in mortality gave birth to a physical child on 
that other world?
 

On 8/23/2026 at 9:35 PM, InCognitus said:

The creation argument doesn’t help, because as you said elsewhere, “the Word (Logos), who is Jesus Christ, was the agent through whom God created everything”. Jesus has a God above him, and God the Father is the one who created all things through Jesus Christ.  God the Father granted Jesus the power to do this, and appointed him for that work.

As Hebrews 2:7 says,  Jesus was crowned “with glory and honour, and [God the Father] didst set him over the works of [his] hands” 

Hebrews 1:2, God the Father “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds”.

Regarding Hebrews 2:7 and 1:2, it makes it easier to comprehend when you realize that Jesus and the 
Father are not two Gods.

The LDS Heavenly Father supposedly was the Redeemer and Lord of those on the planet he grew up on. 
Whose offspring are they? Who created them?

[InCognitus]

On 8/31/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

On 8/23/2026 at 7:29 PM, InCognitus said:

He does say how God came to be “our God” in the same sermon.  I broke it down for you last time. 

If we define God as the most advanced being in existence, then God has always been God according to Joseph Smith.  But scripture also shows us that there are ways that God becomes our God, which is what Joseph Smith was saying about our relationship to him.

I remember. You said, "How he came to be our God was in our relationship to him, and him providing a 
way for us to advance and become like him.  That is the way Joseph Smith taught it in his sermon".

In the King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith does discuss the eternal nature of intelligence/spirits, 
but he does not explicitly teach that God and a heavenly wife produced spirit children. It does discuss 
humanity's existence before mortality, but its language is more about intelligence/spirits being eternal 
than the later familiar LDS formulation of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother having spirit children.

So in short, it does not discuss how "God came to be God" (a phrase used in the sermon) before becoming 
"our God" (a phrase not used in the sermon).

But it does discuss how God became God in relation to us, which was his entire point.

On 8/31/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

On 8/23/2026 at 7:29 PM, InCognitus said:

And there are also ways that God ceases to be God for some:

"Then said God, Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God". (Hosea 1:9)

This is only in the sense of a spiritual relationship.

Once a person is a literal offspring of God, he or she remains a literal child. In LDS theology, God 
continues to be the God (the literal parent) or all those spirit children who supposedly rebelled 
against him in some war in heaven.

Those who became his spirit children were those who participated in his plan, and some of them rebelled by siding against his plan after the plan was presented.  Exactly how we are his “offspring” is not defined, anywhere, other than the biblical explanation that we are all literally the same kind of being that God is (Acts 17:28-29) and that God is the “Father of spirits” (Hebrews 12:9).

On 8/31/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

On 8/23/2026 at 7:29 PM, InCognitus said:

No, by that I mean that God increases in the number of his creations.  In the Protestant view, God has only one creation: this earth and the universe relating to it.  So, from a Protestant point of view God is just a beginner at the creation thing, but he still went from being a non-creator to a creator (and that is an increase from zero to one, even though is just one creation).  But in the Latter-day Saint point of view, God has made “worlds without number” and continually increases in the number of his creations.

In the Protestant and Catholic views, one God is responsible for creating all planets, stars, universes, 
and everything relating to them.

But that’s not the biblical explanation.  The Bible says God the Father (who is the “only true God”, according to Jesus) created all things through Jesus Christ (another God and Lord who is subject to the one God and Father of all).  The Father alone was responsible for this act of creation, but he did it through his Son who he appointed to be his agent in creation and other things.

Also, this doesn’t change the fact that the God of the Bible has an increase in the number of his creations.  It is from zero to one (in the Protestant view), and from “without number” to “without number” plus one, in the Latter-day Saint point of view.

On 8/31/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

On 8/23/2026 at 7:29 PM, InCognitus said:

The fact that we are all the “offspring of God” is a Bible teaching, whether you choose to believe it or not.  And remember, you were the first to acknowledge how Paul’s Greek audience would have understood what Paul was teaching in that sermon.

Offspring in two ways – [1] being created by God, and [2] in a spiritual sense (being adopted into his 
family), not in the sense of being born literally as spirit children to a heavenly mother.

Wrong, offspring in only one way, which is that we are all the génos of God (the same kind of being as God), but we need to “become” his children in a spiritual sense after that.

There is simply no way that the Greek word génos in Acts 17:28-29 can be misconstrued to mean that we are merely created by God.  It’s totally foreign to the core meaning of the word.  I have discussed this with you many times, and to change the word to mean that we are merely God’s creations totally destroys Paul’s main point.  If we are merely God’s creations then we are no different than the gold, or silver or stone from which the pagans made their idols, because gold, or silver, or stone are creations of God as well.

But given the true meaning of the Greek word génos, do you see how you are pushing back against the text of the Bible?  You are simply reasserting your personal beliefs and are refusing to accept what the Bible says on this topic. 

This is really quite ironic for these reasons:

• The Bible says, plain and simple, that we are all the same “kind” of being as God, since that’s what the Greek word génos means in Acts 17:28-29.  We are the “genus” of God.
• You say we are not the génos of God, but are merely creations of God, and God created us out of nothing.

The takeaway:  The Bible says we are the same kind of being as God, but modern Christians say we are creatures that God made out of nothing that are categorically other than him, which contradicts this biblical teaching in Acts 17:28-29.  Not only do these verses dispute the modern Christian views about God’s relationship to man, but they also prove that the idea of creation out of nothing for mankind is not biblical, since to be the same “kind” of being as God necessitates that we have an eternal core (our spirits).

• In the Bible Jesus taught us how he is “one” with his Father.  Jesus prayed for his disciples to be “one” with each other and with him and his Father in the same way Jesus is one with his Father in John 17:11, 20-23.  And Jesus “gave” to his disciples the same glory that God the Father had given him in the beginning.
• Modern Christians believe that Jesus and his Father are “homoousious”, a word that was added to the Nicene creed by the Roman Emperor Constantine.  This word has come to be understood to mean that Jesus and his Father are “one being”, a concept that is completely absent from the Bible.

The takeaway:  The Bible defines how Jesus and his Father are “one”, but modern Christians use a non-biblical concept that was conceived centuries after the Bible took place to try to explain how Jesus and his Father are “one”.

The bottom line:  Modern Christians believe in a different God than what the Bible teaches, and by proclaiming these beliefs they also reject clear Bible teachings (i.e. we are the same kind of being as God).  To paraphrase your words, modern Christians are "spectacularly wrong" on these teachings and are drastically divergent from the teachings of the earliest Christian Fathers (there is little resemblance) and have led Christianity astray for over 1,500 years. 

The irony here is that you come here to this board to try to claim that we are the ones being led astray toward “another god”, when it is clear that the modern Christian view about God and our relationship to him (as described above) has zero biblical support, the doctrines contradict biblical teachings, and they are the ones who follow “another god”.  It’s the difference between a false god and the true God of the Bible (again, using your words). 

So why should we listen to you?

One more thing:  The fact that we are also adopted as heirs of God and "become" God's children in some other way does not contradict what Paul taught about our nature as same kind of being as God (his "offspring"), so bringing up that fact does nothing to change what Paul taught in Acts 17:28-29. We all come into this world as "offspring" of God, because God the Father is the "Father of spirits" (Hebrews 12:9). But we must be "born again" and adopted as children of the covenant through Jesus Christ. He gives us the "power" to "become the sons of God" (and according to John 5:18, to be a son of God is to be "equal with God").

On 8/31/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

The LDS Heavenly Father supposedly was the Redeemer and Lord of those on the planet he grew up on. 

Supposedly?  Not according to Joseph Smith.   See my post to you when you were posting as telnetd, here, here, and here.

On 8/31/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

On 8/23/2026 at 7:29 PM, InCognitus said:

But Paul was teaching something more important than just that.  Paul was teaching that we are all the same “kind” of being as God, since that’s what the Greek word génos means.  We are the “genus” of God (as it says in the Latin translations), the same kind of being that God is.  This means that some aspect of our existence (our spirits) is the same kind of being that God is, and is co-eternal with God, and the fact that we are the same "kind" of being as God is totally independent of the relationship we enter into with God, becoming his “offspring”.

You're making progress.  We don't become God's offspring by being birthed by a heavenly mother.

But that’s exactly how you said that Paul’s audience would have understood Paul’s teaching in Acts 17:28-29, as you said in your post on 01/02/2025:

“The pagans understood ‘offspring’ in the sexual case of literal reproduction for the Greek gods; like that which occurs between male and female.”

Do you think that Paul didn’t realize what he was teaching them?  I think Paul knew exactly what he was saying.  The question is, why don’t you believe him?  Really, why don’t you believe him?

On 8/31/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

On 8/23/2026 at 7:29 PM, InCognitus said:

Actually, you shared scripture that you tried to claim was saying that God has always been God, but it only said that he is God “from age to age”, which is not the same thing.

God being God from age to age = God being God from eternity to eternity = God being God from everlasting 
to everlasting.  But I see your point if you only want to apply "age" to a human's perspective instead 
of to God's perspective.

Do you see what you are doing here?  You are trying to reimagine the Hebrew word ʿôlām to fit your modern doctrine instead of trying to understand how the ancient Hebrews understood the term.  In Hebrew the word just means a long time, or as the Young’s Literal Translation puts it, “Even from age unto age Thou art God.” (Psalm 90:2).  It doesn’t mean what you are trying to make it mean.

This is especially evident in Proverbs 8: 23-25, where “wisdom” is personified and said to have been “set up from everlasting [ʿôlām], from the beginning, or ever the earth was”.   Obviously, this can’t mean “eternal” as you want to make it to mean, or how else could wisdom be “set up” and “brought forth” if it is eternal?

Here are the verses: “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.  I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth”.  (Proverbs 8:22–25)

On 8/31/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

On 8/23/2026 at 7:29 PM, InCognitus said:

Joseph Smith did not teach that God has a God above him as I showed in my last post (in the part that you completely ignored).  And what I quoted from what Joseph Smith taught contradicts what you are claiming that he taught.

Joseph Smith and other LDS leaders taught there were Gods before (above) the God of Earth.

Let me know which of the following 12 teachings are false and leading people astray and/or have another 
intended meaning:

You posted the exact same list of quotes last time.  So, if you are going to just repeat yourself without engaging in how I responded to what you said before, then I will just repeat myself.  You are just making it easy for me to respond to your posts with cut and paste or by referring to prior posts.  In this case, see my last post on this from 08/23/2026.  And Joseph Smith never taught that there were “Gods before (above) the God of Earth”, as you claim.  See my post on 05/26/2025 for complete details, and other comments below.

I’ll add one thing that I didn’t say in my last post: I don’t think you are even reading my responses.  I say this because you’ve already been called out on your misrepresentation of the quote from the article by the BYU Physics professor in the April 1971 New Era article by attributing the source to Brigham Young (see my post on 07/12/2026 and 05/26/2025 where I discussed that article extensively).  But you continue to post it as if it was a quote from Brigham Young.  I don’t think you are that dishonest (at least I hope you’re not), so I’ll assume you simply haven’t read what I said before and are unknowingly misrepresenting the quote.  But if you keep posting it as a quote from Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses, I’m sure there’s a board rule somewhere related to the continued posting of a misrepresentation after having been corrected.

On 8/31/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

On 8/23/2026 at 7:29 PM, InCognitus said:

And that others may have interpreted the one incorrect account of a Joseph Smith sermon that was interpolated and published as if it was the original sermon in a way that Joseph Smith did not intend, is immaterial.  We have better sources available to us today, and we can compare the original notes to his other teachings.

I am not aware of better LDS sources today which show that the 12 teachings I provided above are false 
LDS teachings.  If you have these better sources, then let me know.

By better sources, I mean we have access to the original notes from the only primary source (Thomas Bullock) who was present during that specific sermon of Joseph Smith, and those original notes can be found on the Joseph Smith Papers website.  And we can compare those notes to what was published and see what was interpolated from those notes, and we can see where Thomas Bullock may have gotten some things wrong (like the contradiction to the quote from the Book of Abraham). 

On 8/31/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

Those leaders did not express what you now believe they did.  Latter-day Saints also don't understand 
what the Bible means when it says Jesus is the firstborn.

And you do?  This is pretty funny, because the early Christians certainly had a different understanding of what the Bible means when it says Jesus is the firstborn than you do. 

How do you know your interpretation is the correct one?  How do you know the early Christians didn’t get it right?  You really don’t know, you can’t know, can you?  How can you tell?

On 8/31/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

Trying to divert people from how the early LDS leaders spoke or what the biblical characters wrote is 
a common tactic.

As is the shotgun approach diversion tactic, where the critic attempts to deflect and divert the topic off into a myriad of other red-herring topics by copying and pasting quotes from early LDS leaders on a variety of subjects.  I’m not going to entertain that diversion.

And isn’t it ironic that you keep trying to divert people away from what the Biblical characters wrote, away from where Paul taught that we are all the same kind of being as God in Acts 17:28-29?  There’s a good reason that I have said that the doctrines and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are more in harmony with the Bible than any other religion on the planet.

Regarding digging up obscure quotes from past LDS leaders: People say all kinds of things, sometimes officially, but most often unofficially.  But who cares?  And we must be even more cautious when the information doesn’t come from firsthand sources, or if the notes are recalled from memory decades after the time and place of the original setting.  For example, we need to take into consideration the fact that Oliver B. Huntington was an 11 year old boy in 1837 and never wrote down what he said he overhead Joseph Smith saying until he remembered it over 44 years later, and he is the only source for what he said he remembered.  Those kinds of details are important when weighing the accuracy of anything.

On 8/31/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

If one doesn't agree with something the Bible says, it means the Bible was not translated 
correctly.

Right, like the biblical teaching that we are all the génos of God can’t really mean that we are the same “kind” of being that God is, so you need to change that to say we are merely created by God.

On 8/31/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

On 8/23/2026 at 7:29 PM, InCognitus said:

Furthermore, even among the sources you quoted there are problems.  First, none of them said that God has a God above him.  Saying that God had a father is not the same as saying that God has a God above him (he would have had an earthly Father when he dwelt on an earth, like Joseph Smith was teaching).  They are either talking about Jesus (as is the case of your quote from  Orson Pratt’s, The Kingdom of God), or they are ambiguous (they may very well be talking about an earthly father, as Joseph Smith did), or they state a disclaimer about its relation to official church doctrine (as in the case of Joseph Fielding Smith’s, Doctrines of Salvation), or it was publicly disowned and rejected by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve apostles as being representative of official church doctrine (as in the case of Orson Pratt’s publication, The Seer), or are relying on a publication of Joseph Smith’s sermon that was interpolated from a single incorrect source.

I'll just focus on one. You quibble too much about whether one considers it a doctrine. Let's focus on 
whether it's true or false.

This teaching of Joseph Smith leads no doubt as to what he intended to mean. There is no ambiguity.

"If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father 
of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son 
without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or 
anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that 
which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not 
believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for 
the Bible is full of it" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, 1938).

One thing that you continually fail to understand is that when Joseph Smith said that God had a “father”, it is not the same as your claim that there were “Gods before (above) the God of Earth”.   Your failure to understand this point is clear from some of the quotes you posted that you tried to claim were saying God has a God above him.

And I already provided a full analysis of the quote above and provided commentary in extensive detail in my post on 05/26/2025, which you either ignore or have never read.  READ what I posted already before making accusations about my motives and emotions.  Saying that God had a father is not the same as saying that God has a God above him, because he would have had an earthly father when he dwelt on an earth, just like Joseph Smith was teaching.

I’ll quote from one portion of that post so you can find it easily if and when you go to read it.  Part of what I said is this:  

“I see from Thomas Bullock’s notes of that sermon that the discussion of God the Father having a father was in the context of God the Father’s mortal experience on an earth.  His notes show that the statements about God the Father having a “father” are immediately followed by “I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him”.  In other words, Bullock’s notes indicate that God the Father’s “father” would have been either his earthly father when he was born into mortality, or that God the Father (as the head of all other Gods) would have appointed some other God to produce him in the same way that Jesus came into mortality.  But Bullock also seems to have repeated himself in part of those notes, so it’s hard to tell if Joseph Smith was restating something for emphasis, or if Bullock recorded it incorrectly, or if he did get it correct we need further information and context to draw any conclusions with certainty.”

In other words, Joseph Smith was not teaching that God the Father has a God above or before him, and he was consistent in teaching that God the Father was the “head God”, the most high God.

On 8/31/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

On 8/23/2026 at 7:29 PM, InCognitus said:

As stated previously, Colossians 1:15-17 doesn’t say anything about Jesus creating Satan.  

The “visible and invisible” things are explained in the verse, “whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers”.  This is not talking about the creation of beings, but of the establishment of order and governments, as Paul explains elsewhere, where he says: “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work” (Titus 3:1)

Powers can be angelic beings with power.

I’m sure you can imagine the “powers” to be anything you want them to be to fit your desired dogma.  But what is more important is what the Biblical writer (Paul) said they are in Titus 3:1. He didn’t say anything about angelic beings with power, and he certainly wasn’t referring to Satan (which is what you claimed he was saying).

The Bible does not say that Jesus created Satan, period.

On 8/31/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

On 8/23/2026 at 7:29 PM, InCognitus said:

Furthermore, I think this is a really odd doctrine for you to cling to, since if Jesus really created Satan, an evil being that Jesus foreknew would be the cause of all evil and would bring about the fall of mankind and introduce sin and destruction throughout the world, then wouldn’t that be an evil choice for him to make?  Are you seriously comfortable with this non-biblical idea that Jesus created Satan, making Jesus is the source of all evil?

God foreknew Adam and Eve would sin and bring death into the world. The fall has had severe consequences 
for mankind and the rest of creation. 

And the fall was caused by Jesus, according to you, since you believe Jesus created Satan from nothing, and Satan caused the fall.  Cause and effect.

On 8/31/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

Jesus did not create Satan in an evil state. He became evil.

Does God's foreknowledge of evil make him evil? No.

But you believe Jesus created Satan from nothing.  Did Jesus know that Satan would become evil when Jesus created him from nothing?  Since Jesus created Satan from nothing, could Jesus have created him to be something other than what he became?  Did Jesus make a mistake when he created Satan?

It still results in Jesus as the source of all evil when he created Satan from nothing.  What a huge mistake. 

This is why the Bible doesn’t say that Jesus created Satan, because he didn’t.  So why believe it?

Edited September 7 by InCognitus

[InCognitus]

On 8/31/2026 at 8:19 AM, theplains said:

On 8/23/2026 at 7:35 PM, InCognitus said:

The “two different questions” are an invention of your own.  Your second question is impossible.  How can a being be “more divine” than another?  What is your definition of “divine”?

To be divine is to possess the nature or attributes of God—such as perfect goodness, wisdom, power, or 
holiness. I don't view humans as being divine in essence, though they may reflect God's image or be 
close to God.

I like that you state the specific attributes of God as perfect goodness, wisdom, power, or holiness.  These attributes are obviously separate from his eternal nature, since the Bible teaches that humans are the same kind of being as God in this regard, but humans currently lack these attributes of perfect goodness, wisdom, power, or holiness.

Jesus had these attributes along with God the Father in the beginning.

And God is drawing his children unto him and asks us to “be holy” as God is holy (1 Peter 1:13-15), and the fruit of the spirit is wisdom and goodness, and the heirs of God are given power.

On 8/31/2026 at 8:19 AM, theplains said:

On 8/23/2026 at 7:35 PM, InCognitus said:

Either Jesus has a God above him (a “higher God”) or he does not.

Don't forget the dual nature of Christ. He is both God and man. And as man, God is his father. That does 
not make Christ a lesser God.

Remember, Jesus was even described as separate and subject to God the Father even from before creation, where he was “given” glory by the Father and “appointed” by the Father to carry out the work of creation, which totally removes the excuse that he had a “dual nature” (if there is such a thing). 

Jesus (the “word”) was called God (theos) alongside “the one true God” in John 1:1-3.  In the Greek text of those verses, God the Father is referred to as “the God” (shown in red below), and Jesus is simply said to be “God”:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Check out the link above if you don’t believe me.

And Jesus continues to be subject to the Father eternally, as 1 Corinthians 15:28 points out.  The resurrected Jesus referred to God the Father as “my God” four times in Revelation 3:12.

On 8/31/2026 at 8:19 AM, theplains said:

On 8/23/2026 at 7:35 PM, InCognitus said:

Hmmm.  Now you sound like Joseph Smith when he was explaining how God became our God.  This is the key.

God is already God before he becomes our Father.

God was already perfect in goodness, wisdom, power, and holiness and the supreme being before he became our Father, yes.  He was God before he became God in relation to us.

As for your other comments, I’m not going to entertain your speculative meanderings.  It’s pointless to discuss things that have not been revealed.

On 8/31/2026 at 8:19 AM, theplains said:

On 8/23/2026 at 7:35 PM, InCognitus said:

The creation argument doesn’t help, because as you said elsewhere, “the Word (Logos), who is Jesus Christ, was the agent through whom God created everything”. Jesus has a God above him, and God the Father is the one who created all things through Jesus Christ.  God the Father granted Jesus the power to do this, and appointed him for that work.

As Hebrews 2:7 says,  Jesus was crowned “with glory and honour, and [God the Father] didst set him over the works of [his] hands” 

Hebrews 1:2, God the Father “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds”.

Regarding Hebrews 2:7 and 1:2, it makes it easier to comprehend when you realize that Jesus and the 
Father are not two Gods.

Actually, it makes it much easier to comprehend when you realize that Jesus and the Father are two Gods. 

God the Father set Jesus “over the work of [his] hands”, and God the Father “appointed” Jesus to be the heir of all things, and it was by Jesus that God the Father “made the worlds”. 

“But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.  Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”  (Hebrews 1:8–9)

Jesus has a God and Jesus was anointed by his God. 

Clearly this is why Philo, and the early Christian Fathers Origen and Lactantius referred to Jesus as the “second God”, and why Justin Martyr said (of Jesus) “that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things” (Justin Martyr, Dialog with Trypho, Chapter 56).

And as Origen taught:

“And although we may call Him [Jesus Christ] a "second" God, let men know that by the term "second God" we mean nothing else than a virtue capable of including all other virtues, and a reason capable of containing all reason whatsoever which exists in all things, which have arisen naturally, directly, and for the general advantage, and which "reason," we say, dwelt in the soul of Jesus, and was united to Him in a degree far above all other souls, seeing He alone was enabled completely to receive the highest share in the absolute reason, and the absolute wisdom, and the absolute righteousness."   (Origen Against Celsus, book V chapter XXXIX).

Jesus has a God, and Jesus is eternally subject to the only true God, his God and Father.

[theplains]

On 9/7/2026 at 4:10 PM, InCognitus said:

But it does discuss how God became God in relation to us, which was his entire point.

Joseph Smith taught, "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of 
God. He was once a man like us; God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus 
Christ himself did".

He was not alone on his earth. He apparently lived with a woman, who would later become his wife, and 
with millions or billions of other people.

How did Heavenly Father become a God in relation to "her" and "them"?

Was she and the others offspring of Heavenly Father (the God of our Earth), or were they the offspring 
of some God who came before Him?
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:10 PM, InCognitus said:

Those who became his spirit children were those who participated in his plan, and some of them rebelled by siding against his plan after the plan was presented.  Exactly how we are his “offspring” is not defined, anywhere, other than the biblical explanation that we are all literally the same kind of being that God is (Acts 17:28-29) and that God is the “Father of spirits” (Hebrews 12:9).

It seems you are trying to cloud what the term "offspring" means.

Both "Gospel Topics – Heavenly Parents" and "The Family – A Proclamation to the World" state we are 
spirit children (offspring) of heavenly parents.

Are you moving away from the LDS Church teaching that we are the offspring of a heavenly mother? If no, 
what does it mean to you that we are the offspring of heavenly parents?  Not defined?

Exactly how are you the offspring of your earthly parents? Were you solely made by your father and then 
you were brought up by only your mother, or were both involved to form you and rear you up?
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:10 PM, InCognitus said:

Also, this doesn’t change the fact that the God of the Bible has an increase in the number of his creations.  It is from zero to one (in the Protestant view), and from “without number” to “without number” plus one, in the Latter-day Saint point of view.

I think there are Latter-day Saints who believe in a God who has always existed as God. They cannot 
identify who he is though.  After him came the formation of many Gods and Goddesses; an infinite
regression of Gods as LDS leaders have taught.  So it's not from zero to one but rather from one to many.

LDS leaders, including Joseph Smith, taught many Father Gods existed before a being becomes the Father 
of our Earth.
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:10 PM, InCognitus said:

Wrong, offspring in only one way, which is that we are all the génos of God (the same kind of being as God), but we need to “become” his children in a spiritual sense after that.

Don't forget the LDS concept of becoming children of heavenly parents in a physical sense. After all, 
you believe they have physical resurrected bodies of flesh and bones.

How did Heavenly Mother become the offspring of Heavenly Father?
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:10 PM, InCognitus said:

One more thing:  The fact that we are also adopted as heirs of God and "become" God's children in some other way does not contradict what Paul taught about our nature as same kind of being as God (his "offspring"), so bringing up that fact does nothing to change what Paul taught in Acts 17:28-29. We all come into this world as "offspring" of God, because God the Father is the "Father of spirits" (Hebrews 12:9).

I agree that Hebrews 12:9 calls God the "Father of spirits," but I don't think that necessarily means 
that our spirits are literally offspring of God in the sense of being spiritually procreated by him and 
a his spouse.

In the biblical context, "Father" can describe God as our Creator, source, and rightful Father without 
implying that He physically or biologically fathered our individual spirits. The verse itself doesn't 
say that God and a heavenly wife produced us as spirit children.

So I think there is a distinction between saying that God is the "Father of spirits" (Hebrews 12:9) and 
saying that we are literally "spirit sons and daughters of heavenly parents." The latter is a much more 
specific theological claim, and I'd want to see that established from Scripture rather than assumed from 
Hebrews 12:9.

You never show that Paul or the early Church Fathers had "heavenly parents" in mind.

Do you believe Paul was associating the God of the Bible with Zeus?
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:10 PM, InCognitus said:

But we must be "born again" and adopted as children of the covenant through Jesus Christ. He gives us the "power" to "become the sons of God" (and according to John 5:18, to be a son of God is to be "equal with God").

That would mean all non-exalted beings (those who don't become Gods) are not children of the New Covenant. 
They are not the "sons of God".  Whose sons are they? They are of the devil (John 8:44; 1 John 3:10).
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:10 PM, InCognitus said:

Supposedly?  Not according to Joseph Smith.   See my post to you when you were posting as telnetd, here, here, and here.

Joseph Smith said, "Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner, to lay down his body 
and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life, as my Father did, and take 
it up again".

So, if Heavenly Father was not the Redeemer and Lord of those on the planet that he grew up on, then 
who atoned for the sins of Heavenly Mother and all the other millions or billions of people which grew 
up with Heavenly Father on his earth?

Who are the parents of these offspring; of Heavenly Mother and all these other co-inhabitants of the 
earth, where Heavenly Father laid down his body?

 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:10 PM, InCognitus said:

But that’s exactly how you said that Paul’s audience would have understood Paul’s teaching in Acts 17:28-29, as you said in your post on 01/02/2025:

“The pagans understood ‘offspring’ in the sexual case of literal reproduction for the Greek gods; like that which occurs between male and female.”

Do you think that Paul didn’t realize what he was teaching them?  I think Paul knew exactly what he was saying.  The question is, why don’t you believe him?  Really, why don’t you believe him?

It seems you believe Paul was equating Heavenly Father with Zeus and omitted mention of Heavenly Mother; 
the goddess Hera.
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:10 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you see what you are doing here?  You are trying to reimagine the Hebrew word ʿôlām to fit your modern doctrine instead of trying to understand how the ancient Hebrews understood the term.  In Hebrew the word just means a long time, or as the Young’s Literal Translation puts it, “Even from age unto age Thou art God.” (Psalm 90:2).  It doesn’t mean what you are trying to make it mean.

This is especially evident in Proverbs 8: 23-25, where “wisdom” is personified and said to have been “set up from everlasting [ʿôlām], from the beginning, or ever the earth was”.   Obviously, this can’t mean “eternal” as you want to make it to mean, or how else could wisdom be “set up” and “brought forth” if it is eternal?

Here are the verses: “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.  I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth”.  (Proverbs 8:22–25)

Do you believe this "woman" of Proverbs 8:22-25 is a literal man, Jesus Christ, as the Jehovah's Witnesses do? 
 
If so, who are the women in Proverbs 7:4? 
 
"Say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister; and call understanding thy kinswoman".

Who are the woman and her maidens in Proverbs 9:1-3?  

"Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars: She hath killed her beasts; she 
hath mingled her wine; she hath also furnished her table. She hath sent forth her maidens: she crieth 
upon the highest places of the city".

Wisdom is not a literal man in one place but figurative women in other places.

Proverbs uses distinctly feminine language for a divine/abstract figure, but the passage itself doesn't 
say that Wisdom is a literal female deity or a Heavenly Mother. In fact, the Hebrew word for Wisdom is 
grammatically feminine, and Proverbs poetically personifies Wisdom as a woman. 

Also, it's different from explicitly teaching that God has a female consort.
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:10 PM, InCognitus said:

You posted the exact same list of quotes last time.  So, if you are going to just repeat yourself without engaging in how I responded to what you said before, then I will just repeat myself.  You are just making it easy for me to respond to your posts with cut and paste or by referring to prior posts.  In this case, see my last post on this from 08/23/2026.  And Joseph Smith never taught that there were “Gods before (above) the God of Earth”, as you claim.  See my post on 05/26/2025 for complete details, and other comments below.

In the 1844 discourse, Joseph Smith taught God the Father had a Father.

"If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, 
you may suppose that He had a Father also".

Joseph Fielding Smith explicitly interpreted Joseph Smith's teaching as meaning that Heavenly Father had 
a Father, and that this continued backward. In Doctrines of Salvation, 2:47, he wrote "Our Father in heaven,
according to the Prophet, had a Father, and since there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity,
each Father had a Father, until we come to a stop where we cannot go further, because of our limited capacity
to understand" (Doctrines of Salvation).

Do you believe these teachings?
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:10 PM, InCognitus said:

I’ll add one thing that I didn’t say in my last post: I don’t think you are even reading my responses.  I say this because you’ve already been called out on your misrepresentation of the quote from the article by the BYU Physics professor in the April 1971 New Era article by attributing the source to Brigham Young (see my post on 07/12/2026 and 05/26/2025 where I discussed that article extensively).  But you continue to post it as if it was a quote from Brigham Young.  I don’t think you are that dishonest (at least I hope you’re not), so I’ll assume you simply haven’t read what I said before and are unknowingly misrepresenting the quote.  But if you keep posting it as a quote from Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses, I’m sure there’s a board rule somewhere related to the continued posting of a misrepresentation after having been corrected.

Noted.

In that April 1971 New Era article, then one could attribute the following statement to Kent Nielsen:

"One among these, it is presumed, was a savior for them, and through him they obtained a resurrection 
and an exaltation on an eternal, celestial world".
 
Nielsen's statement is a presumption.

However, Brigham Young's statement is itself unequivocal.

"Consequently every earth has its redeemer, and every earth has its tempter; and every earth, and the 
people thereof".

https://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/pdf/JoD14/JoD14_0071.pdf

In both statements, we are still left with a question: who atoned for the sins of a woman (later to 
become the LDS Heavenly Mother) when she was living with a man (later to become the LDS Heavenly
Father of our Earth) and with all her other spirit brothers and sisters on some other world?

Nielsen also explicitly brings in W. W. Phelps's hymn "If You Could Hie to Kolob."

"Do you think that you could ever,
Through all eternity,
Find out the generation
Where Gods began to be?"

"The works of God continue,
And worlds and lives abound;
Improvement and progression
Have one eternal round".

The significance is that this hymn, written in the early LDS period, expresses the idea that Gods, 
creations, worlds, and progression extend backward and forward without a discoverable beginning. Nielsen 
uses this cosmological framework immediately after his discussion of God's previous existence. 

I mentioned previously what was taught by President Marion G. Romney, Second Counselor in the First 
Presidency, in 1974:

"Saved as here used means resurrected and returned as a sanctified, celestialized, immortal soul to the 
presence and society of God, there to pursue an endless course of eternal progress.

Man is a soul, that is, a dual being, a spirit person clothed in a tangible body of flesh and bones. God 
is a perfected, saved soul enjoying eternal life".

 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:10 PM, InCognitus said:

And you do?  This is pretty funny, because the early Christians certainly had a different understanding of what the Bible means when it says Jesus is the firstborn than you do.

Firstborn does not necessarily mean first born or first created. It depends on the context. 

You've never shown from scripture where the context clearly shows Jesus is the first born spirit child 
of a heavenly mother.

However, we do have scripture where firstborn is first born, in relation to a female (Exodus 13:2; 
Deuteronomy 21:15–17; Luke 2:7).

Doctrine and Covenants 93:21 says, "And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the 
Father, and am the Firstborn".

The verse itself does not say "firstborn spirit child," nor does it identify Heavenly Mother. The LDS 
interpretation adds those concepts from its broader theology.

So if the question is "Does D&C 93:21 clearly say Jesus was literally the first spirit child born to 
Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother?", then the answer is No. It says Jesus is the Firstborn, but it 
does not explain what "Firstborn" means in that passage or say that Heavenly Mother gave birth to him 
first.

The three biblical verses I mentioned above do not establish that "firstborn" in D&C 93:21 means Jesus 
was literally the first spirit child born by a Heavenly Mother. That's an LDS theological inference.

How do you understand Ephraim (Jeremiah 31:9), Israel (Exodus 4:22), and David (Psalm 89:27) being the 
firstborn?
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:10 PM, InCognitus said:

How do you know your interpretation is the correct one?  How do you know the early Christians didn’t get it right?  You really don’t know, you can’t know, can you?  How can you tell?

Based on the context of those three biblical verses above plus the one from D&C.
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:10 PM, InCognitus said:

Right, like the biblical teaching that we are all the génos of God can’t really mean that we are the same “kind” of being that God is, so you need to change that to say we are merely created by God.

The Bible's creation account does not describe God creating mankind as the offspring of a heavenly father 
and heavenly mother. It describes God Himself as the Creator of both male and female.

If I'm not mistaken, from what I understand of LDS theology, man and woman are uncreated, eternally 
intelligences; later formed somehow into spirit children.

The LDS canon distinguishes between "intelligence" (which is eternal, uncreated) and the spirit body 
that God organized (Doctrine and Covenants 93:29 - "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, 
or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be").

Therefore, if I'm arguing from the LDS system, I wouldn't quite say:

"Male and female were created by God."

I would need to distinguish between:

(1) the eternal intelligence — uncreated
(2) the premortal spirit person/body — organized/begotten by Heavenly Parents
(3) the physical body — created in mortality.

Is that a fair analysis?
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:10 PM, InCognitus said:

One thing that you continually fail to understand is that when Joseph Smith said that God had a “father”, it is not the same as your claim that there were “Gods before (above) the God of Earth”.   Your failure to understand this point is clear from some of the quotes you posted that you tried to claim were saying God has a God above him.

What does Joseph Smith's teaching God the Father (of Earth) having a Father mean to you?  In what way 
is that Father the father of Heavenly Father? 

In what way is that Father the father of Heavenly Mother?

Also, in what way is that Father a Grandfather to Jesus and yourself?
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:10 PM, InCognitus said:

In other words, Joseph Smith was not teaching that God the Father has a God above or before him, and he was consistent in teaching that God the Father was the “head God”, the most high God.

It seems you use the terms "head God" and "most high God" in the context of only Heavenly Father and 
his spirit children.

Let's go beyond this context for a while. 

Is God the Father higher than his Father God?  

Is Heavenly Mother higher than her Father?  Is that even a valid question since you haven't identified 
who her Father and God is?
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:10 PM, InCognitus said:

I’m sure you can imagine the “powers” to be anything you want them to be to fit your desired dogma.  But what is more important is what the Biblical writer (Paul) said they are in Titus 3:1. He didn’t say anything about angelic beings with power, and he certainly wasn’t referring to Satan (which is what you claimed he was saying).

Do you believe Satan is a powerful angelic being?
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:10 PM, InCognitus said:

And the fall was caused by Jesus, according to you, since you believe Jesus created Satan from nothing, and Satan caused the fall.  Cause and effect.

If I'm not mistaken, LDS theology puts the cause on Heavenly Father. It was part of his plan – no fall, no progression.

[1] In Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith stated:

"When Adam was sent into this world, it was with the understanding that he would violate a law, transgress 
a law, in order to bring to pass this mortal condition which we find ourselves in today."

This quotation is reproduced in the official LDS Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual.

That's one of the strongest statements for your question because it doesn't merely say God knew Adam would 
fall. It says Adam was sent into the world "with the understanding that he would" transgress.

[2] Brigham Young — God designed that Adam would fall

Brigham Young said:

"The Lord knew they would do this, and he had designed that they should".

The Book of Mormon Student Manual identifies this as Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 103, 
and uses it specifically to explain that the Fall was part of Heavenly Father's plan.

That's particularly significant because "he had designed that they should" goes beyond merely foreknowing 
the Fall.

 

[3] Joseph Fielding Smith — the Fall was part of the plan

The official LDS Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Fielding Smith says:

"It was a part of this great plan, that he should partake of the forbidden fruit and fall..."

It then explains that the Fall was an "essential part of man's mortal probation."

"Therefore, it became essential to their salvation and to ours that their nature should be changed. The 
only way it could be changed was by the violation of the law under which they were at that time. Mortality 
could not come without violation of that law and mortality was essential, a step towards our exaltation. 
Therefore, Adam partook of the forbidden fruit... It had to be".

[4] Bruce R. McConkie / seminary manual

"The Fall was a purposeful step in God's plan of salvation."

It then cites Joseph Fielding Smith and Brigham Young for the statements above.

 

[5] Russell M. Nelson

He likewise taught that Creation, Fall, and Atonement are the three pillars of God's plan. He said that 
Adam and Eve's partaking of the fruit was necessary for them to become mortal and have children, and 
concluded:

"Adam fell that men might be."

The seminary manual presents the Fall as necessary for the plan to be fulfilled.

"Ordained to fall" is a fair summary of these statements. No fall, no progression.

The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual, under Moses 4:11, quotes Joseph Fielding Smith saying of Adam 
and Eve, "for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!"

That's why the Latter-day Saints "informed by revelation, celebrate Eve's act and honor her wisdom and 
courage in the great episode, called the Fall", a quote found in the same manual.
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:10 PM, InCognitus said:

But you believe Jesus created Satan from nothing.  Did Jesus know that Satan would become evil when Jesus created him from nothing?  Since Jesus created Satan from nothing, could Jesus have created him to be something other than what he became?  Did Jesus make a mistake when he created Satan?

It still results in Jesus as the source of all evil when he created Satan from nothing.  What a huge mistake.

God knew Satan would become evil when God created him. Did God make a mistake? I would say no. 

Are you evil knowing that you want to have children who could potentially become drug addicts or mass 
murderers and you still decide to have a family?  I would say no.

Was Satan created as a good or evil being? I would say he was created a good being. 

Do you believe there was a time when Satan was not evil or that he became evil when he rebelled against 
God?

Do you believe Heavenly Mother and Father made a mistake by forming him into one of their spirit children 
knowing the evil he would do?

[theplains]

On 9/7/2026 at 4:14 PM, InCognitus said:

I like that you state the specific attributes of God as perfect goodness, wisdom, power, or holiness.  These attributes are obviously separate from his eternal nature, since the Bible teaches that humans are the same kind of being as God in this regard, but humans currently lack these attributes of perfect goodness, wisdom, power, or holiness.

Jesus had these attributes along with God the Father in the beginning.

Did the LDS version of Jesus have these attributes before he became the first spirit child of heavenly parents?
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:14 PM, InCognitus said:

Jesus (the “word”) was called God (theos) alongside “the one true God” in John 1:1-3.  In the Greek text of those verses, God the Father is referred to as “the God” (shown in red below), and Jesus is simply said to be “God”:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Check out the link above if you don’t believe me.

Compared with the KJV of John 1:1, the JST changes the meaning.

"In the beginning was the gospel preached, and the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son 
of God, and the word was the Son of God" (JST).

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (KJV).

"The Word" → "the gospel preached"
"The Word was with God" → "the word was with the Son of God"
"The Word was God" → "the word was the Son of God"
There is no support for the JST changes in the Greek.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
"In the beginning was the Word." 

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
"And the Word was with the God."

Here τὸν θεόν has the article and refers to God with whom the Word was. 

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
"And the Word was God."

Here θεὸς has no article. 

So if someone argues that "ὁ θεός always means God the Father," John 1:1 itself does not use ὁ θεός for 
the Word. It uses θεός without the article.

Some other examples:

•    Matthew 5:33 — τὰς ὁρκωμοσίας σου τῷ κυρίῳ
(related constructions, though not the exact phrase ὁ θεός) 
•    Mark 12:29 — κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν
"The Lord our God, the Lord is one." 
•    Luke 20:37 — ὁ θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ καὶ ὁ θεὸς Ἰσαὰκ καὶ ὁ θεὸς Ἰακώβ
"the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." 
•    Hebrews 1:8 — πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν· ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός
"But concerning the Son: ‘Your throne, O God...'" 

The key point for your question is that ὁ θεός is not a special grammatical form reserved for the Father.

Also, you seem to interpret John 1:3 differently than other Christians.

John is saying that everything that was created came into existence through the Word. Nothing that was 
made came into existence independently of him.  That is why I believe Jesus created Satan.

By the way, when Thomas addresses Jesus after the resurrection, the Greek of John 20:28 reads:

καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Ὁ Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου

If you translate the Greek as literally as possible, you get:

"The Lord of me and the God of me".

The Greek has two definite articles—ὁ κύριός and ὁ θεός
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:14 PM, InCognitus said:

And Jesus continues to be subject to the Father eternally, as 1 Corinthians 15:28 points out.  The resurrected Jesus referred to God the Father as “my God” four times in Revelation 3:12.

If you're comparing traditional Christianity with LDS theology, these verses raise the question of how 
Jesus can be called God while simultaneously having God as his God and remaining subject to the Father.

Traditional Christianity generally answers this through the distinction between the persons of the Father 
and Son while maintaining that both share the one divine nature.

By the way, who does the LDS Heavenly Mother refer to when she mentions "my God"?
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:14 PM, InCognitus said:

God was already perfect in goodness, wisdom, power, and holiness and the supreme being before he became our Father, yes.  He was God before he became God in relation to us.

Several LDS teachings portray this "God" you refer to above as achieving godhood. Yes, he may have been 
a God before he became God in relation to us, but he has not always been God.  A being who needs to 
achieve godhood has not always been God.

In your July 13 2026 post, you said "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)".

From what I know of LDS theology, exaltation involves much more than getting an exalted body:

•    Becoming a heavenly father or mother (D&C 132:19; D&C 131:2–4).
•    Becoming a God (D&C 76:58–60; D&C 132:20).
•    Receiving a fulness of glory (D&C 76:56, 70; D&C 93:28).
•    Receiving a fulness of joy (D&C 138:17; D&C 93:33–35).
•    Being made equal in power, might, and dominion (D&C 76:95).
•    Receiving thrones, kingdoms, powers, and dominions (D&C 132:19–20; D&C 121:29).
•    Having eternal families (D&C 132:19; D&C 131:1–4).
•    Having a continuation of posterity / "seeds" (D&C 132:19).
•    Living in God's presence (D&C 76:62; D&C 130:3).

It should be noted that both the LDS Heavenly Father and Mother also passed their tests and received a 
fulness of joy.

But you didn't say who you believe formed Heavenly Mother into a God.

These LDS teachings show a being becoming a God, not using only your definition of getting an exalted 
body:

Maybe you'll want to acknowledge which you believe are not true.

[1] "Through a continual course of progression, our Heavenly Father has received exaltation and glory; 
and He points us out the same path" (Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual).

It's much more than receiving an exalted body.

We are not on the same path if the LDS Heavenly Father was already a God when he became a man. Likewise, 
we are not Gods now.

[2] "His work and His glory, He told us, is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." 
He has already achieved godhood. Now His only objective is to help us—to enable us to return to Him and 
be like Him and live His kind of life eternally" ("But If Not ...", By Elder Dennis E. Simmons Of the 
Seventy, April 2004 General Conference).

[3] "Less well understood, however, is the fact that God is an exalted man who once lived on an earth 
and underwent experiences of mortality . The Prophet Joseph Smith refers to this as "the great secret." 
(Times and Seasons 5:613, August 15 1844). See also Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 
p. 345.) The progression of our Father in heaven to godhood, or exaltation, was strictly in accordance 
with eternal principles" (Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual).

[4] Joseph Smith taught in the King Follett sermon that God was once a man and lived on an earth. Other 
than the Prophet's statement in that particular address, this is all we know. When and how and in what 
manner he became God is unknown (God and Man, Robert L. Millet).

Maybe he doesn't know how, using your definition, Heavenly Father received an exalted body.

[5] "Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a 
mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that through which we are now passing. 
He became God—an exalted being—through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given 
opportunity today to obey" (The Gospel Through the Ages, Salt Lake City, 1958, p. 104)

Nothing here about exaltation meaning only getting a glorified body.

Scripture does not portray God as a being who became God before becoming God in relation to us. 

For example, you could also say that the LDS Jesus was God before he became God in relation to his future 
spirit children, but this doesn't mean he has existed eternally as God. LDS leaders taught he became a 
God in his pre-mortal existence.  He was not God before being born to his heavenly parents.  The LDS 
Heavenly Mother is a God before Jesus is even born to her.

Scripture portrays Christ as eternally God: "from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God" (Psalm 90:2). 
God Himself says, "Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me" (Isaiah 43:10), 
and "beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6). 

In LDS theology, Gods are formed after Heavenly Father.
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:14 PM, InCognitus said:

As for your other comments, I’m not going to entertain your speculative meanderings.  It’s pointless to discuss things that have not been revealed.

It's not pointless to discuss things that you believe have not been revealed. 

Some in the LDS Church supposedly believe the doctrine of Heavenly Mother has been revealed. 

One elder of the LDS Church considers the doctrine revealed. 

For example, Dale G. Renlund's said in the 2022 General Conference, "The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother 
comes by revelation and is a distinctive belief among Latter-day Saints".

But he doesn't say who received the revelation.

But then, the LDS Church seems to walk it back. The historical page is particularly explicit: "there is 
no record of a formal revelation to Joseph Smith on this doctrine".

So let's open up pandora's box for this supposed doctrine - is Heavenly Mother the offspring of a God?  
Are all her other spirit brother and sisters on the world she supposedly grew up on the offspring of a 
God? And which God?
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:14 PM, InCognitus said:

Actually, it makes it much easier to comprehend when you realize that Jesus and the Father are two Gods.

John 17:3 says, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, 
whom thou hast sent".

Trying to comprehend that in simple fashion would lead one to conclude that Jesus is not a true God. 
Jehovah's Witnesses also run into this problem, as they refer to Jehovah as the Almighty God but Jesus 
as the Mighty God.

Add the LDS version of the Holy Spirit and Heavenly Mother and you have four Gods – only the Father being 
the true God.

Saying Jesus and the Father are "two Gods" doesn't make the Bible easier to understand—it changes what 
the Bible says. Jesus calls the Father "the only true God"), and Paul says "there is but one God" 
(1 Corinthians 8:4). Yet the Bible also calls Jesus God (John 1:1; John 20:28). So the biblical teaching 
is that the Father and Son are distinct, but there is still one God, not two. Saying there are two Gods 
simply avoids that tension rather than explaining it. 

And then you also have tension with other Old Testament passages:

Deuteronomy 4:35 - "the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him."
Deuteronomy 6:4 - "The LORD our God is one LORD."
Isaiah 43:10 - "Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."
Isaiah 44:6 - "I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."
Isaiah 45:5 - "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me."
Isaiah 45:22 - "I am God, and there is none else."

These are particularly strong against the idea that there are two or four separate Gods.

Who is the only true God in the above six verses?
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:14 PM, InCognitus said:

  Jesus has a God and Jesus was anointed by his God.

Who is Heavenly Mother's God - her husband or her literal parent?
 

On 9/7/2026 at 4:14 PM, InCognitus said:

 Clearly this is why Philo, and the early Christian Fathers Origen and Lactantius referred to Jesus as the “second God”, and why Justin Martyr said (of Jesus) “that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things” (Justin Martyr, Dialog with Trypho, Chapter 56).

And as Origen taught:

“And although we may call Him [Jesus Christ] a "second" God, let men know that by the term "second God" we mean nothing else than a virtue capable of including all other virtues, and a reason capable of containing all reason whatsoever which exists in all things, which have arisen naturally, directly, and for the general advantage, and which "reason," we say, dwelt in the soul of Jesus, and was united to Him in a degree far above all other souls, seeing He alone was enabled completely to receive the highest share in the absolute reason, and the absolute wisdom, and the absolute righteousness."   (Origen Against Celsus, book V chapter XXXIX).

Jesus has a God, and Jesus is eternally subject to the only true God, his God and Father.

I read that link.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04165.htm

It does not portray Origen teaching the Father and the Son are two separate Gods. Also, there's no mention 
of a heavenly mother (the third LDS God) or the Holy Spirit (the fourth LDS God).

The key phrase is: "by the term ‘second God' we mean nothing else than a virtue..." So Origen is not 
simply saying: "There are two Gods, the Father and Jesus."

"We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are 
two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of 
will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, who is the brightness of God's glory, and 
the express image of His person, has seen in Him who is the image of God, God Himself".

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04168.htm

[InCognitus]

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 9/7/2026 at 2:10 PM, InCognitus said:

But it does discuss how God became God in relation to us, which was his entire point.

Joseph Smith taught, "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of 
God. He was once a man like us; God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus 
Christ himself did".

He was not alone on his earth. He apparently lived with a woman, who would later become his wife, and 
with millions or billions of other people.

How did Heavenly Father become a God in relation to "her" and "them"?

Was she and the others offspring of Heavenly Father (the God of our Earth), or were they the offspring 
of some God who came before Him?

I already addressed this nonsense speculation of yours last time.  I’m not going to entertain your speculative meanderings.  It’s pointless to discuss things that have not been revealed.

Furthermore, you know there are no answers to those questions, and by asking them over and over it is an indication that you are simply trying to provoke, mock, or ridicule rather than engage in fruitful discussion.  So, prepare to be ignored.

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 9/7/2026 at 2:10 PM, InCognitus said:

Those who became his spirit children were those who participated in his plan, and some of them rebelled by siding against his plan after the plan was presented.  Exactly how we are his “offspring” is not defined, anywhere, other than the biblical explanation that we are all literally the same kind of being that God is (Acts 17:28-29) and that God is the “Father of spirits” (Hebrews 12:9).

It seems you are trying to cloud what the term "offspring" means.

Perhaps only for what you think “offspring” means, but otherwise, no.  See below.

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

Both "Gospel Topics – Heavenly Parents" and "The Family – A Proclamation to the World" state we are 
spirit children (offspring) of heavenly parents.

Yes, and the “Becoming Like God” Gospel Topic essay says that too, but it also says:

“Latter-day Saints see all people as children of God in a full and complete sense; they consider every person divine in origin, nature, and potential. Each has an eternal core and is ‘a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents.’ Each possesses seeds of divinity and must choose whether to live in harmony or tension with that divinity.”

In other words, the fact that we are the same kind of being as God (as Acts 17:28-29 teaches) is our “eternal core” (we have existed eternally), AND (note the word “and”) each of us is “a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents”. 

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

Are you moving away from the LDS Church teaching that we are the offspring of a heavenly mother? If no, 
what does it mean to you that we are the offspring of heavenly parents?  Not defined?

Not defined.

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

LDS leaders, including Joseph Smith, taught many Father Gods existed before a being becomes the Father 
of our Earth.

And of course, you know that Joseph Smith didn’t teach that “many Father Gods existed before a being becomes the Father of our Earth”.  You already know that, because you have never been able to show that he did.

Do you want me to issue this as a CFR?  You need to show where Joseph Smith taught that or quit posting this nonsense.  And don’t post the same quotes that I’ve already discussed and shown that they don’t teach what you are claiming.

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 9/7/2026 at 2:10 PM, InCognitus said:

One more thing:  The fact that we are also adopted as heirs of God and "become" God's children in some other way does not contradict what Paul taught about our nature as same kind of being as God (his "offspring"), so bringing up that fact does nothing to change what Paul taught in Acts 17:28-29. We all come into this world as "offspring" of God, because God the Father is the "Father of spirits" (Hebrews 12:9).

I agree that Hebrews 12:9 calls God the "Father of spirits," but I don't think that necessarily means 
that our spirits are literally offspring of God in the sense of being spiritually procreated by him and 
a his spouse.

In the biblical context, "Father" can describe God as our Creator, source, and rightful Father without 
implying that He physically or biologically fathered our individual spirits. The verse itself doesn't 
say that God and a heavenly wife produced us as spirit children.

I realize you are forced to take this interpretation given that you were taught by your tradition to believe that God created all things, including human spirits, out of nothing (even though the Bible never says any such things and contradicts this teaching in Acts 17:28-29).  But “in the biblical context” the meaning of Hebrews 12:9 can be perfectly understood by the surrounding verses and in the light of Acts 17:28-29, which is a clear teaching from the apostle Paul that we are the same kind of being that God is, we are his “offspring”.

Look at the context.  When Hebrews 12:7-9 talks about the chastening of a father to his sons, it compares the “fathers of our flesh” to the “Father of spirits”.  It is talking about literal “fathers of our flesh” on the one hand as compared to the “Father of spirits” on the other hand.  This is a direct comparison.  But you want to change the latter meaning to be only that God created us and he is only our “Father” in a figurative sense.   God also created rocks.  Is God also the father of rocks and he chastens them too?   Your interpretation breaks the meaning of the comparison and diminishes the impact of what is being taught there.

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

So I think there is a distinction between saying that God is the "Father of spirits" (Hebrews 12:9) and 
saying that we are literally "spirit sons and daughters of heavenly parents." The latter is a much more 
specific theological claim, and I'd want to see that established from Scripture rather than assumed from 
Hebrews 12:9.

Again, your rationalization above is an attempt to dodge the clear meaning of the word génos in Acts 17:28-29, which teaches that we are the same “kind” of being that God is.  That we are the same “kind” of being as God is not something that can be explained away by attempting to divert attention to other meanings of “Father”.  Focus on what the word génos means.  It’s in the Bible.  You can’t make it say what you are trying to make it say.

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

Do you believe Paul was associating the God of the Bible with Zeus?

Do you?

I don’t.  What Paul was doing was teaching his pagan audience about the true God of the Bible, and he used quotes from the Greek poets to help communicate true teachings about the God of the Bible.  Even the phrase “For in him we live, and move, and have our being" is a direct quote from Epimenides (Cretica), writing about the Greek god Zeus. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides). 

Do you think Paul was talking about Zeus?

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 9/7/2026 at 2:10 PM, InCognitus said:

But we must be "born again" and adopted as children of the covenant through Jesus Christ. He gives us the "power" to "become the sons of God" (and according to John 5:18, to be a son of God is to be "equal with God").

That would mean all non-exalted beings (those who don't become Gods) are not children of the New Covenant. 
They are not the "sons of God".  Whose sons are they? They are of the devil (John 8:44; 1 John 3:10).

See my post on 02/09/2022 for a complete explanation of John 8:33-44 and how the different meanings of “child” or “father” are used in those verses and in the Bible.

If you read John 8:33-44 carefully, you can see that Jesus recognized and used multiple meanings of the words “children”, “seed”, and “father”.  A person can be the literal seed or “offspring” of someone but not be their “child” in a behavioral sense because they don’t follow the example that was set by that individual, like the Jews in those verses that were the literal seed of Abraham but because they didn’t do the works of Abraham they did not have Abraham as their “father”. 

You are latching on to a single meaning of these words without consideration of the context or allowance for the other meanings and it is wresting of scripture.

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 9/7/2026 at 2:10 PM, InCognitus said:

Supposedly?  Not according to Joseph Smith.   See my post to you when you were posting as telnetd, here, here, and here.

Joseph Smith said, "Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner, to lay down his body 
and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life, as my Father did, and take 
it up again".

As said before, Joseph Smith was using the "Jesus did what he saw the Father do" statement in that sermon only with regard to creation (“I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence”), and that God the Father dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ did and he had the power to lay down his life and take it up again (as you quoted above).  There is no other information about God the Father's earthly experience other than that.

See my post to you when you were posting as telnetd, here, here, and here.

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 9/7/2026 at 2:10 PM, InCognitus said:

But that’s exactly how you said that Paul’s audience would have understood Paul’s teaching in Acts 17:28-29, as you said in your post on 01/02/2025:

“The pagans understood ‘offspring’ in the sexual case of literal reproduction for the Greek gods; like that which occurs between male and female.”

Do you think that Paul didn’t realize what he was teaching them?  I think Paul knew exactly what he was saying.  The question is, why don’t you believe him?  Really, why don’t you believe him?

It seems you believe Paul was equating Heavenly Father with Zeus and omitted mention of Heavenly Mother; 
the goddess Hera.

You’ve got that backwards.  It seems you believe Paul was equating Heavenly Father with Zeus and Hera.  Remember, you are the one who said how his audience would have understood Paul, as you said in your post on 01/02/2025:

“The pagans understood ‘offspring’ in the sexual case of literal reproduction for the Greek gods; like that which occurs between male and female.”

Is that why you don’t believe Paul’s teachings in those verses?  Do you think Paul was talking about Zeus and Hera?

I don’t believe that’s what Paul had in mind.  Paul was using the language that his audience would understand to teach the true doctrine of the God of the Bible, that we are all the same “kind” of being that God is, and that we are all his “offspring”.

Do you think that Paul didn’t realize what he was teaching them?  I think Paul knew exactly what he was saying.  The question is, why don’t you believe him?

I think you need to read this article on the intertextual.bible website:  Paul and Zeus - A Universalizing Thread in Acts.

I would love to quote the entire article here, but that would be inappropriate.  The whole article is worth reading.  But I'll quote a couple of paragraphs here.

After quoting from Acts 17:26-31, the article says:

"Paul’s speech names the borrowing openly, referring to 'your own poets' before quoting the line. The speech describes a God who made the world and everything in it, who does not live in temples and is not served by human hands, and who placed every nation on earth so that people might 'search for God and perhaps grope around for him.' Into this description of the God of Israel, Paul drops a reference from a hymn to Zeus, not to argue against it, nor even to make a sarcastic reference, but to underline his point. The quotation works as evidence that Greek poets had already said something true about the God Paul is talking about, and the speech then draws a practical conclusion from that shared idea: if humanity is God’s offspring, then the divine cannot be captured in images of gold, silver, or stone."

"Paul does not argue that Aratus was wrong about Zeus or that the Greek poets were talking about a false god. He takes what was said about Zeus and applies it directly to the God of Israel, suggesting that the Greeks, through their own poetry and philosophy, had already stumbled onto something real about God. The implication is that genuine theological knowledge is not limited to Jewish scripture but can be found in other cultures and their ways of thinking about the divine. The speech accepts that Greek thinkers recognized and described real truths and insists that those truths point towards a universalizing theme, claiming the best of Greek thought while arguing it only makes full sense in the context of what Paul is preaching."

The article concludes as follows:

"The verse in Acts therefore contains not one but two echoes of Greek poetry about Zeus, both repurposed to describe the God of Israel. Two separate poetic traditions about Zeus are folded into a single verse about the Christian God, and neither is dismissed or corrected, with the text treating both borrowings as honest expressions of a truth the Greek poets had grasped independently.  What Acts 17 reveals is that early Christian thinking could treat non-Jewish, non-Christian sources as real witnesses to God, even while arguing against Greek religious practice.  If humanity is truly God’s offspring, as Aratus wrote about Zeus, then representing God through statues and images misses the point of that relationship entirely. The argument only works if the Greek poets were right about something essential, and that is a significant move for understanding how early Christianity saw itself within its intellectual world. What Paul is depicted describing in Athens is not a rejection of Greek thinking about God but a universalizing claim that it was always, without knowing it, about the creator God."

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

Do you believe this "woman" of Proverbs 8:22-25 is a literal man, Jesus Christ, as the Jehovah's Witnesses do? 

What the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe is irrelevant and a diversion away from the point of what is evident in Proverbs 8:22-25, which is that the phrase “from everlasting” does NOT mean “eternally”, which contradicts your belief and misconstruing of scripture. 

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 9/7/2026 at 2:10 PM, InCognitus said:

You posted the exact same list of quotes last time.  So, if you are going to just repeat yourself without engaging in how I responded to what you said before, then I will just repeat myself.  You are just making it easy for me to respond to your posts with cut and paste or by referring to prior posts.  In this case, see my last post on this from 08/23/2026.  And Joseph Smith never taught that there were “Gods before (above) the God of Earth”, as you claim.  See my post on 05/26/2025 for complete details, and other comments below.

In the 1844 discourse, Joseph Smith taught God the Father had a Father.

"If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, 
you may suppose that He had a Father also".

Joseph Fielding Smith explicitly interpreted Joseph Smith's teaching as meaning that Heavenly Father had 
a Father, and that this continued backward. In Doctrines of Salvation, 2:47, he wrote "Our Father in heaven,
according to the Prophet, had a Father, and since there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity,
each Father had a Father, until we come to a stop where we cannot go further, because of our limited capacity
to understand" (Doctrines of Salvation).

Do you believe these teachings?

Joseph Fielding Smith was interpreting Joseph Smith based on a later published interpolation of the notes taken by Thomas Bullock, and Bullock’s notes are incomplete and are contradictory to one of the sources that Joseph Smith referenced.  As I explained in my post on 05/26/2025, the original notes of Thomas Bullock indicate some confusion over the quote from Abraham 3:19, and Bullock’s notes contradict the book of Abraham.  So, it’s not an entirely accurate source for Joseph Smith’s sermon, and consequently some people may misinterpret what Joseph Smith was teaching by using the published source alone, as was the case for Joseph Fielding Smith.

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 9/7/2026 at 2:10 PM, InCognitus said:

I’ll add one thing that I didn’t say in my last post: I don’t think you are even reading my responses.  I say this because you’ve already been called out on your misrepresentation of the quote from the article by the BYU Physics professor in the April 1971 New Era article by attributing the source to Brigham Young (see my post on 07/12/2026 and 05/26/2025 where I discussed that article extensively).  But you continue to post it as if it was a quote from Brigham Young.  I don’t think you are that dishonest (at least I hope you’re not), so I’ll assume you simply haven’t read what I said before and are unknowingly misrepresenting the quote.  But if you keep posting it as a quote from Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses, I’m sure there’s a board rule somewhere related to the continued posting of a misrepresentation after having been corrected.

Noted.

In that April 1971 New Era article, then one could attribute the following statement to Kent Nielsen:

"One among these, it is presumed, was a savior for them, and through him they obtained a resurrection 
and an exaltation on an eternal, celestial world".
 
Nielsen's statement is a presumption.

Yes, and if you had read my post on 05/26/2025 you would have realized that a long time ago, because that’s exactly what I said in that post, and you would have seen that I posted the entire context of Brigham Young remarks relating to the context of that statement.

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 9/7/2026 at 2:10 PM, InCognitus said:

And you do?  This is pretty funny, because the early Christians certainly had a different understanding of what the Bible means when it says Jesus is the firstborn than you do.

Firstborn does not necessarily mean first born or first created. It depends on the context. 

Of course.

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 9/7/2026 at 2:10 PM, InCognitus said:

How do you know your interpretation is the correct one?  How do you know the early Christians didn’t get it right?  You really don’t know, you can’t know, can you?  How can you tell?

Based on the context of those three biblical verses above plus the one from D&C.

That’s funny, because only the D&C verse is about Jesus, the others are not.  You hand pick a few verses that have a different meaning of firstborn and apply that meaning to all other applications of the word firstborn, and you claim that “the context of those three biblical verses” (which are not about Jesus) prove that Jesus is really not “firstborn” in any other way?  You can’t be serious.

What about Matthew 1:25, where it says, “And [Joseph] knew her [Mary] not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS”?

Does your picking and choosing of verses apply to that meaning of “firstborn” too?

Why not use real biblical verses that apply to Jesus?  Like:

Hebrews 1:5–6: “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?  And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” 

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 9/7/2026 at 2:10 PM, InCognitus said:

Right, like the biblical teaching that we are all the génos of God can’t really mean that we are the same “kind” of being that God is, so you need to change that to say we are merely created by God.

The Bible's creation account does not describe God creating mankind as the offspring of a heavenly father 
and heavenly mother. It describes God Himself as the Creator of both male and female.

The Bible’s creation account describes God forming man from the “dust of the earth” and then God placed into the man his spirit (the “breath” of life), and man became a “living soul” (Genesis 2:7).  Man’s spirit came from God, for it is the “kind” of being that God is, the very génos of God, as the Bible teaches.

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

If I'm not mistaken, from what I understand of LDS theology, man and woman are uncreated, eternally 
intelligences; later formed somehow into spirit children.

And these teachings coincide with what the Bible teaches in Acts 17:28-29 (we are the kind of being that God is) and how God created man in Genesis 2:7, with man’s spirit coming from God.

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 9/7/2026 at 2:10 PM, InCognitus said:

One thing that you continually fail to understand is that when Joseph Smith said that God had a “father”, it is not the same as your claim that there were “Gods before (above) the God of Earth”.   Your failure to understand this point is clear from some of the quotes you posted that you tried to claim were saying God has a God above him.

What does Joseph Smith's teaching God the Father (of Earth) having a Father mean to you?  In what way 
is that Father the father of Heavenly Father? 

Do you EVER read my posts?  I’ve explained that many times already, including in my last post right within the context of the quote you clipped from it above.  You edited out the answer to this very question.   See my post on 09/07/2026, as well as my post on 05/26/2025.

Here's part of what I said: 

Saying that God had a father is not the same as saying that God has a God above him, because he would have had an earthly father when he dwelt on an earth, just like Joseph Smith was teaching.

I’ll quote from one portion of my post on 05/26/2025 so you can find it easily if and when you go to read it.  Part of what I said is this:  

“I see from Thomas Bullock’s notes of that sermon that the discussion of God the Father having a father was in the context of God the Father’s mortal experience on an earth.  His notes show that the statements about God the Father having a “father” are immediately followed by “I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him”.  In other words, Bullock’s notes indicate that God the Father’s “father” would have been either his earthly father when he was born into mortality, or that God the Father (as the head of all other Gods) would have appointed some other God to produce him in the same way that Jesus came into mortality.  But Bullock also seems to have repeated himself in part of those notes, so it’s hard to tell if Joseph Smith was restating something for emphasis, or if Bullock recorded it incorrectly, or if he did get it correct we need further information and context to draw any conclusions with certainty.”

In other words, Joseph Smith was not teaching that God the Father has a God above or before him, and he was consistent in teaching that God the Father was the “head God”, the most high God.

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

Also, in what way is that Father a Grandfather to Jesus and yourself?

See my post earlier in this thread on 07/26/2026.  Already explained.

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 9/7/2026 at 2:10 PM, InCognitus said:

In other words, Joseph Smith was not teaching that God the Father has a God above or before him, and he was consistent in teaching that God the Father was the “head God”, the most high God.

It seems you use the terms "head God" and "most high God" in the context of only Heavenly Father and 
his spirit children.

You’ve tried this “sphere of influence or realm” approach previously (you have several times). I realize that this is your only way out of the corner you are in, but you already know that it doesn’t work because I have responded to your attempt at this many times before.

And it’s not just me, it was Joseph Smith that taught this. Joseph Smith was clear in teaching that God the Father is the “the Eternal God of all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32).

This is what Joseph Smith said in the King Follet Sermon:

“I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of the creation in the Bible—Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith—in, by through, and everything else. Rosh—the head. Sheit—grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, ‘The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods.’ That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council.”

Joseph Smith emphasized that God is the “head God” at least eight times in the King Follet Sermon, calling him “the head, the Father of the Gods”. 

He was very consistent in teaching that God the Father is the Most High God.

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 9/7/2026 at 2:10 PM, InCognitus said:

I’m sure you can imagine the “powers” to be anything you want them to be to fit your desired dogma.  But what is more important is what the Biblical writer (Paul) said they are in Titus 3:1. He didn’t say anything about angelic beings with power, and he certainly wasn’t referring to Satan (which is what you claimed he was saying).

Do you believe Satan is a powerful angelic being?

What I believe about Satan is irrelevant to the context and interpretation Colossians 1:15-17 and Titus 3:1. 

People believe all kinds of things that they read into scripture instead of letting scripture speak for itself (like the idea that Jesus created Satan).

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 9/7/2026 at 2:10 PM, InCognitus said:

And the fall was caused by Jesus, according to you, since you believe Jesus created Satan from nothing, and Satan caused the fall.  Cause and effect.

If I'm not mistaken, LDS theology puts the cause on Heavenly Father. It was part of his plan – no fall, no progression.

No, you are mistaken.  In LDS theology Satan is an eternal spirit that has his own agency, and Satan was not created out of nothing as you believe Jesus did in creating Satan. 

So, the fact that Satan existed already and God used Satan in his plan is not the same as Jesus causing the existence of all evil by creating Satan, as you believe.

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

That's why the Latter-day Saints "informed by revelation, celebrate Eve's act and honor her wisdom and 
courage in the great episode, called the Fall", a quote found in the same manual.

That sounds a lot like the early Christian notion of a “fortunate fall” (the felix culpa).

St. Thomas Aquinas writes:

"But there is no reason why human nature should not have been raised to something greater after sin. For God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom; hence it is written (Romans 5:20): “Where sin abounded, grace did more abound.” Hence, too, in the blessing of the Paschal candle, we say: “O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!” (Summa Theologica, III, 1, 3, ad 3; see also Catechism, 412.)

Does that remind you of anything?

On 9/17/2026 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 9/7/2026 at 2:10 PM, InCognitus said:

But you believe Jesus created Satan from nothing.  Did Jesus know that Satan would become evil when Jesus created him from nothing?  Since Jesus created Satan from nothing, could Jesus have created him to be something other than what he became?  Did Jesus make a mistake when he created Satan?

It still results in Jesus as the source of all evil when he created Satan from nothing.  What a huge mistake.

God knew Satan would become evil when God created him. Did God make a mistake? I would say no. 

Obviously, it’s not a mistake if God knew Satan would become evil when God created him, it was an intentional act and it makes God the source of all evil.

[InCognitus]

On 9/17/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
"In the beginning was the Word." 

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
"And the Word was with the God."

Here τὸν θεόν has the article and refers to God with whom the Word was. 

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
"And the Word was God."

Here θεὸς has no article. 

So if someone argues that "ὁ θεός always means God the Father," John 1:1 itself does not use ὁ θεός for 
the Word. It uses θεός without the article.

That is the point.  In John 1:1, God the Father is referred to as “THE God”, while Jesus (the Word) is only referred to as “God” (without the article).  Jesus is not “the God” in this context, he is just “God”.  Jesus is not God the Father, and God the Father is “THE God” of Jesus Christ.

On 9/17/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

Some other examples:

•    Matthew 5:33 — τὰς ὁρκωμοσίας σου τῷ κυρίῳ
(related constructions, though not the exact phrase ὁ θεός) 
•    Mark 12:29 — κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν
"The Lord our God, the Lord is one." 
•    Luke 20:37 — ὁ θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ καὶ ὁ θεὸς Ἰσαὰκ καὶ ὁ θεὸς Ἰακώβ
"the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." 
•    Hebrews 1:8 — πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν· ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός
"But concerning the Son: ‘Your throne, O God...'" 

The key point for your question is that ὁ θεός is not a special grammatical form reserved for the Father.

I didn’t say it was.  The point of John 1:1 is to show the subordinate relationship of Jesus to his God, God the Father, the “only true God”.  John 1:1 it distinguishes “The God” (God the Father) from Jesus (“God”), and it shows that God the Father is “THE God” of Jesus Christ.

On 9/17/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

Also, you seem to interpret John 1:3 differently than other Christians.

John is saying that everything that was created came into existence through the Word. Nothing that was 
made came into existence independently of him.  That is why I believe Jesus created Satan.

Look closely at what you just said.  You wrote, “John is saying that everything that was created came into existence through the Word. Nothing that was made came into existence independently of him.”

Then you say, “That is why I believe Jesus created Satan”.  But that is just circular reasoning.  You must first presuppose that Satan “was created” or “was made”, and then you use that verse to try to prove what you already presupposed, that Jesus created Satan.  But nowhere does scripture say that Satan “was created” or “was made”.  The same is true for the spirits of men, because the biblical teaching is that we are all the very “génos” of God, the “kind” of being that God is.

On 9/17/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

The Greek has two definite articles—ὁ κύριός and ὁ θεός

That’s not two definite articles.  What you are claiming to be “two definite articles” above are the phrases “the Lord” (ὁ κύριός) and “the God” (ὁ θεός), both of which use the one and the same definite article in the Greek for two different name titles for God.

A definite article is a word placed before a noun to show that the noun refers to a specific, known person, place, or thing.  In English, the only definite article is "the", and Greek has only one definite article (meaning "the"), but it changes its form depending on the noun's gender, number, and grammatical case (see here).

Here’s a quote from the early Christian Father Origen (185-254 AD), from his commentary on John 1:1.  This is relevant to my point above about John 1:1, and to your claim that Origen didn’t teach that “the Father and the Son are two separate Gods” down below:

Quote

2. IN WHAT WAY THE LOGOS IS GOD. ERRORS TO BE AVOIDED ON THIS QUESTION.

    We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God. Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so "the Logos" is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

3. VARIOUS RELATIONS OF THE LOGOS TO MEN.

    Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God. They may fear that the glory of Him who surpasses all creation may be lowered to the level of those other beings called gods. We drew this distinction between Him and them that we showed God the Word to be to all the other gods the minister of their divinity. To this we must add, in order to obviate objections, that the reason which is in every reasonable creature occupied the same relation to the reason who was in the beginning with God, and is God the Word, as God the Word occupies to God. As the Father who is Very God and the True God is to His image and to the images of His image--men are said to be according to the image, not to be images of God--so He, the Word, is to the reason (word) in every man. Each fills the place of a fountain--the Father is the fountain of divinity, the Son of reason. As, then, there are many gods, but to us there is but one God the Father, and many Lords, but to us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, so there are many Lgoi [Greek], but we, for our part, pray that that one Lgos [Greek] may be with us who was in the beginning and was with God, God the Logos. For whoever does not receive this Logos who was in the beginning with God, or attach himself to Him as He appeared in flesh, or take part in some of those who had part in this Logos, or whoever having had part in Him falls away from Him again, he will have his portion in what is called most opposite to reason. What we have drawn out from the truths with which we started will now be clear enough. First, we spoke about God and the Word of God, and of Gods, either, that is, beings who partake in deity or beings who are called Gods and are not. And again of the Logos of God and of the Logos of God made flesh, and of logoi, or beings which partake in some way of the Logos, of second logoi or of third, thought to be logoi, in addition to that Logos that was before them all, but not really so. Irrational Reasons these may be styled; beings are spoken of who are said to be Gods but are not, and one might place beside these Gods who are no Gods, Reasons which are no Reasons. Now the God of the universe is the God of the elect, and in a much greater degree of the Saviours of the elect; then He is the God of these beings who are truly Gods, and then He is the God, in a word, of the living and not of the dead. But God the Logos is the God, perhaps, of those who attribute everything to Him and who consider Him to be their Father. Now the sun and the moon and the stars were connected, according to the accounts of men of old times, with beings who were not worthy to have the God of gods counted their God."  (Origen's Commentary on John, book 2 chapter 3)

There is no question at all that Origen considered God the Father and Jesus Christ to be two distinct Gods, as well as affirming the existence of many other Gods.

On 9/17/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

On 9/7/2026 at 2:14 PM, InCognitus said:

And Jesus continues to be subject to the Father eternally, as 1 Corinthians 15:28 points out.  The resurrected Jesus referred to God the Father as “my God” four times in Revelation 3:12.

If you're comparing traditional Christianity with LDS theology, these verses raise the question of how 
Jesus can be called God while simultaneously having God as his God and remaining subject to the Father.

Traditional Christianity generally answers this through the distinction between the persons of the Father 
and Son while maintaining that both share the one divine nature.

Right, and it’s the “share the one divine nature” part of your explanation that’s not biblical at all, and why these verses are such a problem to traditional Christianity.  The verses are plainly saying that Jesus, who is God, has a God above him, and separating them into separate persons still makes two persons and two Gods.

The Bible has no problem saying that God is the God of other gods, or that Jesus (who is God) has a God.  There are “gods many, and lords many, but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him”.

On 9/17/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

On 9/7/2026 at 2:14 PM, InCognitus said:

God was already perfect in goodness, wisdom, power, and holiness and the supreme being before he became our Father, yes.  He was God before he became God in relation to us.

Several LDS teachings portray this "God" you refer to above as achieving godhood. Yes, he may have been 
a God before he became God in relation to us, but he has not always been God.  A being who needs to 
achieve godhood has not always been God.

In your July 13 2026 post, you said "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)".

From what I know of LDS theology, exaltation involves much more than getting an exalted body:

•    Becoming a heavenly father or mother (D&C 132:19; D&C 131:2–4).
•    Becoming a God (D&C 76:58–60; D&C 132:20).
•    Receiving a fulness of glory (D&C 76:56, 70; D&C 93:28).
•    Receiving a fulness of joy (D&C 138:17; D&C 93:33–35).
•    Being made equal in power, might, and dominion (D&C 76:95).
•    Receiving thrones, kingdoms, powers, and dominions (D&C 132:19–20; D&C 121:29).
•    Having eternal families (D&C 132:19; D&C 131:1–4).
•    Having a continuation of posterity / "seeds" (D&C 132:19).
•    Living in God's presence (D&C 76:62; D&C 130:3).

This is all biblical theology as well.

•    Becoming a heavenly father or mother (1 Corinthians 11:11, 1 Peter 3:7).
•    Becoming a God (2 Corinthians 3:18, 2 Peter 1:4, 1 John 3:2).
•    Receiving a fulness of glory (John 17:20-23, 2 Corinthians 3:18, Colossians 3:4, 1 Thessalonians 2:12, 2 Thessalonians 2:14, 2 Timothy 2:10, Hebrews 2:10, 1 Peter 5:1-4, 2 Peter 1:3).
•    Receiving a fulness of joy (Psalms 16:11).
•    Being made equal in power, might, and dominion (Revelation 3:21).
•    Receiving thrones, kingdoms, powers, and dominions (Matthew 25:21, 23, Revelation 2:26, Revelation 3:21, Revelation 21:7).
•    Having eternal families (1 Corinthians 11:11, 1 Peter 3:7).
•    Having a continuation of posterity / "seeds" (Isaiah 55:3-5).
•    Living in God's presence (Revelation 21:3).

But these things that pertain to us for how we can become like God is now, and they don’t all define what “exaltation” fully means or what it is entailed in becoming “God”.  For example, Jesus didn’t have God’s “glory” until God the Father gave it to him in the beginning (John 17:5, 22, 24, 1 Peter 1:21), nor had he received a resurrected body, and Jesus was still considered to be God in the beginning.

And God’s “glory” increases eternally, as God continues to create worlds and brings to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.  So, there is no end to the glory and dominion that God receives.

Given the fact that God the Father has always been the most advanced, most intelligent, supreme being above all others (as Joseph Smith taught), he has always possessed thrones, kingdoms, powers, and dominions.  He created worlds before he dwelt on one of them.  It is only in his relationship to us that he became our God.

On 9/17/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

Scripture portrays Christ as eternally God: "from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God" (Psalm 90:2). 

Psalm 90:2 says nothing about Christ (that’s another circular reasoning issue you have with that verse), nor does it say God is “eternally God” as you well know (“from age to age” is not the same as “eternally God”).  We’ve been over that and you know better. 

And you also know that from Proverbs 8:22-25, where it is clear that the phrase “from everlasting” does NOT mean “eternally”, which contradicts your belief and misconstruing of scripture. 

On 9/17/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

God Himself says, "Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me" (Isaiah 43:10), 
and "beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6). 

In LDS theology, Gods are formed after Heavenly Father.

That is a false interpretation of Isaiah 44:6 as the context shows.  In LDS theology, no other Gods are formed to be the God of Israel, either before or after God declared himself to be the God of Israel, as Isaiah 44:6 is teaching in its context.

On 9/17/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

On 9/7/2026 at 2:14 PM, InCognitus said:

Actually, it makes it much easier to comprehend when you realize that Jesus and the Father are two Gods.

John 17:3 says, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, 
whom thou hast sent".

Trying to comprehend that in simple fashion would lead one to conclude that Jesus is not a true God. 

Or it means that Jesus was saying that God the Father is indeed the only true God and Jesus is the agent and representative, the “image” of the one true God (God the Father).  This is the message all throughout the gospel of John.  And, as John 17 continues to show, all those who follow Jesus can also become agents of the one true God, his representatives and images of God, becoming “one” with Jesus and his Father in the same way Jesus is one with his Father, and receiving his full glory.

On 9/17/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

Saying Jesus and the Father are "two Gods" doesn't make the Bible easier to understand—it changes what 
the Bible says. Jesus calls the Father "the only true God"), and Paul says "there is but one God" 
(1 Corinthians 8:4).

You are the one changing what the Bible says.  When Paul says, “there is one God” in 1 Corinthians 8:4, he adds “and one Lord Jesus Christ”, showing that Jesus is considered separate and distinct from the one God that Jesus represents.  And elsewhere, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).

On 9/17/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

Yet the Bible also calls Jesus God (John 1:1; John 20:28). So the biblical teaching 
is that the Father and Son are distinct, but there is still one God, not two. Saying there are two Gods 
simply avoids that tension rather than explaining it. 

The Bible explains it perfectly.  As Jesus said, God the Father is the “only true God”, but Jesus went on to explain in the same chapter how he and his Father and all the believers can become “one”, or “one God” in representing the one true God who is above all.

What really creates the tension is inventing some other non-biblical way that Jesus and his Father are “one God” by combining them into one being.  It’s not only non-biblical, it is also nonsensical and contradicts scripture that teaches that God is the “God of gods”.  The “homoousious” doctrinal invention creates more problems than it tries to solve.

On 9/17/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

And then you also have tension with other Old Testament passages:

Deuteronomy 4:35 - "the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him."
Deuteronomy 6:4 - "The LORD our God is one LORD."
Isaiah 43:10 - "Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."
Isaiah 44:6 - "I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."
Isaiah 45:5 - "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me."
Isaiah 45:22 - "I am God, and there is none else."

These are particularly strong against the idea that there are two or four separate Gods.

Not really, not when you understand the context, how the “one God” rhetoric works, and how divine images of God work in Old Testament times.  And without that understanding you come away with a lot of Bible contradictions, such as all the verses that say God is the God of gods (Deuteronomy 10:17, Joshua 22:22, Psalms 136:2-3), and that God is compared to these other gods in heaven (Psalm 89:5-7, Exodus 15:11, Psalm 97:9, Psalm 135:5).

See this post in the topic thread “Many Gods in the Bible”.

As for how images of God work in Old Testament times, here’s an example from the Septuagint version of Genesis 31:13:

"I am God that appeared to thee in the place of God, where thou anointedst a pillar to me, and vowedst to me there a vow; now then arise and depart out of this land, depart into the land of thy nativity, and I will be with thee."

On 9/17/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

Who is the only true God in the above six verses?

The same God who is the “only true God” as Jesus said in the New Testament, obviously.

On 9/17/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

On 9/7/2026 at 2:14 PM, InCognitus said:

 Clearly this is why Philo, and the early Christian Fathers Origen and Lactantius referred to Jesus as the “second God”, and why Justin Martyr said (of Jesus) “that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things” (Justin Martyr, Dialog with Trypho, Chapter 56).

And as Origen taught:

“And although we may call Him [Jesus Christ] a "second" God, let men know that by the term "second God" we mean nothing else than a virtue capable of including all other virtues, and a reason capable of containing all reason whatsoever which exists in all things, which have arisen naturally, directly, and for the general advantage, and which "reason," we say, dwelt in the soul of Jesus, and was united to Him in a degree far above all other souls, seeing He alone was enabled completely to receive the highest share in the absolute reason, and the absolute wisdom, and the absolute righteousness."   (Origen Against Celsus, book V chapter XXXIX).

Jesus has a God, and Jesus is eternally subject to the only true God, his God and Father.

I read that link.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04165.htm

It does not portray Origen teaching the Father and the Son are two separate Gods. 

Actually, it does.  See the other quote I posted from Origen, above, and my further comments, below.

On 9/17/2026 at 8:07 AM, theplains said:

The key phrase is: "by the term ‘second God' we mean nothing else than a virtue..." So Origen is not 
simply saying: "There are two Gods, the Father and Jesus."

"We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are 
two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of 
will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, who is the brightness of God's glory, and 
the express image of His person, has seen in Him who is the image of God, God Himself".

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04168.htm

Don’t you even see what Origen said in the quote you posted above?  God the Father and Jesus Christ are “two… persons or substances”.  In other words, they are not one substance, which is what the word “homoousious” means that the Roman Emperor Constantine added to the Nicene creed from which modern Christians get this teaching today (it’s not from the Bible).

And Origen goes on to describe how Jesus and his Father are “one” in the exact same way Latter-day Saints teach it and the way that Jesus himself defined it in John 17:11 and 20-23.  Origin said they are “one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will.” 

Compare what Origen said above to this statement from the Church Newsroom article, Latter-day Saints 101: What Church Members Believe:

“Do Latter-day Saints believe in the Trinity?  Latter-day Saints most commonly use the term ‘Godhead’ to refer to the Trinity. The first article of faith for the Latter-day Saints reads, ‘We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.’ Latter-day Saints believe God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are separate personages, but one in will and purpose — not literally the same being or substance, as conceptions of the Holy Trinity commonly imply.”

How clear can it get?  Compare the two again:

Origen said, “they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will”.

The Church website says they “are separate personages, but one in will and purpose — not literally the same being or substance”.

That’s what the earliest Christians taught and believed.

[theplains]

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

Furthermore, you know there are no answers to those questions, and by asking them over and over it is an indication that you are simply trying to provoke, mock, or ridicule rather than engage in fruitful discussion.  So, prepare to be ignored.

It's odd that the LDS Church would create a doctrine of a heavenly mother but then not pose any possible 
explanations for her origin. 

I'll suggest several possibilities regarding the origins and parentage of the woman who would later be 
known as the Heavenly Mother of Earth:

[1] Daughter of an Exalted God and Goddess

She was the spirit offspring of an earlier Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. Born into a previous 
generation of divine parents, she eventually progressed through mortality and exaltation, becoming a 
Goddess and the eternal companion of the Heavenly Father of Earth.

[2] Created by Her Future Husband

Heavenly Mother was created or formed by the God who would later become her eternal husband. She was 
made in his image but was not his literal spirit offspring. Her existence therefore originated through 
divine creation rather than genealogical parentage.

[3] Daughter of a God from an Earlier Creation

Her father was an exalted God who presided over an earlier creation or inhabited world. She may have 
been associated with his divine household without being his literal spirit offspring. After entering 
into an eternal marriage with the Heavenly Father of Earth, she progressed through mortality and 
exaltation. In this scenario, she may or may not have shared the same divine parentage as her future 
husband.

[4] An Eternal, Rather Than Genealogical, Origin

Heavenly Mother has always existed as a divine being. She did not originate as the offspring or creation 
of another God, nor did she progress from mortality to godhood. Her divine status is therefore eternal 
rather than the result of genealogical descent or exaltation.

One conceptual distinction I'd make is that #1 is genealogical, #2 is creative, #3 is genealogical or 
familial but not necessarily biological, and #4 is eternal. 

That gives you four genuinely different models rather than four variations of the same parentage theory.

Model #1 seems most probable.

In that model, our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother would themselves be the children of an earlier 
Heavenly Father and Mother, who in turn had divine Parents, and so forth – an infinite regression of 
Gods.
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

Perhaps only for what you think “offspring” means, but otherwise, no.  See below.

Later in part 1 of your reply, you said that it is not defined what is meant by "we are the offspring 
of heavenly parents". 

You seem not to know yourself what literal "offspring" means, even though you claim to believe in eternal 
increase.
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

In other words, the fact that we are the same kind of being as God (as Acts 17:28-29 teaches) is our “eternal core” (we have existed eternally), AND (note the word “and”) each of us is “a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents”.

Do you believe people (as eternal, uncreated intelligences) were divine in origin and nature before 
becoming spirit children of heavenly parents or did these eternal core elements only become present 
upon their spirit birth?

By "same kind of being that God is", do you believe we are just humans like God is or that we are 
presently both a human and a god or both a human and a God?

Before you answer, have a look at teachings by former LDS leaders. 

I find some ambiguity in statements like "we are Gods in embryo" [present], "we are gods in embryo" 
[present], "we will become Gods" [future], and "we will become gods" [future].

[1] John Taylor

"Man is a dual being, possessed of body and spirit, made in the image of God, and connected with him 
and with eternity. He is a God in embryo and will live and progress throughout the eternal ages, if 
obedient to the laws of the Godhead, as the Gods progress throughout the eternal ages" (Journal of 
Discourses, volume 23, page 65).

"In another point of view, we look at him as emanating from the Gods-as a God in embryo-as an eternal 
being who had an existence before he came here, and who will exist after his mortal remains are mingled 
and associated with dust, from whence he came, and from whence he will be resurrected and partake of 
that happiness for which he is destined, or receive the reward of his evil deeds, according to 
circumstances. ...

... What is [man]? He had his being in the eternal worlds; he existed before he came here. He is not only 
the son of man, but he is the son of God also. He is a God in embryo, and possesses within him a spark 
of that eternal flame which was struck from the blaze of God's eternal fire in the eternal world..."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-john-taylor/chapter-1?lang=eng

[2] George F. Richards

 "We are placed here upon the earth for the purpose, in part, of improving, magnifying and perfecting 
 those qualities and attributes; so that, while we are now but gods in embryo, having been born of God, 
 in His likeness, in His image, and having received from Him the attributes of Deity, through perfecting 
 those attributes in time and in eternity we will be like Him in very deed, and be glorified with him 
 in His kingdom" (October 1914 General Conference).
 

[3] Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual

"Can you see the implications of these two statements as they relate to you and to your eternal destiny? 
Elder James E. Talmage did. He declared, " ... in his mortal condition man is God in embryo. However ... 
any individual now a mortal being may attain to the rank and sanctity of godship .... " (Articles of 
Faith, p. 529 .)

Later on ...

MEN ARE GODS IN EMBRYO

( 1 -7 ) We Have the Potential to Become like Our Heavenly Parents

"Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as 
the infant son of our earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the 
undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable , by experience through ages of aeons, of 
evolving into a God" (The First Presidency [Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H.Lund ] , "The 
Origin of Man," Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, p. 81.)

[4] James E. Talmage

"But Mormonism is bolder yet. It asserts that in accordance with the inviolable law of organic nature--that 
like shall beget like, and that multiplication of numbers and perpetuation of species shall be in 
compliance with the condition "each after his kind," the child may achieve the former status of the 
parent, and that in his mortal condition man is a God in embryo" (James E. Talmage, The Story of 
Mormonism, chapter 1, "Man's Relationship to God.")

 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

  And of course, you know that Joseph Smith didn’t teach that “many Father Gods existed before a being becomes the Father of our Earth”.  You already know that, because you have never been able to show that he did.

Do you want me to issue this as a CFR?  You need to show where Joseph Smith taught that or quit posting this nonsense.  And don’t post the same quotes that I’ve already discussed and shown that they don’t teach what you are claiming.

I will withdraw my statement until I can find something more conclusive.

Could there have been other Gods which were already in existence before Heavenly Father of Earth became 
a God and later became a heavenly father himself?  I believe it's possible.  

Let me explain my rationale by putting some pieces of the puzzle together.

I think we can agree that Joseph Smith taught God the Father had a Father. 
 
For the sake of simplicity I'll use the terms "Grandfather God" (the Father of Heavenly Father) and 
"Father God" (Heavenly Father of Earth).

We have a few scenarios: 

[1] Grandfather God is married to a heavenly wife.

[2] Grandfather God is not married.

In scenario 1, Father God is the literal offspring of Grandfather God and Grandmother God. In scenario 2, 
Father God is not the literal offspring of Grandfather God.

In both scenarios, we can suppose that Grandfather God had many children (either by creation or by 
procreation) and that he created many worlds.

The worlds created by Grandfather God are at different stages of progression; some worlds have already 
passed through the process that our earth is undergoing.

Several sources can support this:
 

[1] Brigham Young: worlds are "continually coming into existence and passing from one state to another" 
(Journal of Discourses 17:140).

[2] Brigham Young: heavenly beings from elsewhere have "passed through the same ordeals we are now passing 
through" and are now "in glory" (Journal of Discourses 8:81).

[3] Joseph Smith: he saw "sanctified beings from worlds that have been".

"I beheld round the throne, holy angels and hosts, sanctified beings from worlds that have been, in 
holiness worshipping God and the Lamb" (1843 statement/poem).

This could also resemble the realm of Grandfather God and one of his Saviors (an only begotten Son on 
each of his many worlds).

We can suppose that all the worlds created by Grandfather God had their own redeemer or Grandfather God 
chose one of his created/procreated children to be the redeemer for all of them. This/these redeemer/
redeemers would already have come to earth before Jesus became the God of our Earth.

[4] But Brigham Young taught each world had its own redeemer.

"Sin is upon every earth that ever was created, and if it was not so, I would like some philosophers to 
let us know how people can be exalted to become sons of God, and enjoy a fulness of glory with the 
Redeemer.  Consequently every earth has its redeemer, and every earth has its tempter; and every earth, 
and the people thereof, in their turn and time, receive all that we receive, and pass through all the 
ordeals that we are passing through"  (Journal of Discourses, Volume 14, pages 71-72).

https://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/pdf/JoD14/JoD14_0071.pdf
https://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/pdf/JoD14/JoD14_0072.pdf

Now we have to consider all the children of Grandfather God and all his worlds.

Which of these children progressed into becoming a God and Heavenly Father of their world even before 
Father God is created/procreated to Grandfather God.

These scenarios show the possibility that many Gods and Fathers (originating from Grandfather God) came 
into existence before Heavenly Father (Father God) became a God through eternal progression and later 
became a heavenly parent of our Earth.

The puzzle is not difficult to conceive of when you also factor in the LDS teachings of a regression 
of Gods.
 

[1] Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith

"The Prophet taught that our Father had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, especially 
when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him?" (Doctrines of Salvation, 
volume 1).

This is particularly useful because Joseph Fielding Smith explicitly interprets Joseph Smith's teaching 
as a succession of Fathers/Gods.

[2] Brigham Young made the concept much more explicit in the Journal of Discourses.

"How many Gods there are, I do not know, but there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, 
and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are passing through."

"That course has been from all eternity, and it is and will be so to all eternity" (7:333).

[3] Orson Pratt developed the idea into a systematic cosmology.

"We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous 
heavenly world by His Father ; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father and so on, from 
generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another still more ancient, until our minds are 
wearied and lost in the multiplicity of generations and successive worlds, and as a last resort, we wonder 
in our minds, how far back the genealogy extends, and how the first world was formed, and the first father 
was begotten".

But let me digress a little to the King Follett Discourse. I hope you don't mind.

More details are recorded in Teachings of Joseph Smith (1938):

"Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods 
in the grand council" (page 348).

"I will transpose and simplify it in the English language. Oh, ye lawyers, ye doctors, and ye priests, 
who have persecuted me, I want to let you know that the Holy Ghost knows something as well as you do. 
The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand 
councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were 
created at the time." (pages 348-349).

"In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and 
concocted a plan to create the world and people it. When we begin to learn this way, we begin to learn 
the only true God, and what kind of a being we have got to worship" (page 349-350).

The head God organized the heavens and the earth. I defy all the world to refute me. In the beginning 
the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. Now the learned priests and the people rage, 
and the heathen imagine a vain thing. If we pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads, "Berosheit baurau 
Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits." -"The head one of the Gods said, Let us make a man in our own 
image."  I once asked a learned Jew, "If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in 
heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?" He replied, "That is the rule with few 
exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible." He acknowledged I was right. I came here to 
investigate these things precisely as I believe them. Hear and judge for yourselves; and if you go away 
satisfied, well and good" (page 372).

In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It 
is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through-Gods. 
The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, its sets 
one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods. All I want is to get the simple, 
naked truth, and the whole truth" (page 372).

Who are the "heads of the Gods, the grand counsellors"?

Joseph Smith does not provide a list of their names.

He mentions, "The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us".

It means that, in Joseph Smith's formulation, there are Gods who were involved in appointing another God 
specifically for "us."

Joseph Smith does not teach that Heavenly Father was appointed by an older God. But what it does say is 
that "the heads of the Gods appointed one God for us."

He does not identify that appointed God by name.

However, when this passage is placed alongside Smith's other statements that the Father had previously 
lived on an earth and that Jesus was following in the Father's tracks, the broader LDS succession-of-Gods 
concept becomes much more apparent.

The Joseph Smith Papers shows Joseph Smith reworked the first portion of Genesis 1:1 (traditionally, 'in 
the beginning God created') to read 'the head brought forth the Gods' in an attempt to demonstrate how 
the Hebrew version of this passage could be viewed as supporting his teachings on the nature of God and 
creation.

It shows what he changed: Bereshit / Berasheeth

Joseph Smith removed the initial bet (ב), which is the preposition meaning "in" or "by."

He also removed the ending -it / -eet, which Seixas had identified as a grammatical termination.

This left rosh / resh, which means "head."

Joseph Smith then took Elohim, normally functioning as the grammatical subject of Genesis 1:1, and made 
it the object of the verb.

He also interpreted bara ("created") as "brought forth."

The Joseph Smith Papers show how he removed grammatical elements from bereshit, reinterpreted bara, and 
changed Elohim from the grammatical subject into the object in order to produce "the head brought forth 
the Gods."

Note 33: The full logic of this statement is best reflected in the Times and Seasons account, which 
renders this passage as "Berosheit. I want to analyze the word; baith, in, by, through, in, and every 
thing else. Rosh, the head. Sheit, gramatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not 
put the baith there. A man, a Jew without any authority, thought it too bad to begin to talk about the 
head. It read first, 'The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods,' that is the true meaning of the 
words. Baurau, signifies to bring forth." In this reconstructed passage, JS explained the way in which 
he reinterpreted the first word of Genesis 1:1 (Berasheeth/Bereshit) as "the head," meaning one of the 
Gods; retranslated the verb of this sentence (baurau/bara) from the traditional "to create" to the less 
conventional "to bring forth"; and shifted the plural noun Elōheem/Elohim ("Gods") from acting as the 
sentence's subject to serving as its direct object. Thus, JS reworked the first portion of Genesis 1:1 
(traditionally, "in the beginning God created") to read "the head brought forth the Gods" in an attempt 
to demonstrate how the Hebrew version of this passage could be viewed as supporting his teachings on the 
nature of God and creation. For other examples of how JS or his associates interpreted Genesis 1:1, see 
JS, Discourse, 16 June 1844, JS Collection, CHL; and "The Living God," Times and Seasons, 15 Feb. 1845, 
6:808–809.
Comprehensive Works Cited
Times and Seasons. Commerce/Nauvoo, IL. Nov. 1839–Feb. 1846.

This is relevant to the "head God / heads of the Gods" material I mentioned above. It would seem Joseph 
Smith was reconstructing the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 in a way that supported his plurality-of-Gods teaching.
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

I realize you are forced to take this interpretation given that you were taught by your tradition to believe that God created all things, including human spirits, out of nothing (even though the Bible never says any such things and contradicts this teaching in Acts 17:28-29).  But “in the biblical context” the meaning of Hebrews 12:9 can be perfectly understood by the surrounding verses and in the light of Acts 17:28-29, which is a clear teaching from the apostle Paul that we are the same kind of being that God is, we are his “offspring”.

In your reply on September 20 2026, you said you don't know how we are "offspring" of heavenly parents.

Is it disrespectful to say Heavenly Mother and Father reproduce in the same way that humans do?  That's 
the way he designed it for humans, and he is said to be an exalted man.  Is it a repugnant thought? I 
don't think so.
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

Look at the context.  When Hebrews 12:7-9 talks about the chastening of a father to his sons, it compares the “fathers of our flesh” to the “Father of spirits”.  It is talking about literal “fathers of our flesh” on the one hand as compared to the “Father of spirits” on the other hand.  This is a direct comparison.  But you want to change the latter meaning to be only that God created us and he is only our “Father” in a figurative sense.   God also created rocks.  Is God also the father of rocks and he chastens them too?   Your interpretation breaks the meaning of the comparison and diminishes the impact of what is being taught there.

What about "literal father of the flesh" (which only seems to have applied to Jesus) and literal father 
of the spirit (which applies to all)?

How should the "literal" aspect be understood in the case of Jesus?

Maybe these teachings could be used to explain it.

[1] President Heber J. Grant

"We believe absolutely that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, begotten of God, the first-born in the spirit 
and the only begotten in the flesh; that He is the Son of God just as much as you and I are the sons of 
our fathers".

"Jesus is the Redeemer of the world, the Savior of mankind, who came to the earth with a divinely appointed 
mission to die for the redemption of mankind. Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God, the Only Begotten 
in the flesh".

[2] James E. Talmage

"The teachings of Jesus Christ endure because of their intrinsic worth; and many men respect His aphorisms, 
proverbs, parables, and His profoundly philosophical precepts, who yet reject Him as the Son of God, the 
Only Begotten in the flesh".

[3] That Ye May Believe, Part 1

"Through the Prophet Joseph we also learn that Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God in spirit and in 
the flesh; He progressed until He became even as the Father".17

Point 17 is cross referenced to Doctrine and Covenants 93:11-14 ("And he received not of the fulness at 
first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; And thus he was called the Son 
of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first").

That's a rather odd reason why Jesus was called the Son of God; because he received not of the fulness 
at the first.

[4] Religion 430-431 – Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual

The church's seminary manual puts it more elegantly, with the phrase "celestial sireship":

"That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural 
law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of 
supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the 
'Son of the Highest.'" (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 81)."(Religion 430-431 – Doctrines of the 
Gospel Student Manual).

The word "sired" is even mentioned in a Scripture Central article.

I personally believe that Heavenly Father did not need to come down to become the literal father of
Christ in the flesh. It was a miraculous conception.
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

Again, your rationalization above is an attempt to dodge the clear meaning of the word génos in Acts 17:28-29, which teaches that we are the same “kind” of being that God is.  That we are the same “kind” of being as God is not something that can be explained away by attempting to divert attention to other meanings of “Father”.  Focus on what the word génos means.  It’s in the Bible.  You can’t make it say what you are trying to make it say.

Do you believe the angels (not to be confused with spirit offspring) created by God are the same kind of 
being as He is?
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you?

I don’t.  What Paul was doing was teaching his pagan audience about the true God of the Bible, and he used quotes from the Greek poets to help communicate true teachings about the God of the Bible.  Even the phrase “For in him we live, and move, and have our being" is a direct quote from Epimenides (Cretica), writing about the Greek god Zeus. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides). 

Do you think Paul was talking about Zeus?

In some way, yes. But let me clarify what I mean.

Paul's use of Greek poets in Acts 17 does not mean that he was endorsing pagan theology as true revelation 
about God. Paul was addressing a pagan audience and used ideas familiar to them as a starting point, but 
he then radically redirected those ideas toward the biblical God. In Acts 17:24–31, Paul describes God as 
the Creator of the world, the Lord of heaven and earth, the One who needs nothing from humanity, the Judge 
of the world, and the One who raised Jesus from the dead. He explicitly rejects the pagan conception of 
deities [Zeus and others] represented by images of gold, silver, and stone.
 
Even if Epimenides originally applied the statement ("For in him we live, and move, and have our being ") 
to Zeus, Paul's quotation does not mean that Paul accepted Zeus as the true God. Paul regularly used 
concepts and language familiar to his audience without endorsing the religious system from which they 
came.

The other part, "for we are also his offspring" is not attributed to Epimenides. It is attributed to Aratus 
of Soli, from his Phaenomena.

"From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed; full of Zeus are all the streets and all 
the market-places of men; full is the sea and the havens thereof; always we all have need of Zeus. For we 
are also his offspring; and he in his kindness unto men giveth favourable signs and wakeneth the people 
to work, reminding them of livelihood. He tells what time the soil is best for the labour of the ox and 
for the mattock, and what time the seasons are favourable both for the planting of trees and for casting 
all manner of seeds. For himself it was who set the signs in heaven, and marked out the constellations, 
and for the year devised what stars chiefly should give to men right signs of the seasons, to the end that 
all things might grow unfailingly. Wherefore him do men ever worship first and last. Hail, O Father, 
mighty marvel, mighty blessing unto men. Hail to thee and to the Elder Race! Hail, ye Muses, right kindly, 
every one! But for me, too, in answer to my prayer direct all my lay, even as is meet, to tell the stars".

https://intertextual.bible/text/aratus-phaenomena-5/acts-17.28
https://netbible.org/bible/Acts+17

Paul takes language originally used of Zeus and applies it to the God he is proclaiming-without implying 
that Paul regarded Zeus as the true God.
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

See my post on 02/09/2022 for a complete explanation of John 8:33-44 and how the different meanings of “child” or “father” are used in those verses and in the Bible.

If you read John 8:33-44 carefully, you can see that Jesus recognized and used multiple meanings of the words “children”, “seed”, and “father”.  A person can be the literal seed or “offspring” of someone but not be their “child” in a behavioral sense because they don’t follow the example that was set by that individual, like the Jews in those verses that were the literal seed of Abraham but because they didn’t do the works of Abraham they did not have Abraham as their “father”. 

You are latching on to a single meaning of these words without consideration of the context or allowance for the other meanings and it is wresting of scripture.

John 8 provides a clear example where fatherhood language describes moral/relational affiliation rather 
than biological generation.

Paul identifies God as the Creator, not as a biological parent ("God that made the world and all things 
therein"), then "he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things" and "hath made of one blood all 
nations of men".

The emphasis is on God creating and sustaining humanity, not on procreation.
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

As said before, Joseph Smith was using the "Jesus did what he saw the Father do" statement in that sermon only with regard to creation (“I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence”), and that God the Father dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ did and he had the power to lay down his life and take it up again (as you quoted above).  There is no other information about God the Father's earthly experience other than that.

The claim that Smith's statement was "only with regard to creation" is not quite right.
 
The "worlds coming into existence" statement is certainly about creation, but Joseph Smith connects the 
Father's experience with working out a kingdom, obtaining kingdom upon kingdom, and receiving further 
exaltation.

He did not provide a detailed account of the Father's earthly life. In the King Follett Discourse, however, 
he taught that the Father was once a man, dwelt on an earth as Jesus did, laid down His life and took it 
up again, and worked out His own kingdom. 

Joseph Smith also said that the Father obtained 'kingdom upon kingdom' and that Jesus was following in 
His Father's tracks ("The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, 
even so hath the Son power-to do what? Why, what the Father did").
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

"Paul does not argue that Aratus was wrong about Zeus or that the Greek poets were talking about a false god. He takes what was said about Zeus and applies it directly to the God of Israel, suggesting that the Greeks, through their own poetry and philosophy, had already stumbled onto something real about God. 

However, their God was Zeus – a pagan deity, like all the gods in the Greek pantheon.
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

What the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe is irrelevant and a diversion away from the point of what is evident in Proverbs 8:22-25, which is that the phrase “from everlasting” does NOT mean “eternally”, which contradicts your belief and misconstruing of scripture.

Before I show you Bible translations where "eternity" is used instead of everlasting for Proverbs 8:23 
and Psalm 90:2, I’ll quote what a previous LDS President taught.

From eternity to eternity is the same thing as from everlasting to everlasting.

"... and he is the literal and personal father of the spirits of all men. He is omnipotent and omniscient; 
he has all power and all wisdom; and his perfections consist in the possession of all knowledge, all 
faith or power, all justice, all judgment, all mercy, all truth, and the fullness of all godly attributes ... 
If we are to have that perfect faith by which we can lay hold upon eternal life, we must believe in God 
as the possessor of the fullness of all these characteristics and attributes. I say also that he is an 
infinite and eternal being, and as an unchangeable being, he possesses these perfected powers and attributes 
from everlasting to everlasting, which means from eternity to eternity".

The same wording is mentioned in the May 1971 Ensign article titled "The Most Important Knowledge".

The same equating of the terms is also taught in the "New Testament Teacher Resource Manual". 

"Christ is the Great I AM, the I AM, the I AM THAT I AM, meaning that he is the Eternal One, the One 
‘who is from all eternity to all eternity’ (D. & C. 39:1; Ex. 3:14), the God who is ‘from everlasting 
to everlasting’ (Ps. 90:2)".

Now I turn to the Bible.

Proverbs 8:23

Darby: "I was set up from eternity..."
Douay-Rheims: "I was set up from eternity..."
ISV: "From eternity I was appointed..."
LEB: "From eternity, I was set up..."
NASB 2020: "From eternity I was established..."
NET: "From eternity I was appointed..."
OJB: "I was set up [to reign] me'olam (from eternity)..."

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Proverbs 8%3A23

Psalm 90:2

CJB: "from eternity past to eternity future you are God."
CSB: "from eternity to eternity, you are God."
CSBA: "from eternity to eternity, you are God."
Darby: "even from eternity to eternity thou art God."
EHV: "from eternity to eternity you are God."
HCSB: "from eternity to eternity, You are God."
ICB: "from eternity to eternity, You are God."
ISV: "you are God from eternity to eternity."
NABRE: "from eternity to eternity you are God."

There are also translations that convey the same idea without using the exact word eternity. 

For example, GNT says "you were eternally God, and will be God forever" and the CEB says "from forever 
in the past to forever in the future, you are God."

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/EN/Psalm 90%3A2
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

Joseph Fielding Smith was interpreting Joseph Smith based on a later published interpolation of the notes taken by Thomas Bullock, and Bullock’s notes are incomplete and are contradictory to one of the sources that Joseph Smith referenced.  As I explained in my post on 05/26/2025, the original notes of Thomas Bullock indicate some confusion over the quote from Abraham 3:19, and Bullock’s notes contradict the book of Abraham.  So, it’s not an entirely accurate source for Joseph Smith’s sermon, and consequently some people may misinterpret what Joseph Smith was teaching by using the published source alone, as was the case for Joseph Fielding Smith.

I suggest that the Pearl of Great Price is not an accurate translation.

The LDS Church, in its Gospel Topics page, says the following:

"Most of the papyri that were in Joseph's possession are now lost, though some fragments have survived. 
They consist of two fragments of the Book of Breathing for Horos; four fragments and several scraps of 
the Book of the Dead for Semminis; and a fragment from the Book of the Dead for Nefer-ir-nebu. Both 
Latter-day Saint and non–Latter-day Saint Egyptologists agree that the characters on these fragments do 
not match the translation given in the book of Abraham".

Maybe you would consider the idea that the Gods went down to create Adam from the dust of the earth is
wrong (Abraham 5:4-7).
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, and if you had read my post on 05/26/2025 you would have realized that a long time ago, because that’s exactly what I said in that post, and you would have seen that I posted the entire context of Brigham Young remarks relating to the context of that statement.

You said, "The bolded portion above in the quote from Brigham Young is the only part of his address that 
is referenced in Nielson's article (pertaining to the presumption that "every earth has its redeemer").  
And you'll notice that there is nothing in the quote from Brigham Young (above) that is remotely like 
anything you are attributing to Brigham Young.  Maybe there is some other reference to Brigham Young 
saying those things?  But here you only have Kent Nielson's interpretation and speculation on the items 
in his article".

Yes. I understood your point in your reply.  That's why I acknowledged your correction of me and introduced 
how the two statements differed.

"One among these, it is presumed, was a savior for them, and through him they obtained a resurrection and 
an exaltation on an eternal, celestial world".

That statement is a presumption. It's open to speculation.

Brigham Young's statement is not a presumption. There is no speculation.

"Consequently every earth has its redeemer, and every earth has its tempter; and every earth, and the 
people thereof ...".

 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

What about Matthew 1:25, where it says, “And [Joseph] knew her [Mary] not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS”?

Does your picking and choosing of verses apply to that meaning of “firstborn” too?

It's easy to see here that he is firstborn of his earthly mother.

There is no scripture that speaks of Christ being firstborn of a heavenly mother.
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

Why not use real biblical verses that apply to Jesus?  Like:

Hebrews 1:5–6: “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?  And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.”

"Begotten" does not necessarily mean "made", as in being born of heavenly parents.

Several good articles explain it:

https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-does-begotten-not-made-mean/
https://nickcady.org/2026/04/11/what-does-it-mean-that-jesus-is-the-begotten-son-of-god/

The New Testament connects "begotten" with Jesus being "firstborn from the dead".

Acts 13:33 - Paul applies Psalm 2:7 to Jesus ("Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee").

Immediately afterward, Paul speaks of Jesus being raised from the dead ("And as concerning that he raised 
him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption").

This is significant because Paul connects "begotten" (Psalm 2:7) with Christ's resurrection.

There are others:

"He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence" 
(Colossians 1:18).

"Jesus Christ... the first begotten of the dead..." (Revelation 1:5).

The Greek in Revelation 1:5 is ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν (ho prōtotokos tōn nekrōn), literally "the firstborn 
of the dead."

So there are two closely related expressions:

"Begotten" → resurrection" and "Firstborn from/of the dead" → resurrection

Various Bible translations render Revelation 1:5, using either firstborn or first begotten.

Here are a few examples:

"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince 
of the kings of the earth" (KJV)

"...and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings 
of the earth." (New King James Version).

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Revelation 1%3A5
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

 The Bible’s creation account describes God forming man from the “dust of the earth” and then God placed into the man his spirit (the “breath” of life), and man became a “living soul” (Genesis 2:7).  Man’s spirit came from God, for it is the “kind” of being that God is, the very génos of God, as the Bible teaches.

The Pearl of Great Price's creation account describes the Gods counselling together and coming down to 
perform this.  See Abraham chapters 4 and 5 for all the creations of the Gods in respect to Earth.

Here are two relevant parts:

"And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our 
likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over 
the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So the 
Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and 
female to form they them".
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

Here's part of what I said: 

Saying that God had a father is not the same as saying that God has a God above him, because he would have had an earthly father when he dwelt on an earth, just like Joseph Smith was teaching.

On July 26 2026, you said something similar: "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".

When the LDS Heavenly Father was born of his father and mother on that earth, which of his parents was 
a God at that time?

Prior to him being born on that earth, was he a spirit offspring of Grandfather God?

Is he (God the Father) greater (above) his Father (Grandfather God)?
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

In other words, Joseph Smith was not teaching that God the Father has a God above or before him, and he was consistent in teaching that God the Father was the “head God”, the most high God.

Is Grandfather God above or before God the Father before God the Father becomes a son of Grandfather God?  
Or is Grandfather God below God the Father?

Is God the Father even a God when he is born or procreated by Grandfather God?  We can be sure that he 
wasn't even married and having spirit children immediately when he becomes a spirit child of Grandfather 
God.

We don't even know how long it took for God the Father to become a God in the presence of Grandfather 
God through his eternal progression.
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

You’ve tried this “sphere of influence or realm” approach previously (you have several times). I realize that this is your only way out of the corner you are in, but you already know that it doesn’t work because I have responded to your attempt at this many times before.

Maybe you are combining all the creations of Grandfather God with God the Father in the same sphere of 
influence or realm.

I suppose you don't worship Grandfather God because he is not your God and you are not his spirit child.
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

So, the fact that Satan existed already and God used Satan in his plan is not the same as Jesus causing the existence of all evil by creating Satan, as you believe.

Do you believe Satan was evil before being born to his heavenly parents, when he supposedly existed as 
an eternal, uncreated intelligence?  

If yes, then God did not create evil. If no, then the LDS Heavenly Father knew he would become evil and 
used him to cause the Fall.
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

That sounds a lot like the early Christian notion of a “fortunate fall” (the felix culpa).

St. Thomas Aquinas writes:

"But there is no reason why human nature should not have been raised to something greater after sin. For God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom; hence it is written (Romans 5:20): “Where sin abounded, grace did more abound.” Hence, too, in the blessing of the Paschal candle, we say: “O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!” (Summa Theologica, III, 1, 3, ad 3; see also Catechism, 412.)

Does that remind you of anything?

Yes. This reminds me of the fortunate and necessary Fall in LDS theology. It's taught that people even 
celebrate Eve's act.

[1] Joseph Fielding Smith

"It was a part of this great plan, that he should partake of the forbidden fruit and fall, thus bringing 
suffering and death into the world, even for the ultimate good of his children".

[2] Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual

"The Fall was a purposeful step in God's plan of salvation".

"Adam's fall gave him and his posterity the opportunity to obtain the joy that comes from choosing good 
over evil".

[3] Old Testament Teacher Resource Manual

"Modern revelation testifies that the Fall was good, necessary, and a planned step in the eternal 
progression of all of Heavenly Father's children".

[4] Preach My Gospel

"Concerning the blessings of the Fall, both Adam and Eve rejoiced. Eve said, "Were it not for our 
transgression we never should have had [children], and never should have known good and evil, and the 
joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient" (Moses 5:11; see 
also verse 10)."

[5] BYU–Idaho President Alvin F. Meredith III

"When Adam transgressed and he and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden, this was considered a fall 
downward, President Meredith said, but it could also be called a "fortunate fall" or a step forward".

"After the Fall, Adam and Eve were no longer in the presence of God. And once out of the garden, they 
became subject to death and the vulnerabilities of mortality," President Meredith said. "But on the 
positive side, they were able to progress and experience joy. And they were also able to have children 
and create a family".

[6] Religion 327 - Pearl of Great Price Student Manual

"Some Christians condemn Eve for her act, concluding that she and her daughters are somehow flawed by it. 
Not the Latter-day Saints! Informed by revelation, we celebrate Eve's act and honor her wisdom and courage 
in the great episode, called the Fall".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018/the-book-of-moses/moses-4-1-19?lang=eng
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:34 PM, InCognitus said:

Obviously, it’s not a mistake if God knew Satan would become evil when God created him, it was an intentional act and it makes God the source of all evil.

The Religion 327 - Pearl of Great Price Teacher Manual says, "Each person on earth has a dual nature 
and is composed of a mortal, physical body born to earthly parents and of an eternal spirit created by 
our Heavenly Father in the premortal life".

"We know, however, that there is something called intelligence which always existed. It is the real 
eternal part of man, which was not created nor made. This intelligence combined with the spirit 
constitutes a spiritual identity or individual" (Answers to Gospel Questions, comp. Joseph Fielding 
Smith Jr. [1963], 4:127).

Did Heavenly Father and Mother take some pre-existing substance to create the spirit of Satan?

[theplains]

On 9/20/2026 at 10:45 PM, InCognitus said:

That is the point.  In John 1:1, God the Father is referred to as “THE God”, while Jesus (the Word) is only referred to as “God” (without the article).  Jesus is not “the God” in this context, he is just “God”.  Jesus is not God the Father, and God the Father is “THE God” of Jesus Christ.

The two expressions aren't contradictory. John distinguishes the Word from the God with whom the Word 
was, while simultaneously describing the Word as θεός.

John 20:28 is different.  Thomas says directly to Jesus "ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου"

Here ὁ θεός has the article.

Breaking it down: ὁ = the, θεός = God, μου = of me / my.  So the literal construction is "the God of me".

The JST version alters the biblical meaning.

"In the beginning was the gospel preached, and the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, 
and the Son was with God, and the word was God".

The "gospel" is the "word" but the "word" is not the Son. The two (the gospel/word and the Son) are with 
each other.  The Son is not God in verse 1.  Instead, the "word"/"gospel" is with God and both the word 
and the gospel are God.

A lower case "word" is used by Joseph Smith, whereas the Bible uses Word in John 1:1 and 1:14.

The JST isn't simply translating the Greek differently. It introduces "the gospel" and "the Son" and 
changes the relationships described in the verse.

In continues in verse 14: "And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory..."

So it remains lowercase "the word." 
 
A literal reading shows that the "word" (or the "gospel") was made flesh. The Son is not made flesh as 
the "word" is separate, but with the Son in verse 1.  

So you have the "word" (the gospel) being with the Son and the Son being with God. 

"God" can reasonably be understood as referring to God the Father according to a literal reading – the 
JST does not explicitly identify "God" as the Son.
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:45 PM, InCognitus said:

I didn’t say it was.  The point of John 1:1 is to show the subordinate relationship of Jesus to his God, God the Father, the “only true God”.  John 1:1 it distinguishes “The God” (God the Father) from Jesus (“God”), and it shows that God the Father is “THE God” of Jesus Christ.

We already know this relationship between the Father and the Son (God in human flesh).  I was just showing 
that the phrase "THE God" is not always a reference to THE Father. Even the Book of Mormon shows this.  
But things get confusing when it refers to Jesus being both the Father and the Son – whereas Jesus did 
not teach that.

Mosiah referring to Jesus as the Father shows a person can be a "father" without having spirit children 
or physical offspring in a biological (literal lineage) sense. We also become offspring (seed) of Abraham 
even though he is not our literal (biological) parent.

John 1:1 ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God") is not telling 
us that God the Father is an additional God next to God the Son.  It is showing that God = the Word = 
Jesus = God became flesh (from verse 14).

It would make no difference if John 1:1 was worded "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with 
God, and the Word was the God".

It's the same we find in John 20:28. The KJV has it as "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord 
and my God". The Greek Interlinear has it as "... the Lord of me and the God of me".
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:45 PM, InCognitus said:

Look closely at what you just said.  You wrote, “John is saying that everything that was created came into existence through the Word. Nothing that was made came into existence independently of him.”

Then you say, “That is why I believe Jesus created Satan”.  But that is just circular reasoning.  You must first presuppose that Satan “was created” or “was made”, and then you use that verse to try to prove what you already presupposed, that Jesus created Satan.  But nowhere does scripture say that Satan “was created” or “was made”.  The same is true for the spirits of men, because the biblical teaching is that we are all the very “génos” of God, the “kind” of being that God is.

If I'm not mistaken about LDS theology, Satan and all his other brothers and sisters are not created 
from nothing. They existed eternally as uncreated intelligences (Abraham 3:22–23; D&C 93:29). These
intelligences were organized by heavenly parents into individual spirit children, forming a familial 
unit, and were given spirit bodies.

Maybe it's safe to say only their bodies were created/organized from matter.  

This reminds me of the Star Trek episode "Return to Tomorrow," starring William Shatner as Captain Kirk.

The episode involves three surviving beings from an ancient civilization: Sargon, Thalassa, and Henoch. 
Their civilization was destroyed by war, but their consciousnesses survived inside glowing spherical 
containers for thousands of years. Sargon explains that their minds had been preserved in the spheres. 
They then transfer their consciousness into the bodies of Kirk, Dr. Mulhall, and Spock. They had gender 
and identity in their body-less existence.

Maybe the same could be applied to the intelligences in Abraham 3. They just needed bodies to progress 
further.

It would seem plausible that Heavenly Mother, wife of Heavenly Father, was one of these intelligences, 
later to become an offspring of some God.

The wording in John 1:3 is particularly strong. John doesn't merely say that Jesus created some things. 
He says "all things" were made through him. 

"All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made").

Colossians 1:16-17 is even more comprehensive:

"For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or 
dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him. And he is before 
all things, and in him all things hold together".

But I understand your point because you believe no humans were made/created, but rather that they were 
organized from pre-existing matter.

Stated more concisely:

The New Testament teaches that Jesus created everything. John 1 identifies Jesus as the eternal Word who 
"became flesh" (John 1:14), and John says, "All things were made through him, and without him was not any 
thing made that was made" (John 1:3). Paul likewise says of the Son, "by him all things were created, in 
heaven and on earth, visible and invisible" (Colossians. 1:16), and then says, "he is before all things" 
(Colossians 1:17). Hebrews says that God created the world "through" the Son (Hebrews 1:2) and applies 
Psalm 102's Creator language to the Son (Hebrews 1:10). Thus the New Testament does not present Jesus as 
the first thing God created; it presents him as the one through whom the entire created order came into 
existence. If everything created was created through Christ, Christ cannot himself be one of the created 
things without making him the creator of himself. Scripture instead places Christ on the Creator side of 
the Creator/creation distinction.

Does Jesus (as the Eternal God) even exist before all things created by Grandfather God?
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:45 PM, InCognitus said:

Here’s a quote from the early Christian Father Origen (185-254 AD), from his commentary on John 1:1.  This is relevant to my point above about John 1:1, and to your claim that Origen didn’t teach that “the Father and the Son are two separate Gods” down below:

3. VARIOUS RELATIONS OF THE LOGOS TO MEN.

    Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have 
    become gods by having a share of God. 

There's a doctrine found in the Religion 430-431 seminary manual which teaches Jesus became (was ranked) 
a God when he reached some pinnacle of intelligence.

Do you believe Jesus became a god or God by having a share of the Father?
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:45 PM, InCognitus said:

There is no question at all that Origen considered God the Father and Jesus Christ to be two distinct Gods, as well as affirming the existence of many other Gods.

In Against Celsus 8.12, Origen writes "We worship one God, the Father and the Son ... these, while they 
are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity 
of will".

Origen explicitly distinguished the Father and the Son as two distinct "persons" or hypostases, while 
insisting that they are one God. He also acknowledged the biblical language of "many gods," but he did 
not mean that there are many supreme, independent Gods in the later LDS sense.

https://ccel.org/ccel/origen/against_celsus/anf04.vi.ix.viii.xii.html

He also speaks elsewhere of beings whom God has "honoured with the title of God" and who "partake of His 
divine nature."

"... whilst he knows not who the gods and heroes are," we may reply that it is easy to know that God and 
the Only-begotten Son of God, and those whom God has honoured with the title of God, and who partake of 
His divine nature, are very different from all the gods of the nations which are demons; but it is not 
possible at the same time to know God and to address prayers to images".

https://www.biblehub.com/library/origen/origen_against_celsus/chapter_lxv_in_regard_to.htm

By the late fourth century, Origen's theology had become increasingly controversial. His teachings 
concerning things such as the preexistence of souls, restoration/apokatastasis, and the relationship 
between the Father and Son were debated and attacked.

Jerome eventually became one of his opponents. In his Letter 90, Jerome speaks of the effort to have 
Origen condemned along with what he calls the heresy associated with him.

Theophilus of Alexandria convened synods against Origenism around 400, and Origen's writings were condemned. 
The Oxford study of the controversy describes these as the "Anti-Origenist Councils of 400" and says they 
resulted in the condemnation of Origen and his followers.

https://academic.oup.com/book/25589/chapter-abstract/192926967

But there is evidence that these synods condemned his books rather than formally excommunicating Origen 
personally.

https://www.historicalchristian.faith/doctrine/doctrines/origen-condemnation/theophilus-of-alexandria.html

Origen's name appears in the condemnation associated with Constantinople II. The traditional account is 
that the Second Council of Constantinople (553) condemned Origen.

The transmitted text of its eleventh anathema says "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, 
Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen... let him be anathema."

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm

His influence was enormous, yet some of his theological formulations later became associated with condemned 
doctrines. 

As the FAIRLDS article states:

A vast number of anti-Mormon criticisms rely on the following straw man argument: LDS leader "L" said 
statement "X". Since it has been shown that "X" is in error this proves that Mormonism is false. Is 
something "official" LDS doctrine because a General Authority or Prophet said it?

I would disagree in one regard. It does not prove Mormonism in its entirety is wrong. It's just a subtle 
admission that LDS leaders can and do lead their members astray.

However, I'm not aware of condemnation of LDS leaders like what happened to Origen.
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:45 PM, InCognitus said:

The Bible has no problem saying that God is the God of other gods, or that Jesus (who is God) has a God.  There are “gods many, and lords many, but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him”.

Suppose there is only one God in existence anywhere and everywhere, and that God decides to take on human 
flesh.  Would you then have 2 Gods?
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:45 PM, InCognitus said:

This is all biblical theology as well.

•    Becoming a heavenly father or mother (1 Corinthians 11:11, 1 Peter 3:7).
•    Becoming a God (2 Corinthians 3:18, 2 Peter 1:4, 1 John 3:2).
•    Receiving a fulness of glory (John 17:20-23, 2 Corinthians 3:18, Colossians 3:4, 1 Thessalonians 2:12, 2 Thessalonians 2:14, 2 Timothy 2:10, Hebrews 2:10, 1 Peter 5:1-4, 2 Peter 1:3).
•    Receiving a fulness of joy (Psalms 16:11).
•    Being made equal in power, might, and dominion (Revelation 3:21).
•    Receiving thrones, kingdoms, powers, and dominions (Matthew 25:21, 23, Revelation 2:26, Revelation 3:21, Revelation 21:7).
•    Having eternal families (1 Corinthians 11:11, 1 Peter 3:7).
•    Having a continuation of posterity / "seeds" (Isaiah 55:3-5).
•    Living in God's presence (Revelation 21:3).

But these things that pertain to us for how we can become like God is now, and they don’t all define what “exaltation” fully means or what it is entailed in becoming “God”.  For example, Jesus didn’t have God’s “glory” until God the Father gave it to him in the beginning (John 17:5, 22, 24, 1 Peter 1:21), nor had he received a resurrected body, and Jesus was still considered to be God in the beginning.

A few comments on your bullet points:

Becoming a God (2 Corinthians 3:18, 2 Peter 1:4, 1 John 3:2).

2 Corinthians 3:18, 2 Peter 1:4, 1 John 3:2 do not portray humans becoming Gods. The emphasis is on 
likeness to Christ as God's children, particularly in the resurrection/glorification.

2 Peter 1:4 says believers become "partakers of the divine nature," which is strong language for genuine 
participation in God's life and character.

But the immediate context explains this primarily as escaping "the corruption that is in the world through 
lust" (v. 4), developing faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, 
and love (vv. 5–7).

So the passage clearly teaches transformation into godliness, but it does not explicitly say humans become 
Gods.

Being made equal in power, might, and dominion (Revelation 3:21).

Revelation 3:21 does not show people becoming Gods.

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down 
with my Father in his throne".

The phrase "equal in power, might, and dominion" comes from LDS teaching, not Revelation 3:21

Receiving thrones, kingdoms, powers, and dominions (Matthew 25:21, 23, Revelation 2:26, Revelation 3:21, 
Revelation 21:7).

Revelation 2:26 is a strong verse for believers receiving authority ("And he that overcometh, and keepeth 
my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations"). The next verse explains what that 
authority involves: "And he shall rule them with a rod of iron" (2:27).

So you can accurately say "Believers who overcome are promised authority to rule over the nations". This 
supports receiving dominion/authority.

Matthew 25:21-23 and Revelation 2:26, 3:21 do not explicitly say:

•    they become Gods,
•    they receive their own kingdoms,
•    they possess divine power equal to Christ,
•    or they create their own worlds.

Revelation 21:7 says, "He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall 
be my son".

"Shall inherit all things" promises an enormous inheritance to the one who overcomes. 

"I will be his God". This is a reference to Jesus the Son.

"He shall be my son". The believer is God's child. This is a reference to Jesus the Son.

Again, it does not explicitly say that believers become Gods, receive their own kingdoms, or have eternal 
posterity.

The specific list "thrones, kingdoms, powers, and dominions" is much more characteristic of LDS exaltation 
terminology than of these particular biblical passages.

Having eternal families (1 Corinthians 11:11, 1 Peter 3:7) / having a continuation of posterity / "seeds" (Isaiah 55:3-5)

"Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:11).

This teaches mutual dependence of man and woman in the Lord, but it does not explicitly teach that marriage 
or family relationships continue eternally.

"Husbands and wives are "heirs together of the grace of life" (1 Peter 3:7).
 
This supports husbands and wives sharing in salvation, but again does not explicitly say that family 
relationships continue eternally.

So "having eternal families" is not directly established by these verses.

Isaiah 55:3 says, "I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David".

The passage then speaks about David being a "witness," "leader and commander," and nations coming to 
Israel. It does not explicitly teach continuation of personal posterity/seeds in the exalted state.

Your concepts are much more explicit in LDS scripture, particularly Doctrine and Covenants 132:19, 30, 
where "continuation of the seeds" is directly connected with eternal marriage and exaltation.

Christ's words argue against your premise.

"The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy 
to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither 
can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children 
of the resurrection" (Luke 20:34–36).

They are not equal unto God.

The theme of "overcoming" is prominent.

In Revelation, "he who overcomes" refers to the person who remains faithful to Christ despite persecution, 
temptation, false teaching, and sin. The expression appears repeatedly in Jesus' messages to the seven 
churches.

For example:

"He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment..." (Revelation 3:5).

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne..." (Revelation 3:21).

What does "overcome" mean?

The surrounding passages show that it means persevering faithfully to the end, rather than merely having 
a moment of faith.

Jesus tells the church at Smyrna, ""Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life" 
(Revelation 2:10). And Revelation 2:26 connects overcoming with "he that overcometh, and keepeth my
works unto the end".

So overcoming involves faithfulness, perseverance, and continuing in Christ's works until the end.

What happens if you don't overcome?

Revelation gives some very serious warnings.

"He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death" (Revelation 2:11).

The implication is that those who do not overcome remain subject to the "second death". 

Revelation 21:7–8 contrasts the two groups.  "He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will 
be his God, and he shall be my son".  Then, "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable... shall 
have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death".

So there is a significant biblical distinction: Overcomes → inherits, reigns with Christ, receives eternal 
life, is God's child.  Does not overcome → faces judgment/"second death."

Revelation itself essentially defines the second death as being cast into the lake of fire:
•    "He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death (2:11).
•    Those in the first resurrection are not harmed by the second death (20:6)."
•    "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death" (20:14).
•    The wicked "shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the 
second death" (21:8).

The Book of Mormon speaks of a first and second death (Helaman 14:16–18; Alma 12:16) but doesn't associate 
this with the lake of fire.

Mosiah 15:21-26 contains some details too:

•    There is a first resurrection (verse 21).
•    The redeemed have part in it (verse 22).
•    Others are resurrected afterward (verse 26).
•    The wicked are subsequently judged (verse26).

The basic framework is a little similar to Revelation's distinction between the first resurrection and 
the resurrection of "the rest of the dead" but it doesn't explicitly call the later resurrection of the 
wicked the "second resurrection." It simply distinguishes their resurrection from the first resurrection.

The Book of Mormon itself does not use Revelation's specific language of "he that overcometh" as 
extensively, but the underlying idea of persevering in Christ to receive eternal life is present. The 
LDS Church itself connects the Book of Mormon's concept of overcoming with exaltation.

"Only those who obey the fulness of the gospel law will inherit eternal life. ... Thus those who gain 
eternal life receive exaltation; they are sons of God, joint-heirs with Christ, members of the Church 
of the Firstborn; they overcome all things, have all power, and receive the fulness of the Father. They 
are gods" (Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Teacher Manual).

The Doctrine and Covenants 76 also has some details about those who overcome.

They "received the testimony of Jesus," were baptized, kept the commandments, were cleansed from their 
sins, and "overcome by faith." (verses 51–53). "These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ 
forever and ever" (verse 62). "These are they who shall have part in the first resurrection" (verse 64).

So, "overcoming" is associated with attaining the highest celestial outcome-being among the Church of 
the Firstborn, receiving God's fulness, becoming "gods," dwelling in God's presence, and having part in 
the first resurrection.

But at the same time in LDS theology, residents of the terrestrial/telestial/two lower divisions of the 
celestial kingdom had not overcome. They are not in the first resurrection.

Which of your bullet points apply to the LDS Heavenly Mother and Father?
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:45 PM, InCognitus said:

Psalm 90:2 says nothing about Christ (that’s another circular reasoning issue you have with that verse), nor does it say God is “eternally God” as you well know (“from age to age” is not the same as “eternally God”).  We’ve been over that and you know better. 

And you also know that from Proverbs 8:22-25, where it is clear that the phrase “from everlasting” does NOT mean “eternally”, which contradicts your belief and misconstruing of scripture.

I already addressed this by showing you how various Bible translations render it.
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:45 PM, InCognitus said:

 That is a false interpretation of Isaiah 44:6 as the context shows.  In LDS theology, no other Gods are formed to be the God of Israel, either before or after God declared himself to be the God of Israel, as Isaiah 44:6 is teaching in its context.

I agree that Isaiah 44 is addressed to Israel and is concerned with Israel's exclusive allegiance to 
Yahweh. But the actual claim goes beyond 'Israel has only one God.'  He says, 'beside me there is no 
God' (Isaiah 44:6), and then asks, 'Is there a God beside me?' and answers, 'there is no God; I know 
not any' (44:8). 

So the question is whether 'no God beside me' means merely 'Israel must worship no other gods' or whether 
Isaiah is making the broader claim that no other deity exists. The latter is certainly a legitimate 
reading of the text, and many interpreters understand these chapters as expressing explicit monotheism.

You can add other verses too: Isaiah 43:10, 45:5–6, 18, 21–22, and Deuteronomy 4:35, 39.

Isaiah 43:10's "before me no God was formed" is even more difficult for the "Israel's God only" 
explanation.

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, 
and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

Notice the temporal scope: before me → I am he → after me

It's not merely saying "Israel didn't have another God." It makes a claim about whether other Gods exist 
before or after Yahweh.
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:45 PM, InCognitus said:

Or it means that Jesus was saying that God the Father is indeed the only true God and Jesus is the agent and representative, the “image” of the one true God (God the Father).  This is the message all throughout the gospel of John.  And, as John 17 continues to show, all those who follow Jesus can also become agents of the one true God, his representatives and images of God, becoming “one” with Jesus and his Father in the same way Jesus is one with his Father, and receiving his full glory.

John's theology is "The Father is the only true God and Jesus is also God". 

Therefore, "only true God" cannot mean "the Father is one God among several true Gods."

John 17:3 does not provide support for the idea that the Father and Jesus are two separate true Gods. It 
presents the Father as the one true God while the same gospel identifies the Son with God.

In John 17:21, Jesus prays, "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that 
they also may be one in us".

What kind of "one" does Jesus mean?

He doesn't simply say "Father, make them one".  He says, "as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that 
they also may be one in us."

So the disciples' unity is supposed to correspond to the relationship between the Father and Son.

"One" does not mean "one person".

Jesus and the Father are clearly presented as distinct persons throughout John. Jesus is praying to the 
Father and says the Father sent him.

Likewise, John 17:21 doesn't mean the disciples literally become one person. They remain distinct 
individuals.

So "one" means unity, but the question becomes: unity in what sense?

Jesus continues: "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as 
we are one".

Then: "I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one". The unity involves shared 
relationship, glory, love, and indwelling.

Verse 23 says, "I in them, and thou in me."

There is a relational participation here that goes beyond merely saying, "They should all agree."

John 17 actually distinguishes the disciples' unity from the Father/Son relationship

Notice the structure: Father + Son: "thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee".

Disciples: "that they also may be one in us."

The disciples are brought into the Father/Son relationship; they don't become additional Gods.

And this fits John 17:3 ("that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast 
sent").

So John 17 presents:

•    Father and Son as distinct 
•    Father and Son as one 
•    believers becoming one with one another 
•    believers being brought into the Father/Son relationship 
•    yet the Father remains "the only true God" 

John 17:21 shows that Father and Son being 'one' does not mean they are the same person. But it also 
doesn't prove they are merely two separate Gods who happen to agree. John's gospel has to be read as a 
whole.

Here's another key point: being one with Jesus and the Father in John 17 is not the same context as Jesus 
used in John 10. 

The connection is made with the Old Testament shepherd motif.  It strengthens the argument that Jesus is 
doing more than simply saying, "I am a good religious teacher."

Psalm 23 identifies God as the Shepherd of his people. Psalm 80:1 does the same thing.

Again, the Shepherd is God Himself.

Psalm 95:7 connects God with His sheep.

So you have a very specific Old Testament combination:

Then Jesus says: "I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11) and "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, 
and am known of mine".

Jesus isn't merely using a random metaphor. He is stepping into an Old Testament description of God's 
relationship with Israel.

John 10:27 deliberately continues the sheep language ("My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they 
follow me").

So compare Psalm 95:7 ("the sheep of his hand... if ye will hear his voice") with John 10:27 ("My sheep 
hear my voice... and they follow me").

That's a very interesting connection.

Isaiah 40:11 also makes this connection ("He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the 
lambs with his arm.").

John 10 then presents Jesus as the Shepherd who feeds, protects, knows, gathers, and gives his life for 
the sheep. Isaiah 40:11 is explicitly cross-referenced with John 10:11, 14–16 in Bible translations.

And then comes the really interesting part: John 10:28–30 ("And I give unto them eternal life; and they 
shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand").

Then

"My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's 
hand."

And

"I and my Father are one."

Notice the parallel:

•    Jesus' hand → sheep cannot be taken from it
•    Father's hand → sheep cannot be taken from it
•    "I and my Father are one."

This is one reason John 10:30 cannot simply be dismissed as "Jesus and the Father agree about things."

Jesus is presenting His own shepherding authority alongside the Father's, using the very imagery in which 
the Old Testament identifies God Himself as Israel's Shepherd.

And the reaction of His opponents is:

"For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself 
God".

So there is a chain worth highlighting:

•    Psalm 23: GOD is the Shepherd.
•    Psalm 80: GOD is the Shepherd of Israel.
•    Psalm 95: God's people are the sheep of His hand and hear His voice.
•    Isaiah 40: God shepherds His flock.
•    John 10: Jesus says "I am the good shepherd," His sheep hear His voice, they are in His hand, and He gives them eternal life.
•    John 10:30: "I and my Father are one."
•    John 10:33: His opponents understand this as a claim to deity.
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:45 PM, InCognitus said:

You are the one changing what the Bible says.  When Paul says, “there is one God” in 1 Corinthians 8:4, he adds “and one Lord Jesus Christ”, showing that Jesus is considered separate and distinct from the one God that Jesus represents.  And elsewhere, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).

Yes. Jesus is a distinct personage in the Godhead. One cannot view Jesus and the Holy Ghost as two 
separate true Gods, making three true Gods.

One God taking on human flesh does not result in the existence of two Gods.

The LDS Godhead currently consists of three Gods.  But at one point in eternity past, the LDS version 
of Jesus and the Holy Ghost were not part of the Godhead.

Even the LDS version of Heavenly Father was taught to have attained his godhood (became a God).

"God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that 
through which we are now passing. He became a God ... There was a time when the Deity was much less powerful 
than He is today... He grew in experience and continued to grow until He attained the status of Godhood" 
(Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages).

There's also an LDS Church manual that stated even more directly.

"Our Father in heaven was once a man as we are now... By obedience to eternal gospel principles, he 
progressed from one stage of life to another until he attained the state we call exaltation or godhood" 
(Achieving a Celestial Marriage).

The church's seminary manual explicitly states:

"The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this Church".

Notice how it doesn't say "to become our God".
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:45 PM, InCognitus said:

The Bible explains it perfectly.  As Jesus said, God the Father is the “only true God”, but Jesus went on to explain in the same chapter how he and his Father and all the believers can become “one”, or “one God” in representing the one true God who is above all.

I already explained this "oneness" earlier.  We don't become members of the Godhead.

Earlier you said God the Father has a Father. I referred to him as Grandfather God. 

I assume you don't believe God the Father is above Grandfather God?
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:45 PM, InCognitus said:

What really creates the tension is inventing some other non-biblical way that Jesus and his Father are “one God” by combining them into one being.  It’s not only non-biblical, it is also nonsensical and contradicts scripture that teaches that God is the “God of gods”.  The “homoousious” doctrinal invention creates more problems than it tries to solve.

People cannot fathom the Trinity so they try to simplify it as three separate Gods.  I think it started 
with how it was recorded in the King Follett Discourse.

"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."

Then:

"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage 
from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three 
constitute three distinct personages and three Gods".

Modern LDS scholarship itself recognizes that Smith's later theology rejected the traditional conception 
of the Godhead as one divine being, although it explains LDS "one God" language as referring to the unity 
of the divine community rather than identity of substance ("Reassessing Joseph Smith's Theology in His 
Bicentennial", BYU).

"Joseph held and his successors hold to a "one perfectly united, mutually indwelling divine community" 
model of the unity of Godhead rather than a "one metaphysical substance" model. Thus, the Latter-day 
Saints do not see the doctrine of the trinity as a mystery in the sense of a doctrine that is incomprehensible,
but in the sense of a spiritual truth that was once hidden but now re-revealed through Joseph Smith".

I believe there's only one God in existence anywhere and everywhere. God coming down in the form of a 
human would not constitute two Gods.
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:45 PM, InCognitus said:

See this post in the topic thread “Many Gods in the Bible”.

I found his bio at https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/about/

Is he authoritative for the LDS Church? 

If no, can you give me one or two official LDS sources which indicate "many Deities" in the Old Testament?
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:45 PM, InCognitus said:

As for how images of God work in Old Testament times, here’s an example from the Septuagint version of Genesis 31:13:

"I am God that appeared to thee in the place of God, where thou anointedst a pillar to me, and vowedst to me there a vow; now then arise and depart out of this land, depart into the land of thy nativity, and I will be with thee."

Other Bible translations render it as "I am the God of Bethel", omitting "in the place of God".

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Genesis 31%3A13

The Septuagint is still interesting, as it identifies the speaker as "the angel of God" (verse 11), then 
"I am God in the place of God" in verse 13.  

Is that two Deities or just one Deity and one with a title of Deity?

Moses was a god to Aaron, but Moses was not a Deity even though he came in the place of God.

"11 And the angel of God said to me †in a dream, Jacob; and I said, What is it? 12 And he said, Look up 
with thine eyes, and behold the he-goats and the rams leaping on the sheep and the she-goats, speckled 
and variegated and spotted with ash-coloured spots; for I have seen all things that Laban does to thee. 
13 I am God that appeared to thee in the place of God, where thou anointedst a pillar to me, and vowedst 
to me there a vow ...".

The Septuagint does not simply say "I am God who appeared to you at Bethel." It specifically contains "in 
the place of God."

Regarding images of God, how do you believe Jesus is the image of the invisible God?
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:45 PM, InCognitus said:

The same God who is the “only true God” as Jesus said in the New Testament, obviously.

This was your reply to my previous post: Who is the only true God in these Old Testament verses?

Deuteronomy 4:35 - "the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him."
Deuteronomy 6:4 - "The LORD our God is one LORD."
Isaiah 43:10 - "Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."
Isaiah 44:6 - "I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."
Isaiah 45:5 - "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me."
Isaiah 45:22 - "I am God, and there is none else."

I assume you mean a second God (the Father) instead of Jesus (the Son) is being referenced in these Old 
Testament verses.

Oddly enough, the Book of Mormon identifies Jesus as the God of Israel and the whole world in several 
places:

"And the God of our fathers, who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, by Moses, who was lifted up upon 
the cross and slain for the sins of the world, and all those who look upon the Son of God with faith, 
having a contrite spirit, shall live, even unto that life which is eternal" (1 Nephi 19:10).

"Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the 
prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the 
God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world" (3 Nephi 11:14).

Now, getting back to the Bible.

Jesus is the first and the last according to the New Testament, echoing what Isaiah 44:6 says.

"Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for 
evermore, Amen..." (Revelation 1:17–18).

"These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive..." (Revelation 2:8).

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall 
be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last ... I Jesus have sent mine 
angel to testify unto you these things in the churches..." (Revelation 22:12–13, 16).

Do you believe Jesus is not regarding himself as truly God?  

Or do you believe he is not God, but just an agent of God standing in the place of God like, like the 
Septuagint said?
 

On 9/20/2026 at 10:45 PM, InCognitus said:

Compare what Origen said above to this statement from the Church Newsroom article, Latter-day Saints 101: What Church Members Believe:

“Do Latter-day Saints believe in the Trinity?  Latter-day Saints most commonly use the term ‘Godhead’ to refer to the Trinity. The first article of faith for the Latter-day Saints reads, ‘We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.’ Latter-day Saints believe God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are separate personages, but one in will and purpose — not literally the same being or substance, as conceptions of the Holy Trinity commonly imply.”

How clear can it get?  Compare the two again:

Origen said, “they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will”.

The Church website says they “are separate personages, but one in will and purpose — not literally the same being or substance”.

That’s what the earliest Christians taught and believed.

Origen did call the Son a "second God". In Against Celsus 5.39, Origen writes,  "And although we may 
call Him a second God, let men know that by the term 'second God' we mean nothing else than a virtue 
capable of including all other virtues..."

The "Him" is the Son/Logos. 

He uses similar language in Against Celsus 6.61. Modern scholarship identifies these as instances where 
Origen calls Christ a "second God" (δεύτερος θεός). 

But Origen did NOT simply teach "there are two Gods".  Origen explicitly says "we worship but one God, 
the Father and the Son" while simultaneously saying that the Father and Son are "two distinct existences" 
(δύο ὑποστάσεις), united in mental unity, agreement, and will. 

So Origen's position is roughly:

Father and Son = two distinct existences/hypostases

Yet = one God in unity/agreement/will

That is much stronger historically than simply saying "Origen taught two Gods."

As regarding the LDS teaching of the Trinity, there's more to it than that.

The church's seminary manual teaches, "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ 
a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and 
a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods".

However, modern LDS Church teaching generally prefers "Godhead" rather than specifically saying "three 
Gods." 

For example, Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual says, "Though each God in the 
Godhead is a personage, separate and distinct from each of the others, yet they are 'one God' ... , meaning 
that they are united as one in the attributes of perfection. For instance, each has the fulness of truth, 
knowledge, charity, power, justice, judgment, mercy, and faith. Accordingly they all think, act, speak, 
and are alike in all things; and yet they are three separate and distinct entities. Each occupies space 
and is and can be in but one place at one time, but each has power and influence that is everywhere 
present" (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 319)".

Since the LDS Jesus and the Holy Spirit did not always possess these attributes, they were not always 
members of this Godhead.

Jeffrey R. Holland similarly described them as "three divine beings" and contrasted this with Trinitarian 
belief that the three persons are "not three Gods but one."

He mentioned the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.

But there is an important nuance. Nicaea did not formulate the complete later doctrine of the Trinity in 
the detailed form Christians commonly state today. Its immediate controversy was primarily about whether 
the Son was truly God and whether the Son was eternal or a created being.

In LDS theology, the relationship of Father-Son only takes form when that Jesus becomes the spirit child 
of heavenly parents.  An uncreated, eternal being (intelligence) becomes a son, and then becomes a God, 
and then becomes of member of the LDS Godhead.

At one point in LDS history, the Godhead only consisted of two personages; the Father and the Son.  And 
even before that, the Godhead only had one member; the Father. This was the time when Jesus had not yet 
become a God.  It is unclear when the Holy Spirit joined the LDS Godhead.

The church's Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual teaches:

"Three glorified, exalted, and perfected personages comprise the Godhead or supreme presidency of the 
universe. ... They are: God the Father; God the Son; God the Holy Ghost. ... "Though each God in the Godhead 
is a personage, separate and distinct from each of the others, yet they are 'one God' ... , meaning that 
they are united as one in the attributes of perfection".

If I'm not mistaken, being exalted means:

•    Becoming like Heavenly Father.
•    Receiving a fulness of glory and joy.
•    Becoming a god.
•    Receiving eternal increase/posterity.
•    Having eternal family relationships.
•    Receiving kingdoms, thrones, powers, and dominions.
•    Continuing to progress in God's presence.

Several or all of these bullet points most assuredly also point to the Heavenly Father of Earth as taught 
below. It makes no sense in saying we follow the same path if we only follow some steps in the path. Same 
path necessarily implies the same steps.

"The Father is a glorified, perfected resurrected, exalted man who worked out his own salvation by 
obedience to the same laws he has given to us so that we may do the same" (A New Witness for the Articles 
of Faith, Chapter 7, God the Father).

"Through a continual course of progression, our Heavenly Father has received exaltation and glory; and 
He points us out the same path ... we shall eventually come in possession ... of everything that heart 
can desire" (Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, 3-4). See also Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student 
Manual.

"If we passed our tests, we would receive the fulness of joy that our heavenly parents have received" 
(1997, Gospel Principles, page 14). 

"We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists 
in eternal advancement; the perpetual work of whose creation stands 'finished, yet renewed forever;'-a 
Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow; whose 
glory it is their heritage to share" (Articles of Faith).

"The progression of our Father in heaven to godhood, or exaltation, was strictly in accordance with eternal 
principles" (Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual, p. 129).

"God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that 
through which we are now passing. He became a God ... There was a time when the Deity was much less powerful 
than He is today... He grew in experience and continued to grow until He attained the status of Godhood" 
(Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages).

"The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this Church" (Brigham 
Young).

Notice that there are no words about "becoming a God in the sense of Fatherhood only".

I would like to comment on something mentioned in chapter 3 of Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual.

"What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My 
Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, 
I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in 
glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. 
So that Jesus treads in the tracks of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus 
glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children" (Smith, Teachings, 347–48).

Philippians 2 is about Christ, but the "fear and trembling" (2:12) is about Christians.

There is biblical language about Jesus [not the Father also] undergoing a process involving obedience, 
suffering, and ultimately salvation but the Bible never says Jesus did this "with fear and trembling".

You can't find this [Father aspect] either in other books in the LDS canon. But Mormon 9:27 echoes the 
passage in Philippians 2 ("Come unto the Lord with all your heart, and work out your own salvation with 
fear and trembling before him").

The phrase "fear and trembling" is biblical, but Joseph Smith applies it to a theological concept about 
the Father's and Son's progression that Scripture does not state.

If you believe Joseph Smith, then tell me how Heavenly Father worked out his salvation with fear and 
trembling.  Was he the redeemer for the planet he grew up on? Did he die to atone for the sins of his 
wife?

Edited October 5 by theplains