Great Apostasy revisited

[InCognitus]

28 minutes ago, telnetd said:

"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?" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation).

"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,10 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).

First of all, that is a quote from a sermon that has some accuracy issues. Unlike the King Follet Sermon, our published text of the Sermon in the Grove relies primarily on the account of only one person, Thomas Bullock.  And to top things off, the sermon was given during bad weather (it was raining and the sermon had to be cut short due to the rain).  See my post on 05/26/2025 where I discuss some of the accuracy issues.

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.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

"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?" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation).

This isn't from the King Follet Discourse I don't know why you are quoting it.  Can someone read out of the King Follet Discourse that God had a Father?  Yes.  But I thought we were talking about what Joseph actually said (per what we have recorded).

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

"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,10 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).

First, this is an internet forum.  How about you link to the sources instead of copy/paste like this?  Or least have page numbers, publish dates, etc.

That is from the June 16, 1844 discourse.  You can see the original sources at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-16-june-1844-a-as-reported-by-thomas-bullock/1 and https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-16-june-1844-a-as-reported-by-william-p-mcintire/1 and https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-16-june-1844-a-as-reported-by-george-laub/1.  The one from Bullock is the only one that talks about infinite regression.  The other 2 don't.  They are much shorter, but it is odd that none of them mention it since, per Bullock's transcription, that's one of the major things he is trying to say.  So, does it mean that the 2 just didn't see it important enough to write down or that Bullock's transcription doesn't give us a clean view of what he actually said.

Additionally, you'll notice that he is referencing Abraham 3 (he quotes parts of it several times in and around the passage that you quoted).  And in Abraham 3:19,

Quote

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.

That gives some weight to the idea that Bullock misheard or miswrote what was said.

[InCognitus]

22 minutes ago, webbles said:

Additionally, you'll notice that he is referencing Abraham 3 (he quotes parts of it several times in and around the passage that you quoted).  And in Abraham 3:19,

Quote

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.

That gives some weight to the idea that Bullock misheard or miswrote what was said.

Exactly right.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

That gives some weight to the idea that Bullock misheard or miswrote what was said.

Pure speculation:

If Bullock was just taking notes and not attempting to do verbatim, then it makes sense that he might add his own thoughts of what it meant to add context.  I remember doing this when taking notes in college classes, adding stuff the words of the professor triggered, not always just what he said.   And there is a good chance I didn’t mark it as additions, relying on my then excellent memory to differentiate.  Bullock phrasing it as speech could have been him thinking about how he would discuss it with Joseph later.

Not pure speculation:

I believe Wilford Woodruff may be another example of this as his notes on the discourse in his journal may have editorial comments, similar to what I am suggesting for Bullock.  I don’t believe we have his original notes to compare, (I have seen this speculation by someone else), but he is known to have revised his notes when transferring them to his journal at least sometimes.

Quote

Woodruff also copied the discourse into his 1839 journal. In the journal version, he omitted the final section of the discourse, which addressed apostasy, and made other minor revisions.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-2-july-1839-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff-a/1#historical-intro

We even have the evidence of George Watts who is known to have added his own thoughts to stuff being published under Brigham’s name, not just in Watts’ personal notes.  Standards of recording others’ comments for publication just weren’t as rigid back then unfortunately (and I do see it as unfortunate as I believe significant error crept in because of it).

An expert’s opinion on accuracy of that time:

Quote

How closely do the published sermons in the Journal of Discoursesmatch the actual words spoken?

It varies greatly, but I have learned that an accurate, contemporaneous transcription of 19th century shorthand documents is rare. Their ideas of accuracy were very different than ours, and they transcribed with far less accuracy than we would wish. 

In my extensive work transcribing Latter-day Saint sermons, Quaker sermons, court proceedings, letters, journals, and other items, I have found that almost all 19th century transcriptions differ from the original shorthand—often significantly.

This is important, because often the words that were published in the Journal of Discourses were not the words spoken. Rather, they have been altered—or simply added by the transcribers

https://fromthedesk.org/journal-of-discourses-shorthand/

Precision is the exception, not the rule.

If they were typically willing to play around with shorthand where they had a chance to be precise, makes sense they were relaxed with longhand notetaking as well.

Edited July 27 by Calm

[telnetd]

22 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Do you reject the Bible teaching that we are the same kind of being as God?  It sounds like you do reject it.

God the Father is not an exalted human man from another world.  Being created in 
the image of God does not make us underdeveloped Gods.

[telnetd]

22 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Obviously God the Father made the earth that he lived on.  Joseph Smith taught that in the King Follet Discourse:  "What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence". 

Did the Father work with others to create his world like Jesus did with Earth (who 
did what he saw the Father do)?  Or was Jesus even born to his heavenly mother
when the Father created a world for wife?

[telnetd]

23 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Right, we all have all power and all authority and rule and reign over worlds and create worlds.  You should see the one I created last night (not!).  Is that what you mean by being "God" now?

So it really depends on your definition of "God". 

If getting power to create a world means being a God, then Heavenly Father is not 
God before creating his worlds.

[InCognitus]

35 minutes ago, telnetd said:

23 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Do you reject the Bible teaching that we are the same kind of being as God?  It sounds like you do reject it.

God the Father is not an exalted human man from another world.  Being created in 
the image of God does not make us underdeveloped Gods.

You didn't answer the question about what the Bible says in Acts 17:28-29.  Do you reject that Bible teaching that we are the same "kind" of being as God? 

Those verses have nothing to do with being created in the image of God, they say we are the same "kind" of being as God, which is why it's foolish to worship a god of gold or silver or stone (other created things).  We are not like the rest of creation because we are the same kind of being as God.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

On 7/27/2026 at 11:27 AM, InCognitus said:

Obviously God the Father made the earth that he lived on.  Joseph Smith taught that in the King Follet Discourse:  "What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence". 

Did the Father work with others to create his world like Jesus did with Earth (who 
did what he saw the Father do)?

Since God the Father is the most high God, he likely directed others in the work of creation of the world he dwelt on. 

Edited July 28 by InCognitus

[InCognitus]

27 minutes ago, telnetd said:

If getting power to create a world means being a God, then Heavenly Father is not 
God before creating his worlds.

Is that what you believe?  That the God of the Bible was not God before he created this earth?

This all has to do with how we define "God". 

It has become popular these days to define God as anything that exists eternally, which is why later Christians (sometime after 170 AD) rejected the earlier Christian teachings that matter is eternal (because then it would be "God" according to their new definition of "God").  But the Bible indicates that there were other beings with God before creation began, so that can't be a valid definition of what is "God".  It has to do with a lot more than just being eternal.  

[telnetd]

23 hours ago, InCognitus said:

You didn't answer the question about what the Bible says in Acts 17:28-29.  Do you reject that Bible teaching that we are the same "kind" of being as God? 

Those verses have nothing to do with being created in the image of God, they say we are the same "kind" of being as God, which is why it's foolish to worship a god of gold or silver or stone (other created things).  We are not like the rest of creation because we are the same kind of being as God.

The kind of being that God is is a God.  So I reject the idea that we are the same
kind of being God is.  The only being who is both God and man is Jesus Christ.

Acts 17:28-29 does not imply a heavenly mother. Paul's argument is that God should 
not be viewed as the work of human hands. The Romans and Greeks even fashioned their 
Gods to appear as human (Zeus, Apollo, etc).

Based on the Pearl of Great Price, your church would extend this backward in time,
when spirit children, including Jesus and Lucifer, were not the same kind of being 
God is. 

Do you believe Jesus becomes the same kind of being God is when he is born to his
heavenly mother?

[telnetd]

23 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Since God the Father is the most high God, he likely directed others in the work of creation of the world he dwelt on. 

You mean his spirit children with which he populated that world?

Was Jesus even born to his heavenly mother when the Father created that other world?

Edited July 29 by telnetd

[telnetd]

23 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Is that what you believe?  That the God of the Bible was not God before he created this earth?

This all has to do with how we define "God". 

It has become popular these days to define God as anything that exists eternally, which is why later Christians (sometime after 170 AD) rejected the earlier Christian teachings that matter is eternal (because then it would be "God" according to their new definition of "God").  But the Bible indicates that there were other beings with God before creation began, so that can't be a valid definition of what is "God".  It has to do with a lot more than just being eternal.  

I'm not sure what else to add.  The God of the Bible is the only true God. He has 
always existed as God.  Jesus has always existed as God.  He was never a spirit
child of heavenly parents who became a God.

The church created a pandora's box with its doctrine of Heavenly Mother. It cannot
explain how she became a God, whether she married just a man or a God/man on the
world she grew up on, or if some other Saviour provided an atonement for her sins
and for the man who would become the God of our world.

Maybe you know.

[InCognitus]

15 minutes ago, telnetd said:

The kind of being that God is is a God.  So I reject the idea that we are the same
kind of being God is.

Ok, so you do reject the Bible teaching that we are the same "kind" of being as God. 

I don't think you have a good definition of what is a "God", however, at least not from how they viewed it in Bible times.

17 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Acts 17:28-29 does not imply a heavenly mother.

You denied the same thing when posting as theplains.  But, remember, you also posted this:

On 1/2/2025 at 8:32 AM, theplains said:

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

In Acts 17:28-29 Paul was speaking to a Greek pagan audience (the Athenians).  So why in the world would Paul use a term (génos) that his Greek audience would understand in the way you described it if Paul did not mean it to be understood that way? How did Paul's audience understand what Paul was teaching them?  Paul meant what he said.  He wouldn't lie to them.  He didn't use vague references to trick them into converting to Christianity, he had a specific purpose.  Paul chose that quote using that specific word for a specific purpose, and he meant it.  He used it to teach his Greek audience that we (all humans) are the same kind of being as God, and therefore we shouldn't think of deity to be like gold or silver or stone, because WE are not gold or silver or stone.  God created gold and silver and stone.  And God created humans too, but we are different because we are the same kind of being as God.  It's right there in the Bible as clear as day, and you reject this biblical teaching.

This changes the whole trajectory on our relationship to God.  This is why the later development of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo around 170 AD is so damaging to our relationship with God and why it contradicts the Bible.  To quote Joseph Smith, "If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, we may go wrong, and it be a hard matter to get right".  The Bible teaches us that we are the same kind of being as God, and later on people rejected that and started to push God further and further away.

38 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Paul's argument is that God should 
not be viewed as the work of human hands. The Romans and Greeks even fashioned their 
Gods to appear as human (Zeus, Apollo, etc).

And Paul's reasoning was this:  “Therefore, since we are the offspring [génos] of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising.” That is, since we are related to God (we are the same genus as he is, we are his offspring), it is illogical to even consider that God is stone, or gold, or silver, because we are not stone, or gold, or silver.

 If Paul was only saying that we are merely God’s creations, then Paul’s audience could easily reason that a god of any kind (gold, silver, or stone) could “create” anything it desires, and Paul’s point would be meaningless. But the strength of Paul’s argument is in the fact that we have a relationship to God as his offspring, we are the same kind of being as God, and thus to conceive of a god of any other kind is unreasonable.

41 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Based on the Pearl of Great Price, your church would extend this backward in time,
when spirit children, including Jesus and Lucifer, were not the same kind of being 
God is. 

God is an eternal being, we are, at our core (our spirit) eternal beings (since we are the same kind of being as God).  We don't currently have all the same attributes of God the Father, but we are the same kind of being going back eternally.

[InCognitus]

5 hours ago, telnetd said:

He has 
always existed as God.  Jesus has always existed as God.  He was never a spirit
child of heavenly parents who became a God.

You have never been able to demonstrate where the Bible teaches what you say above.

Edited July 29 by InCognitus

[telnetd]

23 hours ago, InCognitus said:

You have never been able to demonstrate where the Bible teaches what you say above.

Maybe not the way you understand them.

But we know there is no scripture which teaches Jesus became the first spirit child 
of a heavenly mother who then became a God before taking on a mortal body.

[telnetd]

23 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Ok, so you do reject the Bible teaching that we are the same "kind" of being as God.

The "kind" of being God is ... is a deity.  So no, I don't believe we are this "kind" of being.

 

23 hours ago, InCognitus said:

God is an eternal being, we are, at our core (our spirit) eternal beings (since we are the same kind of being as God).  We don't currently have all the same attributes of God the Father, but we are the same kind of being going back eternally.

You may consider yourself an eternal (unformed) being but you will never be an eternal
(unformed) God.

By eternal being I assume you mean an eternal, uncreated intelligence. Your version
of Christ was one of these before he was born to Heavenly Mother. Prior to that
spiritual birth (maybe physical, a more purer form of matter?), he was not the Eternal 
God. I gather this from Abraham 3:21-24.

Edited July 30 by telnetd

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

The "kind" of being God is ... is a deity.  So no, I don't believe we are this "kind" of being.

Again, that's your modern definition.  From an early Christian point of view there is obviously a difference in how this works.

Look carefully at this teaching from Origen (185-254 AD), from Origen's commentary on John 1:1, and notice how he says Jesus is "the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity":

"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."

So being eternal isn't the definition of deity, or otherwise how did Jesus "attract to Himself divinity" according to these Christian teachings?  (SO many teachings have changed through the years!)

Edited July 30 by InCognitus

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

You may consider yourself an eternal (unformed) being but you will never be an eternal
(unformed) God.

I wanted to add one thing that struck me as I was reading the next paragraph of Origen's commentary on John 1:1.  He said:

"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. "  (Origen's commentary on John 1, Book II, paragraph 3). 

Some may dislike it?  It seems like most of the modern Christians dislike it.

Now I'm not saying that all the earliest Christian Fathers had beliefs exactly the same as Latter-day Saints (I don't believe that).  But the vast difference between their teachings and modern Christian teachings cannot go unnoticed.  This underscores the reason for the need to restore the Church of Jesus Christ to the earth (and this being posted in a folder named "Great Apostasy Revisited"). 

Edited July 30 by InCognitus

[telnetd]

22 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Look carefully at this teaching from Origen (185-254 AD), from Origen's commentary on John 1:1, and notice how he says Jesus is "the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity":

"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.

This wouldn't explain why Joseph Smith retranslated John 1:1.

"In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, 
and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God".

"The gospel is the word and the word was with the Son" as opposed to Jesus being
the Word in the KJV, and the Word (Jesus) became flesh.

What was Joseph Smith trying to convey?

If the word was with the Son and the gospel was the word, what became flesh? Jesus
or the word?  

Was the word with Jesus before he is born to his heavenly mother?

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

This wouldn't explain why Joseph Smith retranslated John 1:1.

"In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, 
and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God".

"The gospel is the word and the word was with the Son" as opposed to Jesus being
the Word in the KJV, and the Word (Jesus) became flesh.

What was Joseph Smith trying to convey?

If the word was with the Son and the gospel was the word, what became flesh? Jesus
or the word?  

Was the word with Jesus before he is born to his heavenly mother?

This issue isn’t as cut and dried as you’d like to think it is. Your ‘ah ha moment’ is deprived of its impact due to the following canonized revelation found in Section 93 of the Doctrine and Covenants. In this Section, Jesus Christ himself testifies that he is indeed the Word with the same intended sense of meaning employed by John (please note that the date of the reception of Doctrine and Covenants 93 is at least one year after his earlier attempt to illuminate the meaning of John 1:1 that you referenced). 

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obey my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am;

2 And that I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world;

3 And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one—

4 The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men.

5 I was in the world and received of my Father, and the works of him were plainly manifest.

6 And John saw and bore record of the fulness of my glory, and the fulness of John’s record is hereafter to be revealed.

7 And he bore record, saying: I saw his glory, that he was in the beginning, before the world was;

8 Therefore, IN THE BEGINNING THE WORD WAS, FOR HE WAS THE WORD, even the messenger of salvation—

9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men.

10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him. (Doctrine and Covenants 93)

Edited Friday at 07:22 PM by teddyaware

[Navidad]

I am jumping in very late, but aren't we suggesting that the Holy Spirit was what or who was Hellenized? As an Evangelical, I believe that the Holy Spirit played a rather significant role in what came down to us as scripture, both in its initial creation and as the process progressed in the hands of the church. Perhaps the Holy Spirit was a disciple of Plato; or perhaps the Holy Spirit influenced Plato? But it seems to me the single greatest influence in the creation of the Biblical Scripture was the Holy Spirit. Would our LDS friends disagree with that? I haven't read every post in this thread. Having said that, I haven't seen a discussion of the role of the Holy Spirit in superintending that which has been passed down to us over the centuries of human engagement with the text. Excluding the Holy Spirit from a discussion of the creation of the text is like leaving Colonel Sanders out of the development of KFC! I'll take the original recipe any time! Ha!

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, telnetd said:

This wouldn't explain why Joseph Smith retranslated John 1:1.

"In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, 
and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God".

"The gospel is the word and the word was with the Son" as opposed to Jesus being
the Word in the KJV, and the Word (Jesus) became flesh.

What was Joseph Smith trying to convey?

If the word was with the Son and the gospel was the word, what became flesh? Jesus
or the word?  

Was the word with Jesus before he is born to his heavenly mother?

See the response above from teddyaware.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am jumping in very late, but aren't we suggesting that the Holy Spirit was what or who was Hellenized? As an Evangelical, I believe that the Holy Spirit played a rather significant role in what came down to us as scripture, both in its initial creation and as the process progressed in the hands of the church. Perhaps the Holy Spirit was a disciple of Plato; or perhaps the Holy Spirit influenced Plato? But it seems to me the single greatest influence in the creation of the Biblical Scripture was the Holy Spirit. Would our LDS friends disagree with that? I haven't read every post in this thread. Having said that, I haven't seen a discussion of the role of the Holy Spirit in superintending that which has been passed down to us over the centuries of human engagement with the text. Excluding the Holy Spirit from a discussion of the creation of the text is like leaving Colonel Sanders out of the development of KFC! I'll take the original recipe any time! Ha!

I don't think anyone is saying the Holy Spirit was totally out of the picture during the period following the death of the apostles.  The Book of Mormon says that the Holy Spirit was active in bringing about many of the purposes of God during this period of time (i.e. "And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man", and "I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles" - 1 Nephi 13:12-13).

But I see this similar to how God led Cyrus to cause the Jews to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity.  I see God's hand in the creation of the Septuagint and in other factors that facilitated the spread of Christianity throughout the world.  These are seeds being planted, but I don't think these things can be used to make claims about God preventing an apostasy from taking place.  But they laid the groundwork for other things to happen later on.

[InCognitus]

On 7/30/2026 at 10:51 AM, telnetd said:

The "kind" of being God is ... is a deity.  So no, I don't believe we are this "kind" of being.

I thought of another teaching in early Christianity that is relevant to your disagreement with the early Christian views on deity (as you say above). 

This is from Clementine Homilies, which is an anonymous third-century literary narrative that contains an account of a debate between the apostle Peter, and Simon Magus. In answering Simon's claim that Christ is not God but the Son of God, Peter responds with this:

“Learn this also: The bodies of men have immortal souls, which have been clothed with the breath of God; and having come forth from God, they are of the same substance, but they are not gods. But if they are gods, then in this way the souls of all men, both those who have died, and those who are alive, and those who shall come into being, are gods. But if in a spirit of controversy you maintain that these also are gods, what great matter is it, then, for Christ to be called God? for He has only what all have.”  (Clementine Homily 16, chapter 16)